Permanently Deleted
irmoz @ irmoz @lemmy.world Posts 2Comments 245Joined 2 yr. ago
irmoz @ irmoz @lemmy.world
Posts
2
Comments
245
Joined
2 yr. ago
This will be the 1 (1) time I respond with much more than requesting you answer the very simple, non-loaded question.
Already lying, because you only continue to repeat yourself.
Two choices, actually. 1. To claim to be against genocide or not.
This is already established. We're already in agreement about the morality of genocide. If you genuinely thought any differently - and weren't just trying to bait me into a rhetorical trap, a low-effort "gotcha" - you wouldn't even be talking to me. Someone who is actually for genocide is not worth arguing with.
- To claim to support voting for genocidal candidates or not.
No, your bad-faith attempt at the Socratic Method is transparent. Let me walk you through the obvious scene you've constructed for me, that I refuse to play into:
You: Do you think you should support genocide or vote for genocide deniers?
Me: No.
You: So do you suggest voting for [insert random third party candidate] who pledges to end the genocide in Gaza 1?
Me: Not really, no.
You: Gasp! The contradiction! You say you should vote against genocide, yet are against those who want to stop the genocide!
1 - as soon as they manage to get more than 0.01% of votes some decades from now!
Does that about sum it up?
By the way, you never asked what I actually suggest. Even though I've already stated that. Though you dismissed it as posturing.
What you're doing is a motte-and-bailey defence. You ask if I support voting for those who would perpetuate genocide, presenting the vote as a choice between genocide and no genocide. Then when I point out this rhetorical flourish, you retreat to "no, I'm just asking a simple question of if you support genocide". It's incredibly dishonest and disingenuous.
I figure these go together so I put them together as joint. Based on your complaining, I have just done you a great service is unraveling my very simple question. It was otherwise indecipherable by mere mortals!
It's clear this is intended to come off as "faux arrogance", though nonetheless still supposed to make me feel silly for "not getting it". You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Nope, you’ve gone off to talk about your excuses for your unstated honest answer
I've already stated my honest answer. I do not support genocide, or support genocide deniers. I do, however, recognise that the situation is more complex than just that, and voting is not going to end this genocide. If you want real results, you need to take more drastic action and put your money where your mouth is. But, like I've said - you won't.
just like other liberals
No need for name-calling, here. Insults are uncouth.
choosing to leave an implication for the answer rather than direct and honest.
I've answered multiple times, though that answer is oddly missing from your quotes of my comment. Strange that you'd ignore that part of my comment, quite key to the discussion, considering its rather short length.
choosing to leave an implication for the answer rather than direct and honest.
The thing is, that might have been true earlier on, but not at this point where I verbatim said "no". Also, this is a disingenuous framing; I didn't merely "leave implications as to my answer" and nothing else. I also rejected the basis of your question, which is the appropriate response to a question you believe is unfounded. I do not have to "honestly answer" a question about my brother if I don't have a brother, for example. And in this instance, I refuse to allow the election to be framed as a simple choice between genocide and no genocide. You're not revealing any hypocrisy, you're instead refusing to deal with the complexities of the absolute shitshow that is your country's politics.
Be against genocide or for it.
I'm against it.
Vote for genocidal candidates or don’t.
I really wish it were that simple. But, if you vote for a candidate that isn't one of the two major ones, you are burying your head in the sand and living ina fantasy world where your electoral system actually works as it should and isn't completely wrapped up in bourgeois interests. They will not allow an actual party of the people to run. They will never listen to the voice of the proletariat. If you want to change that, voting isn't gonna work. You need to get off your ass and change the world with your comrades. But you won't.
Quite simple but you instead dwell on straw men and avoiding answering.
Completely empty accusation bereft of a clear example.
This is a common liberal behavior on this topic.
Again, baseless and irrelevant insult for no other reason than to attempt to upset me.
It comes from your discomfort with the honest answer that would match your dissembling.
Calling my words "dissembling" won't magically rewrite reality to make it come true. I'm telling you my honest take on this, and you're rejecting everything I'm saying for no other reason than the fact I'm calling out your naive view of the world.
You have such complete faith in the system, that you can simply vote the genocide away. What's more liberal than that?
Sure, you can deny this, come back at me and say, "no, I'm not saying that at all! That's just a straw man!"
But if that's not your point, then I'm sorry, but you don't even have a point. You keep repeating "vote for genocidal candidates or don't". If you don't actually mean those words, then you're just writing meaningless gibberish.
Painfully obviously a liberal.
