You can do the good thing and the bad thing may happen. Or not do the good thing and the bad thing may happen anyway. May as well do the good thing. - see, hasnāt changed in tone or content in any meaningful way
Yes, it has, fundamentally. Your whole argument rests on the decision to do the thing being inconsequential to the outcome. If changing the thing you do has some effect on the outcome, then the whole thing falls apart. If doing some other thing raises the chances of a better outcome, then the whole āmay as wellā argument fundamentally doesnāt work anymore.
If you canāt see that then this is a waste of time.
opposing genocide is also valid (you canāt seem to accept this, I donāt know why)
I oppose genocide. I also oppose actions which make genocide worse, obviously, because I oppose genocide. It does not matter to me that the person helping to make the genocide worse was trying to make it better, if their actions help to make it worse then I oppose those actions. I feel like Iām repeating myself .
Again, the people protesting for civil rights before it was an effective movement were doing a good thing.
And, again, I didnāt say they werenāt. They used effective methods, I applaud them. You are suggesting ineffective, and in fact counterproductive, methods. Do not equate your mealy-mouthed performative protest vote to the real action and sacrifice that actually accomplished something in the fight for civil rights.
Tory Vs Labour then Reform
Different country, different system, still irrelevant no matter how many times you repeat it.
They were very much criticised for it, all the same critisms youāre making now.
No? I never criticized them at all. Where are you getting this?
You support direct action done with the intention to oppose genocide?
I support direct action that opposes genocide. Intent is unimportant to me. Actions with intent, but without the ability to actually oppose, are materially performative. I oppose the substitution of performative grandstanding for actual strategy, especially when itās actively counterproductive to achievable progress.
I feel weāve gone full circle a couple times now.
I feel you have. That tends to happen when you ignore the other half of a conversation in favor of repetition.
I obviously dont feel like youāve granted me the same courtesy of empathy, and Iām sure you think Iām as confused as ever.
Iām not sure youāve extended the courtesy of empathy that you think you have.
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 goā¦ or you change for something āgoodā instead of āleast badā.
For all our sakes, I sincerely hope they do not. I hope they are intelligent enough to understand the American electoral system, and choose an effective means to establish something good.
we blame leadership (the people with the power) in every field. Except politics for some reason, then itās the little guyās fault.
Politics is the one field where the little guys are the ones who elect leadership. No one said it was their fault, but it is their responsibility. Thereās plenty of propaganda to influence their decision, but it is still their decision.
What I thing is not fine is that this comment was me just re-stating what Iāve already said.
I agree. The fact that you havenāt changed your approach to consider any of my responses, and instead have attempted to change my responses to support your approach, displeases me. It always displeases me to encounter deeply counterproductive leftists.
Iām a leftist, I want leftism to prevail, and every counterproductive leftist is two steps back in accomplishing that goal. It gives me no pleasure to have these disagreements. To be honest it fills me with a sort of malaise, a sad realization that the people on my side are so often so incompetent that they get in their own way. I had a naĆÆve hope that I might see real leftist progress in my life. But seeing my comrades Iām less hopeful by the day.
perhaps voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might not be in your best interest
When the alternative major party is not more genocidal, and also much worse in many other ways, or it loses its status as a major party, I can easily be convinced. Before that, voting for the slightly less bad option is still the only rational choice. Let me know if you wanna help it lose that status.
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 elseās best interest.
Oh sure! Women, immigrants, LGBT, anyone who isnāt a white male millionaire really. Theyād all be better off under the other party. No one I care about is better off right now than they wouldāve been under the alternative.
because you wonāt vote for them you donāt think theyāll win
No? Because they donāt poll well. Because pretending Duvergerās Law doesnāt exist doesnāt make it so.
Stop trying to make voting do things it doesnāt do. Vote strategically, and redirect this energy to direct action. Join your local DSA, talk to your co-workers about unionizing, engage with your community, participate in local politics. There are many options available to you. The option you are promoting is not only ineffective, it is counterproductive. I feel like Iām trusting myself.
