... to want to blow a raspberry at this facebook post

[blankpieceofpaper]

posted an article about a young person speaking about mental health etc on my facebook page. I am interested in those areas.

Here is one reply i recieved:

"It seems discordant for a person speaking on the inhumanity of governmental organisations to be doing so at the conference of the party which most seeks to extend the operations of government."

Dear lord.

This person loves an argument, thinks well of himself, strongly right wing

So, so I:

a) ignore ignore ignore
b) shove in some random non phrase of no link like ah, therein lies the cat in the mixing bowl!
c) proofread, ask him to write in shorter sentences - i.e. punctuation
d) post a link to another youtube video and then just keep posting them, with no comment
e) something else

arguing back is not an option, he is a twat

[MorbidBibliomancy]

You could reply with this, though it might be construed as arguing back...

[plantsitter]

Why can't you answer back? Try mansplaining as if he's misunderstood. 'Mike, (or whatever his name is) I think she's complaining about the specific sitting government rather than a government as a societal structure.'

[blankpieceofpaper]

Love it!

Love your username!

BTW, I should state. It is not him disagreeing with me that I care about, or being right wing. It's just how! No commas no other anything just MESSAGE.

[DistractedByIrrelevance]

Definitely B. He will be infuriated. A and he will think he has won, C or D and he will get to argue more, and I'm not witty enough to think of an E.

[NotACleverName]

Ask him what the fuck he's wittering on about/show him this.

[NotACleverName]

Ah fail, my image didn't upload. Hopefully it will now.

(demonstrating best place for his pseudo-intellectual blathering.)

[blankpieceofpaper]

Distractedbyirrelevance it is so so tempting but it is like a sport for him - he goes full big long words, isms, political nuances quotey mc quoteyface, I would need MN behind me to help!

NotACleverName - pseudo-intellectual blathering is exactly what it is!

[PerspicaciaTick]

[PyongyangKipperbang]

"I don think you quite understood what was being said did you?"

Then monitor it until it shows "Someone is typing" and delete your post. The fact that you think he is an idiot and he has no way to answer you back will drive him MAD!

[mymorningbeautyroutine]

Direct him to the Plain English campaign.

Can't bear people who write like that to prove their superiority.

[Toadinthehole]

I would ask him to explain himself in plain English.

[Flopjustwantscoffee]

"Surely that depends on how one defines "discordant", "governmental", "operations of government" and "extend"?"

[blankpieceofpaper]

I like lots of these!

Flop - yours would keep him busy, tempting!

[WingMirrorSpider]

Parklife!

[PyongyangKipperbang]

Can't bear people who write like that to prove their superiority.

Agreed.

I would respect his opinion far more if he had just said "What a load of shit! Cant believe people vote for these bellends!" which is pretty much what I shout at the TV when the Tory conference is on!

In fact OP, friend me on FB and I will post that, then when he agrees with me I can say "Well why didnt you just fucking say that then?! Btw, had my fingers crossed you Tory dickhead" :o

[blankpieceofpaper]

Feel free to DM me!

[Balaboosta]

what's your problem with this? he's saying that governments are ill-suited as instruments to deal with mental health. In some ways, i agree. And you're saying you've got a problem with his grammar? that's just weird. why not discuss it with him on your Facebook. instead of on here. isn't that what Facebook is for? and no i don't always use grammar on here or on Facebook either.

[blankpieceofpaper]

plantsitter has articulated it well - I wish I could! You can criticise an aspect of government, or one party in particular, whilst still agree with the idea of it? or something!

[Franklin77]

If arguing back were an option for whatever reason, what would your reply be?

[OhGodWhatTheHellNow]

Sounds like all my Dsisters posts, I get treated to a daily dose of her pseudointellectual musings on the news.
I have one rule that has stopped us completely falling out - Do Not Engage with fuckwits on Facebook.

Also works for militant vegan antivaccine conspiracy theorist work colleagues

[Keepthebloodynoisedown]

You may be talking to a family member I mine. He comes out with shit like that constantly. We usually respond with this

[emmcan]

''You are entitled to an opinion, but yours is shit''

[Ttbb]

Hard to say without the article link but the comment seems somewhat spot on assuming this is yet another moan about how the government if failing to support everyone by throwing money at everything at a farish left party conference (labour, greens, young communists, whatever).

[Keepthebloodynoisedown]

Or you could correct it for him:
" It seems discordant contradictory (discordant is a word that twats use when they don't have a reasonable argument) for a person someone (again less twatty) speaking on the inhumanity of governmental organisations to talk about the unfairness of government policy (see how you don't need to use big words to get your point across) to be doing do so at (no one talks like this) the conference of the party which most seeks to extend the operations of government this conference, as this party believes in 'big government'. (I think this is what you meant, your point wasn't very clear).
D- please see me after class.

[Garlicansapphire]

I understand the point he thinks he's making - how can someone at the Labour party conference whose leadership promise to extend public ownership across many areas complain about the performance of government agencies' in addressing public health. However, he doesnt establish the causal link between the clauses of his argument. He is conflating extending public ownership with the quality of some current institutions. Something that could be argued against Labour policy is that it also fails to establish the link between public ownership and quality (its an ideological belief but not a proven fact - most evidence points the opposite way).

However, you might argue the case that creating a national care service as Labour promised in its manifesto could help improve mental health services but only if the Labour party could substantiate how it would be funded and the causal link between increasing spending and quality (which much of the increase in NHS funding under Blair's government did not).

So in conclusion his accusation is not logically consistent or coherent.

I'd ignore by the way. You don't share the same politics. But you knew that.