JRRM

I’m not sure if this is a typo on Jacob William Rees-Mogg, or George R.R. Martin

Noita

One behavior is inherently childish. One is not. One is objectively the attitude of an infant and thus does not require the act of infantalization in order to be framed as such.

No, it isn’t, and this is a subjective opinion on your part. Not everyone agrees with you, so it’s not objective. Even what exactly is ‘childish’ behaviour is subjective, and arguably culturally dependent.

His behaviour is pretty much by definition, that of an adult. An adult with poor impulse control, poor anger management skills, sure. But childish? That’s a value judgement which contains no insight likely to reach anyone. It adds nothing to the conversation.

Use less reductionist words to explain why it’s bad.

Or to rephrase: Linus’ reply isn’t bad because it is childish. All calling it childish, or infantile, communicates is your own judgement.

Also; describing your judgement as ‘calling out’ - particularly when this is behaviour he has since admitted was poor, and has taken time out to address - just reads like you’re using the language of social justice to justify judgemental language.

… he hurt a few people’s fee-fees.

Way to infantalize the people calling him out while excusing his childish tantrums.

You’re infantilizing Linus’ expression of anger, just the same as the person you’re replying to is infantilizing people who’re upset by it.

Either they’re both bad, or they’re both acceptable - or you’re effectively saying that infantilization is fine, but only towards people whose behaviour you disapprove of.

Way to infantalize … his childish tantrums.

Come on dude. Either there’s a standard here or there isn’t.

Because most people are just saying stuff that is not true, which the link corrects.

But you’re often just commenting the link, which puts the onus on the person you’re replying to to read the entire Wikipedia page in order to decipher what you’re contesting. Kind of like assigning homework. Again, presumptuous.

If you read their comments that I reply to with that link, the facts documented contradicts what they are saying, and hence, may convince people of the validity of the claim.

Unlikely. People won’t put in the work to decipher you, so it’s a poor methodology for convincing anyone.

Not if I see people getting facts wrong its not.

You’ve also got facts wrong, as mentioned above.

Why do you keep posting this link? It’s not convincing anybody of the validity of an Argentine claim, it’s presumptuous of you to assume people haven’t read it, and it doesn’t back up a number statements you’ve made (“The UN asked Great Britain to give the island back to Argentina, but they refused.” for instance).

Actually the first colonists were French. The claim was transferred to Spain via a pact between the Bourbon kings of both countries. The Spanish name for The Falklands derives from the French, Îles Malouines, named after Saint-Malo/Sant-Maloù.

The Argentinians only ever occupied the islands for six months, for a penal colony - which ended via mutiny, not military expulsion. They’ve otherwise been under continuous British occupation since 1833, barring the 1982 war.

I’m English, and by no means pro-English colonialism, but the Argentine claim is spurious nonsense.

All utterly predictable, but British voters couldn’t collectively bring themselves to vote for Corbyn, so …

Hey, I can think what happened in Eastern Europe was just authoritarian dictatorships, backed by Muscovite colonialism & branded as communism just the same as what happened in parts of South America was just authoritarian dictatorship, backed by American imperialism & branded as laissez-faire capitalism.

Also I can think communism has never actually been tried, and that it’s functionally impossible (therefore people should stop advocating for it).