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 ādidnāt criticizeā people who protested genocide, in a comment full of critising them as āineffectiveā and āperformativeā. Even if you didnāt then, you are now. Itās all same-same. Youāre saying the same things now as otherās, if not you, were saying then. Which was my point you asked for a thing, they did that thing already, it isnāt 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. Thatās irrelevant of probability. Will/may it doesnāt 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 donāt 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 doesnāt 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 isnāt valid: theyāre āconfusedā, āineffectiveā, āperformativeā, no lessons there either. No lessons for you anywhere, there are only your values, and thereās no empathy to understand otherās.
Even after all that, I still get it, the devil you know is at least known. āDamage controlā is a valid position to have. I get it, I really do.
Chatgptās 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 āthe bad thingā (voting Dem) and not doing it (voting third party) both lead to genocide, then your argument collapses under its own weight ā because the outcome doesnāt change, only the story you tell yourself about it.
You keep treating symbolic dissent as āperformative,ā but voting for genocide because you think itās strategic is the ultimate performance. Itās the act of saying āI hate thisā while continuing to fund, empower, and normalize it. Youāre 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 ā Iāve acknowledged it several times. What I donāt get is how you can accept āsome genocideā as a strategy. Thatās not damage control; thatās complicity with a more polite version of the same harm.
They used effective methods, I applaud them.
Those methods werenāt āeffectiveā until they became effective ā after years of being ridiculed, arrested, and told their actions were ācounterproductive.ā Youāre praising history while ignoring the lesson it teaches.
Politics is the one field where the little guys are the ones who elect leadership.
No ā the little guys ratify leadership. They donāt choose it. Youāre describing consent manufacturing as choice. You donāt get to blame voters for a system designed to contain them.
Stop trying to make voting do things it doesnāt do.
Exactly. Voting doesnāt end genocide. Itās a participation checkbox, not a moral shield. You can vote defensively if you like ā thatās your right ā but donāt pretend itās resistance. Resistance is what happens outside the ballot box.
You say you want progress; I do too. But progress doesnāt come from treating moral triage as if it were justice. āLess badā is not a destination. Itās an anaesthetic.
If you ever decide you want to build something genuinely good, not just postpone the next collapse, youāll find me there ā still doing the good thing, even if āthe bad thing may happen anyway.ā
I donāt 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 Iām not engaging further with someone whoās 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 canāt handle. Itās not the time for introspection; theyāre āconfusedā, āgrandstandingā, āperformativeā, āineffectiveā and ājuvenileā. - The rationalist guide to argument.
Remember kids, when youāre losing an argument, thatās not time for introspection. It was a āwaste of timeā - a rationalistās guide to argument.
Bye
What does it mean when someone says ābyeā and doesnāt leave? I mean you just said bye, and here you are again? What gives?
We donāt agree thatās fine. What I thing is not fine is that this comment was me just re-stating what Iāve already said. If I wasnt on mobile I think this could have all been quotes from previous comments. I donāt think youāve 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 elseās best interest. Weāve covered: theyāre the ābadā in the āworse, bad, worseā cycle, and you donāt want the worse, so take the bad. Weāve covered: you donāt think good will win, so you wonāt vote for them, and because you wonāt vote for them you donāt think theyāll win, so vote bad.
Remember kids, when youāre losing an argument, thatās 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 doesnāt work, and refusing to examine your own flawed logic.
Itās not a waste of time because Iām losing, because Iām not. Itās a waste of time because your points are so bad and incoherent that youāre either acting in bad faith, or youāre not capable of engaging with logic.
Youāre not an ally, youāre an agent provocateur, the left doesnāt need you.
You cannot even be trusted to leave when you say youāre 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 doesnāt 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 rationalistās guide to argument
Bye
What does it mean when someone says ābyeā and doesnāt 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 canāt 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 youāve explained yourself well. Fascism=bad, genocide=bad, why you voted what you voted, and why you donāt like what others are doing was all communicated well. For what itās worth, and at risk of repeating myself, I see damage limitation as a valid POV.
I obviously dont feel like youāve granted me the same courtesy of empathy, and Iām sure you think Iām as confused as ever.
Thatās 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 goā¦ or you change for something āgoodā instead of āleast badā.
I think theyāll see that a new party is a very real option itās happened before (when did UK Labour start, who did they replace) itās happening now (who the fuck were Reform UK last election cycle). UK is a FPTP 2 party system too.
