I referred you to ChatGPT. After I entirely told you what was going to happen: you were going to focus on how effective they were, despite you being just as effective. Guess what you spent your whole comment doing? Complaining about how ineffective they were. So thanks, I guess?
After you had the gall to say you âdidnât criticizeâ people who protested genocide, in a comment full of critising them as âineffectiveâ and âperformativeâ. Even if you didnât then, you are now. Itâs all same-same. Youâre saying the same things now as otherâs, if not you, were saying then. Which was my point you asked for a thing, they did that thing already, it isnât good enough for you because: hypocrisy. So thanks, I guess.
You once again misrepresented me though. Your choice is to shoot for something good, or take bad. Thatâs irrelevant of probability. Will/may it doesnât matter: go for an unknown good, or take one of the known bads. Shoot for the good thing. It has to be deliberate misrepresentatiom at this point.
I donât think any reply you have will be valuable, I understand your position enough to completely predict its behaviour: them ineffective, performative, you strategic, also ineffective.
Ineffective doesnât matter to your position, but is everything to theirs. History has no lessons for you. Other FPTP 2 party systems have no lessons for you. Anyone that disagrees with you isnât valid: theyâre âconfusedâ, âineffectiveâ, âperformativeâ, no lessons there either. No lessons for you anywhere, there are only your values, and thereâs no empathy to understand otherâs.
Even after all that, I still get it, the devil you know is at least known. âDamage controlâ is a valid position to have. I get it, I really do.
Chatgptâs reply is a bad one, but my last reply was good enough to predict what you were going to do, and it was wasted on you. Anyway, hope the robot gets through:
Yes, it has, fundamentally. Your whole argument rests on the decision to do the thing being inconsequential to the outcome.
And yet, that is the reality we live in. You act as though voting blue creates material improvement, when we both agree that genocide continues. If doing âthe bad thingâ (voting Dem) and not doing it (voting third party) both lead to genocide, then your argument collapses under its own weight â because the outcome doesnât change, only the story you tell yourself about it.
You keep treating symbolic dissent as âperformative,â but voting for genocide because you think itâs strategic is the ultimate performance. Itâs the act of saying âI hate thisâ while continuing to fund, empower, and normalize it. Youâre mistaking participation for influence.
I oppose actions which make genocide worse, obviously, because I oppose genocide.
And yet you vote for a party that continues it. I get the logic of damage control â Iâve acknowledged it several times. What I donât get is how you can accept âsome genocideâ as a strategy. Thatâs not damage control; thatâs complicity with a more polite version of the same harm.
They used effective methods, I applaud them.
Those methods werenât âeffectiveâ until they became effective â after years of being ridiculed, arrested, and told their actions were âcounterproductive.â Youâre praising history while ignoring the lesson it teaches.
Politics is the one field where the little guys are the ones who elect leadership.
No â the little guys ratify leadership. They donât choose it. Youâre describing consent manufacturing as choice. You donât get to blame voters for a system designed to contain them.
Stop trying to make voting do things it doesnât do.
Exactly. Voting doesnât end genocide. Itâs a participation checkbox, not a moral shield. You can vote defensively if you like â thatâs your right â but donât pretend itâs resistance. Resistance is what happens outside the ballot box.
You say you want progress; I do too. But progress doesnât come from treating moral triage as if it were justice. âLess badâ is not a destination. Itâs an anaesthetic.
If you ever decide you want to build something genuinely good, not just postpone the next collapse, youâll find me there â still doing the good thing, even if âthe bad thing may happen anyway.â
I donât even know how to parse that rambling, bad faith nonsense. Where you actually engaged with my points, you completely misunderstood them.
This is a waste of my time. Go back and reread until you actually understand, or keep spinning yourself in circles if you want, but Iâm not engaging further with someone whoâs either arguing in bad faith or literally incapable of understanding basic reasoning.
When you can understand basic reasoning, join the grownups. Bye.
Remember kids, when someone disagrees with you in a way you canât handle. Itâs not the time for introspection; theyâre âconfusedâ, âgrandstandingâ, âperformativeâ, âineffectiveâ and âjuvenileâ. - The rationalist guide to argument.
Remember kids, when youâre losing an argument, thatâs not time for introspection. It was a âwaste of timeâ - a rationalistâs guide to argument.
Bye
What does it mean when someone says âbyeâ and doesnât leave? I mean you just said bye, and here you are again? What gives?
We donât agree thatâs fine. What I thing is not fine is that this comment was me just re-stating what Iâve already said. If I wasnt on mobile I think this could have all been quotes from previous comments. I donât think youâve said anything substantially new either, that must be frustrating too.
