I actually am genuinely interested in that fellow's reasoning behind believing both that his job of managing people is successful, and also that all the people he managed do not like being managed by him.

Anecdotally, I have encountered workplaces containing a manager or employee that was universally disliked, and it was never because they were doing an awesome job. They did appear to think that people disliked them personally but benefited from their results. Often they seem to also believe those results would be unachievable in ways that do not produce the distaste. I am not sure these contradictions are entirely defensible.

Nope! He poisons Brock, but it doesn't kill him. Brock survives the series. Maybe you are thinking of the tarantula kid (Drew Sharp), but that one was Meth Damon.

He killed Emilio with some kind of gas, strangled Krazy-8 with a bike lock, ran over and shot the two drug dealers that killed Combo, arguably killed Hector and Gus, and poisoned Lydia.

I have never encountered a posting like that, but I'd be interested to see an example of it if you have one. Happen to have a link to one?

Edit: So that's a no then. That's a... problematic thing to make up.

I would guess that it's all about emphasis.

Kinda like:

I never said we should kill him

I never said we should kill him

I never said we should kill him

Etc etc. Each emphasized word changes how that entire sentence is read, regardless of which one is emphasized.

I have a little orange kitty that drools if he purrs hard enough. He first showed me this tendency as a kitten by drooling on my face when I was asleep, hahaha.

All hail the gigantic casserole.

What, and I mean this sincerely, the fuck.

So are you just one guy with a lot of time and accounts to use, or is this like, a group of people working to make these low effort bait posts? I realize that might come across as dismissive, but I'm genuinely interested. Let's chat!

It's like you're not even trying.

I see. I appreciate your taking the time to explain your point of view. Still not my preferred method of engagement, but I understand better where you were coming from, and that's what I was trying to accomplish!

Okay, fair. I asked that in that way because I believe that politicians listen primarily to corporations, sure, and secondarily to reliable voting blocs. My thought was that by proving to be an unreliable voting bloc, there's a reasonable risk that instead of trying to court that bloc to make it turn out more, they would just go after other blocs that already are reliable.

But! You don't think the democrats would try to court the right instead of the left if the left proves to be an unreliable voter bloc. Fair! What about the rest? We punish them via withholding of votes, they lose, and then... by what mechanism are they pushed to the left? By the loss, or is there more to the idea? What if they don't, or don't do it good enough? Withhold votes and make them lose again? Is there ever an adjustment to the plan, or is it just an unfortunate helping of our ideological opponents for however long it takes for the Democrats to get it right?

I'm not asking you to read minds. Just to explain how this works in your mind. I understand the frustration, and desire to express it, and the expression I'm, possibly incorrectly, assuming you have is to not vote for them. What is the process by which this accomplishes more than making Republicans win elections, and pushing the Democrats to the right?

Okay, so we punish the Democrats and the Republicans necessarily win as a result. Hopefully that's not a controversial assumption.

How many such intentional losses should be planned on so that we can get the Democrats try to move left to recapture support? How are we going to ensure they try to better court the left instead of moving to the right?

That game is one of my favorites. I have over a thousand hours in it. Good choice!

Nah, it wasn't very clear in retrospect. That kind of snide comment doesn't really translate to text very well. My bad!

Well, gaslighting would be trying to get you to question reality in some way. I don't think that fits here. I was more implying he was being a dickhead. Because he was.

What's outrageous about what I said that I read in an article?

Fairly confident he's calling you a liar and suggesting the things you claim to have seen in an article you never really saw, and are instead offering a claim of your own under the guise of it having been in an article.

Pretty cool way to interact with another human being, if you think about it.

I have the guy he had responded to tagged as the guy with the piss voice. Good times.