I think theyāll see that opposing genocide is a valid and good priority have. Convincing the electorate to vote the exact right amount of genocide: canāt be too much (republican), canāt 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.
Thatās a point, it came and went but I think theyāll see that we blame leadership (the people with the power) in every field. Except politics for some reason, then itās the little guyās fault. āSure Elon musk is a cunt, but have you seen the way Jerry sweeps floors, thatās whatās really fucking the stockā, āFacebook maybe designed to be a rage inducing, attention hogging machine by the Zuck, but if we just had more users, maybe weāll reverse the systemic alt-right pipelineā.
We donāt agree thatās fine. What I thing is not fine is that this comment was me just re-stating what Iāve already said. If I wasnt on mobile I think this could have all been quotes from previous comments. I donāt think youāve 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 elseās best interest. Weāve covered: theyāre the ābadā in the āworse, bad, worseā cycle, and you donāt want the worse, so take the bad. Weāve covered: you donāt think good will win, so you wonāt vote for them, and because you wonāt vote for them you donāt think theyāll win, so vote bad.
Actually, just go away. You announced your departure 5 hours ago. Youāve tried to dismiss me in every āthought terminatingā way you could. Why are you still here?! Why āwaste your timeā? Why, if I lack the ability to learn do you still harass me? Please leave me alone.
Why āwaste your timeā? Why, if I lack the ability to learn do you still harass me?
So real leftists didnāt fall for your counterproductive drivel, obviously. I think Iām satisfied now, no oneās reading this far down your fallacious, nonsensical rants. Iām gone for good now.
Yes, it has, fundamentally. Your whole argument rests on the decision to do the thing being inconsequential to the outcome. If changing the thing you do has some effect on the outcome, then the whole thing falls apart. If doing some other thing raises the chances of a better outcome, then the whole āmay as wellā argument fundamentally doesnāt work anymore.
If you canāt see that then this is a waste of time.
I oppose genocide. I also oppose actions which make genocide worse, obviously, because I oppose genocide. It does not matter to me that the person helping to make the genocide worse was trying to make it better, if their actions help to make it worse then I oppose those actions. I feel like Iām repeating myself .
And, again, I didnāt say they werenāt. They used effective methods, I applaud them. You are suggesting ineffective, and in fact counterproductive, methods. Do not equate your mealy-mouthed performative protest vote to the real action and sacrifice that actually accomplished something in the fight for civil rights.
Different country, different system, still irrelevant no matter how many times you repeat it.
No? I never criticized them at all. Where are you getting this?
I support direct action that opposes genocide. Intent is unimportant to me. Actions with intent, but without the ability to actually oppose, are materially performative. I oppose the substitution of performative grandstanding for actual strategy, especially when itās actively counterproductive to achievable progress.
I feel you have. That tends to happen when you ignore the other half of a conversation in favor of repetition.
Iām not sure youāve extended the courtesy of empathy that you think you have.
For all our sakes, I sincerely hope they do not. I hope they are intelligent enough to understand the American electoral system, and choose an effective means to establish something good.
Politics is the one field where the little guys are the ones who elect leadership. No one said it was their fault, but it is their responsibility. Thereās plenty of propaganda to influence their decision, but it is still their decision.
I agree. The fact that you havenāt changed your approach to consider any of my responses, and instead have attempted to change my responses to support your approach, displeases me. It always displeases me to encounter deeply counterproductive leftists.
Iām a leftist, I want leftism to prevail, and every counterproductive leftist is two steps back in accomplishing that goal. It gives me no pleasure to have these disagreements. To be honest it fills me with a sort of malaise, a sad realization that the people on my side are so often so incompetent that they get in their own way. I had a naĆÆve hope that I might see real leftist progress in my life. But seeing my comrades Iām less hopeful by the day.
When the alternative major party is not more genocidal, and also much worse in many other ways, or it loses its status as a major party, I can easily be convinced. Before that, voting for the slightly less bad option is still the only rational choice. Let me know if you wanna help it lose that status.
Oh sure! Women, immigrants, LGBT, anyone who isnāt a white male millionaire really. Theyād all be better off under the other party. No one I care about is better off right now than they wouldāve been under the alternative.