Let me know if you can be convinced that: perhaps voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might not be in your best interest. Or let me know if you think of a new reason why voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might be in someone elseâs best interest. Weâve covered: theyâre the âbadâ in the âworse, bad, worseâ cycle, and you donât want the worse, so take the bad. Weâve covered: you donât think good will win, so you wonât vote for them, and because you wonât vote for them you donât think theyâll win, so vote bad.
Remember kids, when youâre losing an argument, thatâs not time for introspection.
Yes, this has been you the entire time: ignoring the argument, doubling down on refuted claims, trying to reverse it when that doesnât work, and refusing to examine your own flawed logic.
Itâs not a waste of time because Iâm losing, because Iâm not. Itâs a waste of time because your points are so bad and incoherent that youâre either acting in bad faith, or youâre not capable of engaging with logic.
Youâre not an ally, youâre an agent provocateur, the left doesnât need you.
You cannot even be trusted to leave when you say youâre going to. When your words have such little value to you, why do you believe anyone else should value them higher. Go away.
Yes, this has been you the entire time: ignoring the argument, doubling down on refuted claims, trying to reverse it when that doesnât work, and refusing to examine your own flawed logic.
Remember kids, when losing an argument take everything you been shown to be doing and claim the other person does it. It works for DJT, surely it will work for you. -The rationalistâs guide to argument
Bye
What does it mean when someone says âbyeâ and doesnât leave? I mean you just said bye, and here you are again? What gives?
No, actually what gives? Imagine trying to claim any amount of bad faith on my part when you canât even be trusted to leave when you said you were going to. You said you were going, so GO.
I have been empathetic to your claims and feel youâve explained yourself well. Fascism=bad, genocide=bad, why you voted what you voted, and why you donât like what others are doing was all communicated well. For what itâs worth, and at risk of repeating myself, I see damage limitation as a valid POV.
I obviously dont feel like youâve granted me the same courtesy of empathy, and Iâm sure you think Iâm as confused as ever.
Thatâs ok, I think people reading after will understand the claim that supporting dem is a cycle of bad-worse-bad-worse, until there is no worse to go⊠or you change for something âgoodâ instead of âleast badâ.
I think theyâll see that a new party is a very real option itâs happened before (when did UK Labour start, who did they replace) itâs happening now (who the fuck were Reform UK last election cycle). UK is a FPTP 2 party system too.
I think theyâll see that opposing genocide is a valid and good priority have. Convincing the electorate to vote the exact right amount of genocide: canât be too much (republican), canât be too little (anyone else), the genocide amount has to be just right (dem). That was was a foolish campaign for dem leadership to run, blame those in power.
Thatâs a point, it came and went but I think theyâll see that we blame leadership (the people with the power) in every field. Except politics for some reason, then itâs the little guyâs fault. âSure Elon musk is a cunt, but have you seen the way Jerry sweeps floors, thatâs whatâs really fucking the stockâ, âFacebook maybe designed to be a rage inducing, attention hogging machine by the Zuck, but if we just had more users, maybe weâll reverse the systemic alt-right pipelineâ.
We donât agree thatâs fine. What I thing is not fine is that this comment was me just re-stating what Iâve already said. If I wasnt on mobile I think this could have all been quotes from previous comments. I donât think youâve said anything substantially new either, that must be frustrating too.
Let me know if you can be convinced that: perhaps voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might not be in your best interest. Or let me know if you think of a new reason why voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might be in someone elseâs best interest. Weâve covered: theyâre the âbadâ in the âworse, bad, worseâ cycle, and you donât want the worse, so take the bad. Weâve covered: you donât think good will win, so you wonât vote for them, and because you wonât vote for them you donât think theyâll win, so vote bad.
Actually, just go away. You announced your departure 5 hours ago. Youâve tried to dismiss me in every âthought terminatingâ way you could. Why are you still here?! Why âwaste your timeâ? Why, if I lack the ability to learn do you still harass me? Please leave me alone.
Why âwaste your timeâ? Why, if I lack the ability to learn do you still harass me?
So real leftists didnât fall for your counterproductive drivel, obviously. I think Iâm satisfied now, no oneâs reading this far down your fallacious, nonsensical rants. Iâm gone for good now.
Why are you still in my mentions. You canât be trusted to say bye honestly, why should anyone trust you. Go away.
