>>23633907>Nitpicking about the specifics of the English language, between two dialects of English, one that calls potato chips "Crispy Salty Chappy Bits" vs "Potato chips" >Its genuinely hard to understand. That's the point, it's trying to make you commit work, while being purposefully open, to register your take and figure out what kind of person you are.
>Clearly you are unfamiliar with the situation in the UK. You have my sympacheese, God Save the King, Part and Parcel, Stiff Upper Lip, Keep Calm, Carry On and all that right govna? This is known as "tossing backhanded sass at someone being aggressive in response. I was back sassing via cultural shade because you decided to be aggressive in response at the expense of your own perceived lack of intelligence.
>Who you are quoting? Seriously, imagine if you didn't have breakfast.
>Why are you so desperately trying to disparage someone for questioning your claims? Why do you feel that is what I am doing? I am telling you something, and handing the keys to you, playfully dangling them, and saying "What do you want to believe?" You want something, but at the same time have something, you can have one or the other, but not both.
>That's a pretty creative way of calling someone stupid. Yes, I was calling you stupid, because you were presenting as, but at the same time, I was forgiving your stupidity, because that's genuinely very common. You aren't unique in that, you're like a very large portion of online users. You have a subjective opinion, a box of personal subjective, that you treat as your own, you mistake it for your identity, and treat anything outside of it as threat. Letting go of this box is like asking you to peel off your skin, asking or teasing you to think outside of it is like asking you to tear out your eyeballs.
And that's normal, that's valid; if you see me as a bad guy in that, shady, or weasel like, congratulations, you blissfully mundane and people like you I want to protect.
