I didn't mention any rumors. I talked about an interview Lula gave that I watched. Not sure why you are so stressed.
I'm talking about foreign relations. That's why I mentioned the Itamaraty.
You're talking about news, media, interviews, etc.
You didn't noticed what my angle was, and you wanted to participate, but ended up talking about a different thing.
The only diplomacy I want to see is of the gunboat kind. The supreme court made it clear gunboat diplomacy was their condition for folding. They said something akin to "if they park an aircraft carrier next to us then we'll see". I would have loved to see that.
Perhaps I'm saying nothing about election politics, and I'm more worried about the longstanding brazillian diplomatic tradition.
Perhaps I knew someone would bring a specific discussion to this, and disarmed it beforehand (which is super weird, I agree, but within the realm of previsibility).
Let's put some possibilities on the table:
1. You have no knowledge about diplomacy. You think it's talking soft or something like that, and you're repeating things you heard from someone else.
2. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb.
2a. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb to provoke me into going into a discussion that clearly has no conclusion.
2b. You know what diplomacy is, and you're playing dumb because you're suspicious of the way I approached the subject outside of common narratives.
3. You understand as much of the dynamics as I do, but you're putting me in a situation that I need to explain it more pedanticly (totally fine, I already explained in a simple way before, so this would be dumb on your part).
---
Which one is the closest to what you feel? Is there another one? Please, enlighten us. Don't be shy to assume option 1 if that's what it really is.
See? Cards on the table. Honesty. Try it, it's good.
I'd appreciate a discussion about how the diplomats might contribute towards solving the judiciary dictatorship problem. I assume they would only act to preserve the status quo via negotiation and deescalation. That's the opposite of what I want them to do.
I'll just do what you asked and refrain from replying to you in the future.
Your stuff: "I heard that...", "Leader says...", "You're like a teenager..." etc
My stuff: "Traditionally...", "What is reasonable?", "I'll explain..." etc
These two kinds of discourses don't mix.
You hear stuff from one of your trusted sources, and you repeat it. When you find something that can align with your discourse, you interact.
The point is that you all share "the same stuff", stuff I'm not interested in. It's the other way around, the mass of internet arguments you're a part of lacks the kind of stuff I have. That's why you're so drawn to it.
Relax, it's all mostly unconscious behavior. It's not about you specifically, more the swarm you belong to.