No? Because they donāt poll well. Because pretending Duvergerās Law doesnāt exist doesnāt make it so.
Stop trying to make voting do things it doesnāt do. Vote strategically, and redirect this energy to direct action. Join your local DSA, talk to your co-workers about unionizing, engage with your community, participate in local politics. There are many options available to you. The option you are promoting is not only ineffective, it is counterproductive. I feel like Iām trusting myself.
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 ādidnāt criticizeā people who protested genocide, in a comment full of critising them as āineffectiveā and āperformativeā. Even if you didnāt then, you are now. Itās all same-same. Youāre saying the same things now as otherās, if not you, were saying then. Which was my point you asked for a thing, they did that thing already, it isnāt 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. Thatās irrelevant of probability. Will/may it doesnāt 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 donāt 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 doesnāt 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 isnāt valid: theyāre āconfusedā, āineffectiveā, āperformativeā, no lessons there either. No lessons for you anywhere, there are only your values, and thereās no empathy to understand otherās.
Even after all that, I still get it, the devil you know is at least known. āDamage controlā is a valid position to have. I get it, I really do.
Chatgptās 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 āthe bad thingā (voting Dem) and not doing it (voting third party) both lead to genocide, then your argument collapses under its own weight ā because the outcome doesnāt change, only the story you tell yourself about it.
You keep treating symbolic dissent as āperformative,ā but voting for genocide because you think itās strategic is the ultimate performance. Itās the act of saying āI hate thisā while continuing to fund, empower, and normalize it. Youāre 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 ā Iāve acknowledged it several times. What I donāt get is how you can accept āsome genocideā as a strategy. Thatās not damage control; thatās complicity with a more polite version of the same harm.
They used effective methods, I applaud them. Those methods werenāt āeffectiveā until they became effective ā after years of being ridiculed, arrested, and told their actions were ācounterproductive.ā Youāre praising history while ignoring the lesson it teaches.
Politics is the one field where the little guys are the ones who elect leadership. No ā the little guys ratify leadership. They donāt choose it. Youāre describing consent manufacturing as choice. You donāt get to blame voters for a system designed to contain them.
Stop trying to make voting do things it doesnāt do. Exactly. Voting doesnāt end genocide. Itās a participation checkbox, not a moral shield. You can vote defensively if you like ā thatās your right ā but donāt pretend itās resistance. Resistance is what happens outside the ballot box.
You say you want progress; I do too. But progress doesnāt come from treating moral triage as if it were justice. āLess badā is not a destination. Itās an anaesthetic.
If you ever decide you want to build something genuinely good, not just postpone the next collapse, youāll find me there ā still doing the good thing, even if āthe bad thing may happen anyway.ā
I donāt 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 Iām not engaging further with someone whoās either arguing in bad faith or literally incapable of understanding basic reasoning.
When you can understand basic reasoning, join the grownups. Bye.
Really? A āno uā? Grown up indeed.
Remember kids, when someone disagrees with you in a way you canāt handle. Itās not the time for introspection; theyāre āconfusedā, āgrandstandingā, āperformativeā, āineffectiveā and ājuvenileā. - The rationalist guide to argument.
That isā¦ an improbably ironic response. Like I said, a waste of time.
Remember kids, when youāre losing an argument, thatās not time for introspection. It was a āwaste of timeā - a rationalistās guide to argument.
What does it mean when someone says ābyeā and doesnāt 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 doesnāt work, and refusing to examine your own flawed logic.
Itās not a waste of time because Iām losing, because Iām not. Itās a waste of time because your points are so bad and incoherent that youāre either acting in bad faith, or youāre not capable of engaging with logic.
Youāre not an ally, youāre an agent provocateur, the left doesnāt need you.
You cannot even be trusted to leave when you say youāre 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 rationalistās guide to argument
No, actually what gives? Imagine trying to claim any amount of bad faith on my part when you canāt 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. Youāve tried to dismiss me in every āthought terminatingā way you could. Why are you still here?! Why āwaste your timeā? Why, if I lack the ability to learn do you still harass me? Please leave me alone.
So real leftists didnāt fall for your counterproductive drivel, obviously. I think Iām satisfied now, no oneās reading this far down your fallacious, nonsensical rants. Iām gone for good now.