Meanwhile, I showed why your position was wrong continually, remember this:
You keep trying to frame it this way, this is wrong. The analogy doesnât work with your substitutions. Third parties are smoking, Democrats are not smoking. Switching it around doesnât work, the conditions are fundamentally different.
This is an assertion with nothing to back it up.
Axiom 1 Genocide is cancer, we agree genocide is bad.
Axiom 2. Voting for genocide is smoking
Axiom 3. Democrats support genocide.
For hours you couldnât figure out why, in your own analogy, Dems were represented by chain smoking. You just kept asserting that they werenât. Then I gave it to you step by step and you dropped it.
Thatâs the difference between you just asserting a postion, and me demonstrating one. Thatâs just one instance, remember this:
This is called a double standard. When judging others you judge them by the result of their actions and not their intentions. But you, you want to be judged by the intention of your actions and not the results.
People who oppose fascism at all costs inc genocide: well intentioned, it doesnât matter their result.
People who oppose genocide at all costs inc Fascism: achieved nothing, it doesnât matter their intention.
Double standards highlighted immediately. You never did see it, did you? Because your position never changed. It was still judging othersâ for the results of the their actions, but demanding you be judged by your intention.
Real leftistsâą (hello fellow leftists, jesus)will see your position for the obstructionary nonsense it is: demanding zero progress. Instead supporting a party, that by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so). Making the same demands the âwhite moderatesâ did for civil rights. Never accepting change until itâs forced upon them, and pretending they supported it all along.
History has lessons for you, read it, learn it, then get out of the activistsâ way.
Youâre right no-one is reading this far down. Fortunately, me constantly pointing out the flaws in your arguments is all up where it will be read, you didnât bury any of it, thatâs not how threads work. You misrepresented me immediately, and was called out for it immediately. You were wrong multiple time and were shown to be immediately. All where it can be seen.
None of this down here matters, you achieved nothing here, just like supporting Dems achieved nothing.
Youâre going away for good? I sure hope so, but youâve proven yourself wrong about when youâre going before.
I referred you to ChatGPT. After I entirely told you what was going to happen: you were going to focus on how effective they were, despite you being just as effective. Guess what you spent your whole comment doing? Complaining about how ineffective they were. So thanks, I guess?
After you had the gall to say you âdidnât criticizeâ people who protested genocide, in a comment full of critising them as âineffectiveâ and âperformativeâ. Even if you didnât then, you are now. Itâs all same-same. Youâre saying the same things now as otherâs, if not you, were saying then. Which was my point you asked for a thing, they did that thing already, it isnât good enough for you because: hypocrisy. So thanks, I guess.
You once again misrepresented me though. Your choice is to shoot for something good, or take bad. Thatâs irrelevant of probability. Will/may it doesnât matter: go for an unknown good, or take one of the known bads. Shoot for the good thing. It has to be deliberate misrepresentatiom at this point.
I donât think any reply you have will be valuable, I understand your position enough to completely predict its behaviour: them ineffective, performative, you strategic, also ineffective.
Ineffective doesnât matter to your position, but is everything to theirs. History has no lessons for you. Other FPTP 2 party systems have no lessons for you. Anyone that disagrees with you isnât valid: theyâre âconfusedâ, âineffectiveâ, âperformativeâ, no lessons there either. No lessons for you anywhere, there are only your values, and thereâs no empathy to understand otherâs.
Even after all that, I still get it, the devil you know is at least known. âDamage controlâ is a valid position to have. I get it, I really do.
Chatgptâs reply is a bad one, but my last reply was good enough to predict what you were going to do, and it was wasted on you. Anyway, hope the robot gets through:
Yes, it has, fundamentally. Your whole argument rests on the decision to do the thing being inconsequential to the outcome. And yet, that is the reality we live in. You act as though voting blue creates material improvement, when we both agree that genocide continues. If doing âthe bad thingâ (voting Dem) and not doing it (voting third party) both lead to genocide, then your argument collapses under its own weight â because the outcome doesnât change, only the story you tell yourself about it.
You keep treating symbolic dissent as âperformative,â but voting for genocide because you think itâs strategic is the ultimate performance. Itâs the act of saying âI hate thisâ while continuing to fund, empower, and normalize it. Youâre mistaking participation for influence.
I oppose actions which make genocide worse, obviously, because I oppose genocide. And yet you vote for a party that continues it. I get the logic of damage control â Iâve acknowledged it several times. What I donât get is how you can accept âsome genocideâ as a strategy. Thatâs not damage control; thatâs complicity with a more polite version of the same harm.
