This is exactly the kind of sensationalism that would have convinced me to embrace school.
It seems strange to dislike a rhetoric so much that because of the rhetoric alone you embrace a different position. Is there a reason you think the sensationalism pushes you so much?
In fact, if the author *really* wanted to make me think, they shouldn’t even portray the enemy as shiny like Ra (https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2016/10/20/ra/). They would portray the enemy as normal. Relatable, in fact; someone you could be best friends with. It is of the greatest importance to this person not to be annoying; not to “cause problems for the sake of causing problems” (i.e. to invite debate about why things are the way they are). This is extremely persuasive to most people; they don’t want to be That Guy, whose badness is just to be taken for granted. Anyone with common sense understands. Be Skeet and not Jimmy.
I am having significant trouble parsing this. Could you try to say the same thing in different words?
It seems strange to dislike a rhetoric so much that because of the rhetoric alone you embrace a different position. Is there a reason you think the sensationalism pushes you so much?
I am having significant trouble parsing this. Could you try to say the same thing in different words?