A Boring Dystopia

I'm going to be honest here

Whatever follows that saying is usually either dishonest or otherwise factually wrong. Let's see if you buck the trend..

huge point by point breakdown is the #1 sign of someone not arguing in good faith

Nope. You didn't.

The reason I break it up point by point is to make it clear to what I'm referring at what time and also a tool to help myself keep on topic rather than just ramble on in generalities.

It being long is simply because there's a lot to adress. In this case you being wrong about a lot of separate things.

That you consider that a sign of bad faith says a lot about you and the usual quality of your statements and nothing about me .

it's basically just a Gish-gallop

On the contrary. A gish gallop is exactly what I'm avoiding by sticking to a format of addressing your points directly, rather than just veer off on stream of consciousness tangents that are impossible to fully address in a spoken conversation. The latter is what a gish gallop ACTUALLY is.

I read through everything,

Doubtful that you understood it though, based on your string of mischaracterizations.

you did nothing to engage with the substance of my comment, you just went through and presented opinions derived from anecdotally lived experience as though they are founded and incontrovertible fact.

That's just patently false. And also rich coming from someone who's claiming that using a common format suitable for staying on topic is not sign of bad faith 🙄

That including the claim of one side involved in a conflict in the headline is a way of inviting bias in favor of that side isn't my opinion or "my lived experience" (whatever THAT'S supposed to mean in the context of journalism 🤷). It's just how the language of implied support works.

The simple truth is that, due I suspect to unfamiliarity, you do not understand the usage of passive voice or quotation in journalism

That's not a truth, simple or not. For exsmple I am painfully aware of how the NYT uses the passive voice (Palestinian children were killed) when the IDF commits atrocities and the active voice (Hamas killed x amount of people in attack) when someone whose side they're NOT on does.

in your vigor to present your own perspective as though it's somehow anathema to my point and will ward off understanding or introspection with the billowing fumes of vacuous crap

Holy projection, Batman! 🤦

you are more eager to fight the good fight than you are to put in the effort to affect a change in yourself or another.

Putting aside for a moment your persistent confusion regarding the difference between matters of opinion (which is doubtlessly what you want me to change about myself) and objectively leading rhetoric in headlines, what do you propose I do about misleading headlines other than point them out in a public forum meant for that kind of thing?

Write a letter to them pointing out the errors of their ways? Try to get hired there? Run for office on a platform of instituting a modernized version of the Fairness Doctrine?

Other than the first obe, which would be fruitless, those things are not possible for me to do, so I'm doing what I CAN do. All I have within my power to do is what you're criticizing me for, so kindly stow that suggestion where the sun doesn't shine.

And I suspect that you're going to go all Texas Sharpshooter fallacy on me and use that single discourteous remark to invalidate all of my salient points but I don't care.

It's a ridiculous bad faith argument that is used often as a deflection by those who are unable or unwilling to argue the substance rather than the medium.

To clarify: Having a conversation with you is pointless

There's that projection you love so dearly 🙄

and I am quite sure you're aware of that

Well that makes one of us who's self-aware, at least 🤷

You are not attempting to influence me, you're just attempting to rebut me and any other poster that presents a point counter to the one you hold

You're actually partially right for once: since I've long since discovered that you're not susceptible to logic and can as such not be convinced, I'm not trying to do so. I am merely correcting your misconceptions for the sake of any third party that might read them and be fooled.

As for the "point counter to the one you hold", you're once again confusing subjective opinion with objective reality. You could make a "point" counter to the fact that Donald Trump is a notorious liar, and I'd refute that as well.

Factual reality doesn't care whether or not you agree.

that is tedious.

Again, I'm not refuting your misconceptions to annoy you. I'm setting the record straight to counter your constant gish gallop (yes, you are projecting on that too) of misinformation and misconceptions. It's a tedious job, but someone has to do it 🤷

And yes, I am aware that my words aren't going to sway you here

Given that you're fundamentally wrong about everything else, you'd be correct in this case, yes. Strawmen and other fallacies don't tend to convince me that my simple and objectively true point is false 🤷

drive you further into the defensive enclave we all retreat to when the Specter of Error looms nigh over our opinions

This you?

I don't think it works that way

It does.

... Now just how in hell is this a constructive way of responding to someone

It's nothing more than a simple statement of facts, delivered concisely to indicate that there's no doubt about it, no elaboration necessary except in case of you relentlessly pushing your misconceptions.

If you said "I don't think Donald Trump lies a lot", you would be equally wrong, and "he does" would be a sufficient reply to reflect objective reality.

Anyway, I grow tired of repeating the obvious and being met with "that's just your opinion, man" and a flurry of fallacies and false accusations, so let's end this here rather than continue aggravating each other and getting nowhere. Have the day you deserve.