They used effective methods, I applaud them. Those methods werenât âeffectiveâ until they became effective â after years of being ridiculed, arrested, and told their actions were âcounterproductive.â Youâre praising history while ignoring the lesson it teaches.
Politics is the one field where the little guys are the ones who elect leadership. No â the little guys ratify leadership. They donât choose it. Youâre describing consent manufacturing as choice. You donât get to blame voters for a system designed to contain them.
Stop trying to make voting do things it doesnât do. Exactly. Voting doesnât end genocide. Itâs a participation checkbox, not a moral shield. You can vote defensively if you like â thatâs your right â but donât pretend itâs resistance. Resistance is what happens outside the ballot box.
You say you want progress; I do too. But progress doesnât come from treating moral triage as if it were justice. âLess badâ is not a destination. Itâs an anaesthetic.
If you ever decide you want to build something genuinely good, not just postpone the next collapse, youâll find me there â still doing the good thing, even if âthe bad thing may happen anyway.â
I donât even know how to parse that rambling, bad faith nonsense. Where you actually engaged with my points, you completely misunderstood them.
This is a waste of my time. Go back and reread until you actually understand, or keep spinning yourself in circles if you want, but Iâm not engaging further with someone whoâs either arguing in bad faith or literally incapable of understanding basic reasoning.
When you can understand basic reasoning, join the grownups. Bye.
Really? A âno uâ? Grown up indeed.
Remember kids, when someone disagrees with you in a way you canât handle. Itâs not the time for introspection; theyâre âconfusedâ, âgrandstandingâ, âperformativeâ, âineffectiveâ and âjuvenileâ. - The rationalist guide to argument.
That is⊠an improbably ironic response. Like I said, a waste of time.
Remember kids, when youâre losing an argument, thatâs not time for introspection. It was a âwaste of timeâ - a rationalistâs guide to argument.
What does it mean when someone says âbyeâ and doesnât leave? I mean you just said bye, and here you are again? What gives?
Yes, this has been you the entire time: ignoring the argument, doubling down on refuted claims, trying to reverse it when that doesnât work, and refusing to examine your own flawed logic.
Itâs not a waste of time because Iâm losing, because Iâm not. Itâs a waste of time because your points are so bad and incoherent that youâre either acting in bad faith, or youâre not capable of engaging with logic.
Youâre not an ally, youâre an agent provocateur, the left doesnât need you.
You cannot even be trusted to leave when you say youâre going to. When your words have such little value to you, why do you believe anyone else should value them higher. Go away.
Remember kids, when losing an argument take everything you been shown to be doing and claim the other person does it. It works for DJT, surely it will work for you. -The rationalistâs guide to argument
No, actually what gives? Imagine trying to claim any amount of bad faith on my part when you canât even be trusted to leave when you said you were going to. You said you were going, so GO.
Actually, just go away. You announced your departure 5 hours ago. Youâve tried to dismiss me in every âthought terminatingâ way you could. Why are you still here?! Why âwaste your timeâ? Why, if I lack the ability to learn do you still harass me? Please leave me alone.
So real leftists didnât fall for your counterproductive drivel, obviously. I think Iâm satisfied now, no oneâs reading this far down your fallacious, nonsensical rants. Iâm gone for good now.
Why are you still in my mentions. You canât be trusted to say bye honestly, why should anyone trust you. Go away.
Meanwhile, I showed why your position was wrong continually, remember this:
For hours you couldnât figure out why, in your own analogy, Dems were represented by chain smoking. You just kept asserting that they werenât. Then I gave it to you step by step and you dropped it.
Thatâs the difference between you just asserting a postion, and me demonstrating one. Thatâs just one instance, remember this:
Double standards highlighted immediately. You never did see it, did you? Because your position never changed. It was still judging othersâ for the results of the their actions, but demanding you be judged by your intention.
Real leftistsâą (hello fellow leftists, jesus)will see your position for the obstructionary nonsense it is: demanding zero progress. Instead supporting a party, that by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so). Making the same demands the âwhite moderatesâ did for civil rights. Never accepting change until itâs forced upon them, and pretending they supported it all along.
History has lessons for you, read it, learn it, then get out of the activistsâ way.
Youâre right no-one is reading this far down. Fortunately, me constantly pointing out the flaws in your arguments is all up where it will be read, you didnât bury any of it, thatâs not how threads work. You misrepresented me immediately, and was called out for it immediately. You were wrong multiple time and were shown to be immediately. All where it can be seen.
None of this down here matters, you achieved nothing here, just like supporting Dems achieved nothing.
Youâre going away for good? I sure hope so, but youâve proven yourself wrong about when youâre going before.