Do you find this to be an effective debate tactic?
You provided a nonsensical one-liner with no supporting logic. Telling you that it’s wrong is sufficient, yes. I did not invite you to expound on it because you were already adopting defensive posturing.
Case in point: you just invented a quote and then conveniently ignored the other point I made. Let me remind you: the alleged single issue is genocide and I surmise you are reticent to speak openly about it because you know just how awful your dismissiveness of it will sound. But rather than confront such an inconsistency, liberals will paper over it. If they didn’t do that, they might cease being liberals.
You should not support genociders.
And I was making a general statement, not referencing you specifically.
My response works either way and I didn’t assume you meant me specifically. I am not sure what you are even referring to here. I made no references to myself.
More bad-faith assumptions and disinformation, now coming directly from you.
We are now having discourse about something you have apparently imagined and how I am various bad things in this imaginary scenario. Please return to reality and engage with what I actually say rather than making up quotes and ignoring half of what I say.
I think we may need to go to square 1 on discursive thought. I did not say or imply that not liking what you said means you are wrong. You are using an informal fallacy known as a straw man, which is where a person replies to an allegation by staying or implying something that was not said on the other person’s behalf because it is easier to contend with.
This is a fancy way of telling you to stop relying on making things up. I have never implied what you alleged. Please do your best to stick to what I actually say instead of using bad faith posturing.
and the “conclusions” you draw are obvious proof that you’re in no position to criticize the “logic” of others
Then deny them. What was I wrong about? What was bad logic?
And I don’t need your permission to comment here.
I didn’t imply that you did. That’s 2 straw men already in just this comment.
If you’re too scared of your comments being scrutinized, perhaps you should post your comments on the wall of a toilet stall rather than to a public forum.
I would not consider this series of inventions and clichés to be scrutiny. At the moment there is a struggle to get you to respond to what I actually said instead of making things up. I will be excited when I finally get some scrutiny!
That was your point. I summarized.
It was about the same length as my original sentence. The purpose of the misquote was to mock because you’d like to imagine me as like an obstinate child than acknowledge your own fear of even saying the word genocide - as you are complicit in one. No need for you to try explaining, it was obvious.
Again, of you don’t like being scrutinized, don’t post in a public forum.
Yet again you have skipped over the other point I made. Isn’t it getting conspicuous!?
It’s cute how you blame others for your own actions, even when you have to make the reasons up by pretending to be psychic and reading my mind.
I don’t know what this is referring to. What did I do that I blamed others for?
And I don’t need to be a psychic, just aware of tropes and behaviors. Notice that you are already confirming several of them accidentally!
Yet, somehow, you still act like this is a rational position…
What is the position I present as rational? That you should be against genocide? That you should work against genociders? Personally, I thought that would work as a shared baseline. I think the barrier is a set of chauvinistic talking points handed to you by the political class as well as a learned helplessness. And obviously an approach to discourse that is so defensive it permits repeatedly inventing things from whole cloth.
Whether you regret being called out as so, remarkably wrong or not, I can’t say, but you don’t get to do over just cause you lost an argument.
I haven’t lost an argument here and am not attempting any kind of “do-over”. Please do your best to reply to what I actually say rather than making things up.
You’re arguing in clear, bad faith
No, I am being forthright and honest.
and you’re using disinformation to do it
Such as?
If you regret what you said, just delete your comments.
Please reply to the things I actually say, such as the entirety of my last comment that you just ignored.
There is a 3rd party further left (supposedly because she declared her goal as having Harris not win the White House even though she can’t win herself so her goal is effectively to help Trump) that is against the genocide that will not win the White House
=> Harris is left of Trump (if only slightly in most points)
=> The people jumping to a 3rd party that is further left than Harris are only ex Dems.
=> Dems weaken while GOP is not weakening
=> Trump gets more likely voted into the White House the more people vote Green
=> Voting “against genocide” is causing the Party to win that makes Genocide most likely worse (fairly sure Trump said he wants to accelerate it) and will also Genocide its own population, starting by queers, immigrants and women
If you had a different voting system I’d agree with you that voting 3rd Party is the way to go but you don’t have a voting system where that is anything but a vote thrown away in blind idealism. So yes if you vote 3rd Party I will blame you for worsening an existing and adding another genocide.
Sorry for shoddy formatting I don’t quite know how to fix it.
It is, actually. It’s very simple: I don’t support genocide so I don’t vote for genociders. Perfectly logical. Despite your condescension, you have yet to point out a flaw in my logic, though you are making inaccurate statements about my positron.
