When old man lack wisdom

I posted an article on This Ain't Hell/Valor Guardians. The article featured commentary made in the linked article regarding the overestimation of Russian strength. The author argued that we should supply the Ukrainians with what they needed to keep fighting the Russians.

One commenter, aGrim, posted a comment essentially accusing me of beating the war drums or encouraging war. Nowhere in my post, nor in the linked article, was information provided that would lead anybody to conclude that war was being encouraged. The theme of both my article, and the article that I linked to, was the continued support for Ukraine in terms of providing ammunition and other military equipment needed to push the Russian invaders out.

I responded to aGrim, calling him out for impugning me and for accusing me of doing things that a critical thinker would not have done had the read my article based on what I actually said. What most of the community did not understand is that aGrim and I had debated the issue of Russia invading Ukraine, and Ukraine's response, on other threads. This appeared to be a desperate attempt on his part to get me to stop posting about Ukraine related topics.

In response, other commenters jumped in and essentially simped for aGrim. They argued that perhaps it was the way I worded my article, that led people to their erroneous conclusions. They also claimed that I invited comment, then insulted those who did comment. They attempted to shift the blame instead of acknowledging their own shortcomings. 

My responses accurately called them out for what they were doing. This appeared to be the origin of their accusation of my "insulting" those who responded after "inviting them" to respond.  The mere existence of the comments section was my "actively inviting comments." Hypocritically, they ignored the fact that the comment response availability could be used to claim that they were inviting rebuttals, then getting mad at those who provided the rebuttals. 

One of the things that was supposed to have been "insulting":

Either aGrim failed to understand what I was saying, or he deliberately advanced a strawman argument knowing that he was making false accusations. Either way, he did not respond to my counter rebuttal. He did respond to the other posters on the same thread.  This is uncharacteristic of aGrim given the fact that he is one of those posters that do not know that they have lost the argument, and thus has the tendency to keep arguing.

Thus, aGrim's not responding to me indicated that my rebuttal was so on point; he knew better than to persist with his false claims. However, commenters Prior Service, SFC D, timactual, and Hate-me, jumped in and went in simp mode, insisting that it was the way I put the article together vice the failure of reading comprehension on their part.

Incidentally, this is how another commenter, commissar, accused the site of being a "cult." On other threads, commissar accused the entire site of being a "cult." When it came to the individuals addressed on this post, that accusation turned out to be accurate. Their arguments simply contradicted the facts, and like NPCs in a video game, they parroted each other's arguments at the expense of being objective.