Lou seems to be enjoying his time no longer being rate limited on twitter by self inserting himself into an argument about christianity while casually mentioning he'd feel good about some religious people dying, with an actual jewish person who believes it's good that religious liberties in schools are being allowed more and believes they should follow their word of God in church schools (Not even public schools funny enough)
View attachment 1451174
View attachment 1451175
View attachment 1451176
View attachment 1451177
archived 16 Jul 2020 02:36:32 UTC
archive.vn
archived 16 Jul 2020 02:36:43 UTC
archive.vn
Fii6F
98Wzu
Edit: also seems to really like describing differing opinions about religion as a form of fascist ideologies, wars between countries, domestic terrorism or... other religions.
View attachment 1451178
ijZoj
Is it really that hard to just not argue with people? Not to say you should just be a walking doormat, but it's theoretically possible, and work with me on this, to argue without getting angry, insulting one another, and taking things personally. When you choose to argue while doing all those things, you sort of sound like a whiny baby. And when you choose to go out of your way specifically to argue with people who didn't even know you existed until you started yelling at them, it seems more like you're just looking for trouble.
Seriously, what even is there to gain by picking fights like this? I'm not a paragon of good behavior, but if I were to use myself as an example, I agree with Louis that religious texts have no place in schools outside of an academic context. And, like Louis (although I'm more willing to admit it), I haven't the first clue about anything in a legal context, recently or otherwise, regarding that topic. So what do I have to gain by finding some random person who I am woefully outmatched to argue against, even if I believe I'm correct, and calling them out? At best, I only wind up impressing the people who most likely already agreed with me. Perhaps there's reasoning towards doing this if you happen to enjoy arguing, but given how heated Louis gets from these spats, there's evidence to suggest that he strongly doesn't.
The thing is, Louis achieves the opposite effect of what he intends when he argues in every possible sense. His opponents feels more assured in their beliefs because they just dismantled an idiotic opponent. The people who are indecisive are more inclined to follow the person who isn't a raving imbecile. The people who agree with Louis, such as myself, cannot be anything more than embarrassed by not only his poor display, but also in his pathetic representation of their stance.
I'm just spitballing now, but perhaps Louis sees himself as a "protagonist" in his own story, something beyond egocentrism. He thinks he's some sort of hero or something, and so when he sees wrongdoing on Twitter or the horrible website Kiwifarms, he just has to step in because nobody else will. When he runs off, he isn't whimpering away with his metaphorical tail between his legs, he probably believes he's making a tactical retreat to return another day, presuming he doesn't just forget since he evidently has no long term memory. I don't know. I'm straining trying to rationalize what otherwise appears to be an active attempt to make himself appear as obnoxious, moronic, and selfish as possible. I feel like I'm trying to explain why a goat doesn't stop licking an electrified fence over and over.
