Remember kids, when you’re losing an argument, that’s not time for introspection. It was a “waste of time” - a rationalist’s guide to argument.
Bye
What does it mean when someone says ‘bye’ and doesn’t leave? I mean you just said bye, and here you are again? What gives?
We don’t agree that’s fine. What I thing is not fine is that this comment was me just re-stating what I’ve already said. If I wasnt on mobile I think this could have all been quotes from previous comments. I don’t think you’ve 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 else’s best interest. We’ve covered: they’re the ‘bad’ in the “worse, bad, worse” cycle, and you don’t want the worse, so take the bad. We’ve covered: you don’t think good will win, so you won’t vote for them, and because you won’t vote for them you don’t think they’ll win, so vote bad.
Remember kids, when you’re losing an argument, that’s 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 doesn’t work, and refusing to examine your own flawed logic.
It’s not a waste of time because I’m losing, because I’m not. It’s a waste of time because your points are so bad and incoherent that you’re either acting in bad faith, or you’re not capable of engaging with logic.
You’re not an ally, you’re an agent provocateur, the left doesn’t need you.
You cannot even be trusted to leave when you say you’re 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 doesn’t 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 rationalist’s guide to argument
Bye
What does it mean when someone says ‘bye’ and doesn’t 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 can’t 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 you’ve explained yourself well. Fascism=bad, genocide=bad, why you voted what you voted, and why you don’t like what others are doing was all communicated well. For what it’s worth, and at risk of repeating myself, I see damage limitation as a valid POV.
I obviously dont feel like you’ve granted me the same courtesy of empathy, and I’m sure you think I’m as confused as ever.
That’s 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 “good” instead of “least bad”.
I think they’ll see that a new party is a very real option it’s happened before (when did UK Labour start, who did they replace) it’s happening now (who the fuck were Reform UK last election cycle). UK is a FPTP 2 party system too.
I think they’ll see that opposing genocide is a valid and good priority have. Convincing the electorate to vote the exact right amount of genocide: can’t be too much (republican), can’t 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.
That’s a point, it came and went but I think they’ll see that we blame leadership (the people with the power) in every field. Except politics for some reason, then it’s the little guy’s fault. “Sure Elon musk is a cunt, but have you seen the way Jerry sweeps floors, that’s what’s really fucking the stock”, “Facebook maybe designed to be a rage inducing, attention hogging machine by the Zuck, but if we just had more users, maybe we’ll reverse the systemic alt-right pipeline”.
We don’t agree that’s fine. What I thing is not fine is that this comment was me just re-stating what I’ve already said. If I wasnt on mobile I think this could have all been quotes from previous comments. I don’t think you’ve 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 else’s best interest. We’ve covered: they’re the ‘bad’ in the “worse, bad, worse” cycle, and you don’t want the worse, so take the bad. We’ve covered: you don’t think good will win, so you won’t vote for them, and because you won’t vote for them you don’t think they’ll win, so vote bad.
Actually, just go away. You announced your departure 5 hours ago. You’ve tried to dismiss me in every ‘thought terminating’ way you could. Why are you still here?! Why “waste your time”? Why, if I lack the ability to learn do you still harass me? Please leave me alone.
Why “waste your time”? Why, if I lack the ability to learn do you still harass me?
So real leftists didn’t fall for your counterproductive drivel, obviously. I think I’m satisfied now, no one’s reading this far down your fallacious, nonsensical rants. I’m gone for good now.
Why are you still in my mentions. You can’t 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 doesn’t work with your substitutions. Third parties are smoking, Democrats are not smoking. Switching it around doesn’t 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 couldn’t figure out why, in your own analogy, Dems were represented by chain smoking. You just kept asserting that they weren’t. Then I gave it to you step by step and you dropped it.
That’s the difference between you just asserting a postion, and me demonstrating one. That’s 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 doesn’t matter their result.
People who oppose genocide at all costs inc Fascism: achieved nothing, it doesn’t matter their intention.
Double standards highlighted immediately. You never did see it, did you? Because your position never changed. It was still judging others’ for the results of the their actions, but demanding you be judged by your intention.
Real leftists™ (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 “white moderates” did for civil rights. Never accepting change until it’s forced upon them, and pretending they supported it all along.
History has lessons for you, read it, learn it, then get out of the activists’ way.
You’re 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 didn’t bury any of it, that’s 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.
You’re going away for good? I sure hope so, but you’ve proven yourself wrong about when you’re going before.
Remember kids, when you’re losing an argument, that’s not time for introspection. It was a “waste of time” - a rationalist’s guide to argument.
What does it mean when someone says ‘bye’ and doesn’t 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 doesn’t work, and refusing to examine your own flawed logic.
It’s not a waste of time because I’m losing, because I’m not. It’s a waste of time because your points are so bad and incoherent that you’re either acting in bad faith, or you’re not capable of engaging with logic.
You’re not an ally, you’re an agent provocateur, the left doesn’t need you.
You cannot even be trusted to leave when you say you’re 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 rationalist’s guide to argument
No, actually what gives? Imagine trying to claim any amount of bad faith on my part when you can’t 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. You’ve tried to dismiss me in every ‘thought terminating’ way you could. Why are you still here?! Why “waste your time”? Why, if I lack the ability to learn do you still harass me? Please leave me alone.
So real leftists didn’t fall for your counterproductive drivel, obviously. I think I’m satisfied now, no one’s reading this far down your fallacious, nonsensical rants. I’m gone for good now.
Why are you still in my mentions. You can’t 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 couldn’t figure out why, in your own analogy, Dems were represented by chain smoking. You just kept asserting that they weren’t. Then I gave it to you step by step and you dropped it.
That’s the difference between you just asserting a postion, and me demonstrating one. That’s 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 others’ for the results of the their actions, but demanding you be judged by your intention.
Real leftists™ (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 “white moderates” did for civil rights. Never accepting change until it’s forced upon them, and pretending they supported it all along.
History has lessons for you, read it, learn it, then get out of the activists’ way.
You’re 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 didn’t bury any of it, that’s 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.
You’re going away for good? I sure hope so, but you’ve proven yourself wrong about when you’re going before.