You're trying to fact check me. If we apply the logic of the post I replied to, that means your post is a rhetorical ploy and bullshit (see prior footnote 1).

Oddly enough, I'm not sure there's any sensible way to refute me without first trying to refute that original post.

> Basically, you've decided the fact checkers are somehow malicious actors, without any particular evidence of that actually happening, and vaguely labeled their speech as bullshit. Seems like nonsense[1] to me.

^ This is you stating that fact checking isn't used by malicious actors and there is no evidence to show it is.

I just demonstrated with evidence that it is.

You are now trying to twist your way out of this by equating "fact checkers" (IE major organisation presenting opinions as facts that are not up for debate) and the act of correcting misinformation as one and the same thing.

Twisting of words is one of many dishonest tactics used by progressives in debate and it's the same one you are attempting to use right now.

For the record, I'm good at pointing out dishonest tactics and people who use them in debate, I wouldn't continue.

Also while this is going down this path, I'm going to bring up the narcissists prayer so we can refer back to it later if you continue with this approach.

You could indeed see yourself as being "fact-checked". But this doesn't mean the person attempting to persuade you of their point of view thinks of themselves as a "fact-checker", or popularises themselves as a source of information that is always more correct than any other.

I appreciate that you did, in fact, try to argue against what I said without the use of facts, resolving the paradox I presented. If with a somewhat strange arguement.

I appreciate your good-natured discussion, but disagree: my statements were factual, and it's not strange to present hubris as an indicator of untrustworthiness.