>>14092435look at how the post you're arguing with triggered you by agreeing with your reply. you read
>>14091619 and you immediately leapt to your own conclusion that the intended meaning was the opposite of what the words said. you never stopped for a second to question your reading of that post, why not? why do you consider it transparently obvious that
>>14091619 was posted ironically? why do you think its unreasonable that someone would share your sentiments? do you think your sentiments on this topic are so stupid that no reasonable person would likely share them?