Our givens are:
Trump or Harris will win the White House
There is a 3rd party further left (supposedly because she declared her goal as having Harris not win the White House even though she can’t win herself so her goal is effectively to help Trump) that is against the genocide that will not win the White House
You have already failed to capture the basics of voting. You can also vote for other parties, write in a name in some states, and simply not vote on that line or at all. For such a condescending response we aren’t even cracking high school civics territory yet. But you are revealing that you follow current party line talking points. The party in power, doing the genocide. Bad look, there.
Harris is left of Trump (if only slightly in most points)
Questionable. Manic JOYous appropriating genocidal neoliberal cop that gets no resistance from people like yourself vs. fading racist grandpa huckster that you presumably at least performatively might do something against.
The people jumping to a 3rd party that is further left than Harris are only ex Dems.
Wrong. Many who vote third party have never considered themselves Democrats. Most Americans do not identify with either party.
Dems weaken while GOP is not weakening
Dems shouldn’t commit genocide.
Trump gets more likely voted into the White House the more people vote Green
Trump would benefit specifically from votes (in swing states) for himself and a lack of votes (in swing states) for Harris. This can come from a number of premises but sure one of them is that someone that had planned to vote Harris votes for Stein instead. Thank you for this deep insight.
Voting "against genocide
Oh? Is it not a genocide? Is the Biden-Harrus administration not an essential piece of it? Why the scare quotes, liberal?
is causing the Party to win that makes Genocide most likely worse (fairly sure Trump said he wants to accelerate it)
Genocide is the systematic destruction of a people, it is as bad as it gets. There is no meaningful difference than the status quo and anything Trump could “accelerate”. You aren’t going to lesser evil genocide. Your genocider is also actually genociding, which should always be opposed, including compared to your hypotheticals. I could expound on how your framing is politically illiterate, including your normalization of genocide, but really this is not a complex situation.
and will also Genocide its own population, starting by queers, immigrants and women
To the extent that is true, it’s already happening under Dems. They just pander to those groups at the same time they reinforce reaction and marginalization.
If you had a different voting system I’d agree with you that voting 3rd Party is the way to go but you don’t have a voting system where that is anything but a vote thrown away in blind idealism.
Wait, that’s it!? I thought you were going to show me logic, not a series of barely-connected talking points. You didn’t discuss the voting system!
Anyways I am correct regardless of the voting system. Though I will note that I have told you not to vote for genociders. I did not tell you to vote third party. I’m setting up a very low bar but liberals are so pro-genocide that they tend to fall to clear it.
So yes if you vote 3rd Party I will blame you for worsening an existing and adding another genocide.
That would be silly, as I would have voted for neither genocidal candidate. Blame yourself for normalizing genocide. For accepting a genocidal candidate. For advocating for a genocidal candidate during their genocide. Do you see how obviously complicit this makes you? I work against all of those things. Your “logic”, which is to say bog standard lesser evil tropes, has gotten you to flip reality on its head.
I could expound on this topic but you would need to express curiosity or present a coherent case.
These are incompatible statements.
Removed by mod
No, it is true regsr of that. But the single issue is genocide, which is why you decided to be euphemistic about it.
Removed by mod
You provided a nonsensical one-liner with no supporting logic. Telling you that it’s wrong is sufficient, yes. I did not invite you to expound on it because you were already adopting defensive posturing.
Case in point: you just invented a quote and then conveniently ignored the other point I made. Let me remind you: the alleged single issue is genocide and I surmise you are reticent to speak openly about it because you know just how awful your dismissiveness of it will sound. But rather than confront such an inconsistency, liberals will paper over it. If they didn’t do that, they might cease being liberals.
You should not support genociders.
My response works either way and I didn’t assume you meant me specifically. I am not sure what you are even referring to here. I made no references to myself.
We are now having discourse about something you have apparently imagined and how I am various bad things in this imaginary scenario. Please return to reality and engage with what I actually say rather than making up quotes and ignoring half of what I say.
Removed by mod
I think we may need to go to square 1 on discursive thought. I did not say or imply that not liking what you said means you are wrong. You are using an informal fallacy known as a straw man, which is where a person replies to an allegation by staying or implying something that was not said on the other person’s behalf because it is easier to contend with.
This is a fancy way of telling you to stop relying on making things up. I have never implied what you alleged. Please do your best to stick to what I actually say instead of using bad faith posturing.
Then deny them. What was I wrong about? What was bad logic?
I didn’t imply that you did. That’s 2 straw men already in just this comment.
