In a post titled “Trump is symbolic of the rot of the US government”, they were calling the concept of “harm reduction” (as in, voting for the person who’s not literally Hitler) “bullshit that liberals tell themselves because they know that what they support is evil”, because they’re a sane, mature human who is not at all stupid as hell.
They didn’t really like it when I pushed back on that narrative by pointing out that far more people have been harmed in the first 2 years of a Trump presidency than would have been over 8 years of a Harris presidency. Que sera, sera.
Is my wording so weird that people do not get my intention?
When I judge based on only what you write here, you have full control of the narrative and you can ommit things if you think it helps your case.
Screenshots would actually make it harder for you to do those things.
So me coming to a judgement just based on this is your best scenario, as I am taking your word for what happened. It would be only your own fault if you mispresented the situation.
So what exactly is your problem with that?