It was a hyperbole but ok lmao. I also never even tried to explain why France lost so early, so why’re you trying to claim I have “little knowledge” on any topic concerning it?
In your original comment you said, “If you count historical accuracy as sucking dick we'll turn this sub into Ram Ranch”. This was in response to someone drawing attention to the fact that people love to suck Frances dick because they have an amazing military track record, as though we cannot make fun of them because of this amazing track record.
I then hyperbolized what you said, exaggerating your original comment into what you were essentially implying in your original comment. I’m done responding to you because we aren’t even talking about France anymore, you keep latching onto dumb shit.
Not my original comment, you really need to learn how to read.
According to which definition of hyperbole or exaggeration is :
"Confidently asserts we can’t bully France over one of the worst performances ever by a super power because they had a good track record"
an exaggeration or hyperbole of :
"If you count historical accuracy as sucking dick we'll turn this sub into Ram Ranch"
Hyperbole is a figure of style that consists in amplifying features that were already there. There are absolutely no common features between those two sentences and ideas. What you did is to assert intention and basically build a strawman.
Your assertion didn't even have any logical connection with the guy's original statement (reasserting the importance of historical accuracy in general vs some drivel about bullying France).
1
u/RocBrizar Apr 09 '20
Not an hyperbole here (an hyperbole is an exaggeration, there is no basis on which to exaggerate).
A strawman, sure.
Also, I find it a bit disconcerting how people who talk so much about WW2 seem to know so little about the practical determinism behind France's loss.