I would not consider this series of inventions and clichés to be scrutiny. At the moment there is a struggle to get you to respond to what I actually said instead of making things up. I will be excited when I finally get some scrutiny!
It was about the same length as my original sentence. The purpose of the misquote was to mock because you’d like to imagine me as like an obstinate child than acknowledge your own fear of even saying the word genocide - as you are complicit in one. No need for you to try explaining, it was obvious.
Yet again you have skipped over the other point I made. Isn’t it getting conspicuous!?
I don’t know what this is referring to. What did I do that I blamed others for?
And I don’t need to be a psychic, just aware of tropes and behaviors. Notice that you are already confirming several of them accidentally!
What is the position I present as rational? That you should be against genocide? That you should work against genociders? Personally, I thought that would work as a shared baseline. I think the barrier is a set of chauvinistic talking points handed to you by the political class as well as a learned helplessness. And obviously an approach to discourse that is so defensive it permits repeatedly inventing things from whole cloth.
Removed by mod
I haven’t lost an argument here and am not attempting any kind of “do-over”. Please do your best to reply to what I actually say rather than making things up.
No, I am being forthright and honest.
Such as?
Please reply to the things I actually say, such as the entirety of my last comment that you just ignored.
Voting for 3rd party helps trump win which means even more genocide so “voting against genocide” is actually voting for more genocide
Voting for genociders means supporting their genocide. Not voting for genociders means not supporting genocide.
Might want to check your math there, chief.
Well sorry but that’s not how logic works
Our givens are:
=> Harris is left of Trump (if only slightly in most points)
=> The people jumping to a 3rd party that is further left than Harris are only ex Dems.
=> Dems weaken while GOP is not weakening
=> Trump gets more likely voted into the White House the more people vote Green
=> Voting “against genocide” is causing the Party to win that makes Genocide most likely worse (fairly sure Trump said he wants to accelerate it) and will also Genocide its own population, starting by queers, immigrants and women
If you had a different voting system I’d agree with you that voting 3rd Party is the way to go but you don’t have a voting system where that is anything but a vote thrown away in blind idealism. So yes if you vote 3rd Party I will blame you for worsening an existing and adding another genocide.
Sorry for shoddy formatting I don’t quite know how to fix it.
It is, actually. It’s very simple: I don’t support genocide so I don’t vote for genociders. Perfectly logical. Despite your condescension, you have yet to point out a flaw in my logic, though you are making inaccurate statements about my positron.
You have already failed to capture the basics of voting. You can also vote for other parties, write in a name in some states, and simply not vote on that line or at all. For such a condescending response we aren’t even cracking high school civics territory yet. But you are revealing that you follow current party line talking points. The party in power, doing the genocide. Bad look, there.
Questionable. Manic JOYous appropriating genocidal neoliberal cop that gets no resistance from people like yourself vs. fading racist grandpa huckster that you presumably at least performatively might do something against.
Wrong. Many who vote third party have never considered themselves Democrats. Most Americans do not identify with either party.
Dems shouldn’t commit genocide.
Trump would benefit specifically from votes (in swing states) for himself and a lack of votes (in swing states) for Harris. This can come from a number of premises but sure one of them is that someone that had planned to vote Harris votes for Stein instead. Thank you for this deep insight.
Oh? Is it not a genocide? Is the Biden-Harrus administration not an essential piece of it? Why the scare quotes, liberal?
Genocide is the systematic destruction of a people, it is as bad as it gets. There is no meaningful difference than the status quo and anything Trump could “accelerate”. You aren’t going to lesser evil genocide. Your genocider is also actually genociding, which should always be opposed, including compared to your hypotheticals. I could expound on how your framing is politically illiterate, including your normalization of genocide, but really this is not a complex situation.
To the extent that is true, it’s already happening under Dems. They just pander to those groups at the same time they reinforce reaction and marginalization.
Wait, that’s it!? I thought you were going to show me logic, not a series of barely-connected talking points. You didn’t discuss the voting system!
Anyways I am correct regardless of the voting system. Though I will note that I have told you not to vote for genociders. I did not tell you to vote third party. I’m setting up a very low bar but liberals are so pro-genocide that they tend to fall to clear it.
That would be silly, as I would have voted for neither genocidal candidate. Blame yourself for normalizing genocide. For accepting a genocidal candidate. For advocating for a genocidal candidate during their genocide. Do you see how obviously complicit this makes you? I work against all of those things. Your “logic”, which is to say bog standard lesser evil tropes, has gotten you to flip reality on its head.
I could expound on this topic but you would need to express curiosity or present a coherent case.