So you dont even know how it applies to what I said? This is exactly what I mean when I criticize how you hold conversations. You sperge into these wild contrarian interpretations that have nothing to do with anything. First you say I left out context, then when I push you on it you dont know if I read it or not (which I did because it was in the damn article), and then back track to "Good on you if you did", but only after stating that I left out this important context and "did the same thing you accused her of". On top of which, even if i didnt read this added "context", it doesnt change anything I said because I never mentioned anything about what she thought of the murderer. Just....what? You're just throwing out randomness everywhere.
Again, you're still sperging into a bunch of other crap. Whatever she says about the murderer is completely irrelevant to my point, but you argued for a couple pages that it was context that I avoided and you could never explain how. And now you're bringing up Charlie Kirk being an asshole, because that matters in regards to what I said about Amanda Seyfried? If you ever come up witha response to what I actually said, feel free to let me know.