Thing is, not only do you not have any evidence for this, but your reasoning concerning it is rather shaky. Instead of listening to what I actually say, you instead point to hidden meaning behind my words. And this hidden meaning isn't what you consider liberal - oh no, that would actually make sense as an argument - but you suggest that the mere presence of a hidden meaning (that, may I mention once more, you imagined) is itself a liberal trait. I quote again:
[...] just like other liberals, choosing to leave an implication for the answer rather than direct and honest.
I coulda sworn that a liberal was a person who believes in liberal democracy, aka bourgeois democracy, alongside other enlightenment values like individualism, freedom of speech, equality before law, and other fart-sniffing propaganda buzzwords, though most importantly a rabid devotion to capitalism and its surrounding ideology.
Many liberals ape the phrases but spend their time defending ruling class talking points and sheepdogging for genociders.
Interesting. Which talking points of theirs have I defended, and which genociders in particular have I "sheepdogged" for?
May I point you to the many times that I have denigrated the very institution you're defending participation in?
You can call my stated opinions "aping the phrases" if you want - which amounts to outright gaslighting in my estimation, considering I have zero faith in liberal democracy whatsoever, which is the reason I believe trying to actually start/support a party that goes against bourgeois interests is doomed to fail. The system is designed that way. Any party that gains power in this system is inevitably going to end up suborned to capital. It's just how it works. So, once more: either change the system or do the best you can within it. I'd prefer not to prolong the current horror show, but I'm not naive enough to think a real revolution is gonna happen any time soon.
May you someday cease being a traitor to that proletariat.
Oh, please. Stop with that baseless posturing. Your continued insistence that we actually try to embolden yet another future oppressor another political party within a fundamentally bourgeois establishment does not move me to thinking you're any kind of communist.
So, I await a yes or no answer to my simple and non-loaded question, liberal.
I guess third time's a charm, right?
Chicken tikka masala is literally the national dish. I don't get it either.
Asking that question implies there is actually a choice to be made. I've said this multiple times.
It also ignores that I've answered "no", twice.
"Do you want normal coffee of decaff?" Implies there is both normal and decaff coffee to be chosen from - else, why would they mention both?
Also - not a liberal. Rather odd thing to call someone who suggests that the proletariat should seize the means of production.
A question that asks me whether I agree with voting for genocide definitely assumes I am able not to. And if you acknowledge that it isn't possible - why ask? It's a useless question.
Also, this isn't "bad faith" or "dithering". Yet another of your dishonest techniques: accusing someone of being a troll just for challenging your assumptions.
Bad faith is asking someone a question then claiming you asked a totally different question. You're like a child asking "why can't I have a PS5?" over and over again, ignoring me when I say "we don't have enough money", as if that answer doesn't make sense to you.
It is a loaded question begging me to agree with you under threat of looking bad otherwise. Don't you dare try this again.
By the way - my answer to your question is already in the previous comment. It is "of course (if that were possible)".
Like - are you actually fucking stupid? Of course I would prefer not to vote for fucking genocide! Don't be simple. Don't be a fucking idiot. But things are not so simple. You either vote for genocide or throw away your vote. Those are your only options in this vote.
The context very well makes it clear you're assuming that. Of course it would be better if you could vote for a candidate that wasn't a bloodthirsty imperialist. But that's sadly your only realistic option in your shithole country. Voting third party will be pissing your vote into the wind.
Like I said, either rise up or vote.
At least you have guns over there. You don't have our excuse.
It is a loaded question. It assumes that there is a way to vote that will actually end the genocide.
Accept reality. Either choose your oppressor or remove them yourself.
"Shooting this dog will save the world. Take this gun. Will you shoot it?" Is also a yes or no question, but answering it entertains the notion that shooting the dog will save the world. The correct answer is "put the gun down, you're acting silly. Killing the dog won't save the world."
I fucking agree that both candidates are disasters for Palestine. But if you're really gonna try to challenge that beast, start organising for a grassroots movement to overthrow the entire corrupt bourgeois state to place the means of production in the hands of the proletariat.
But you won't. I know you won't. So in the meantime, you have to choose your best realistic option: vote. And you also have to be realistic when you vote. A third party candidate would need a genuine miracle to win at this stage, because they need serious momentum early on in the election season to have even a modicum of a chance at winning. And the FPTP system guarantees that only one of the two major parties will win.
So you're left with an imperialist who also wants to shit on their own country, and an imperialist who sort of paternalisticslly wants to "help" their country. Neither are great. Neither are even "good". But one stinks a little less.
I disagree that the situation is that simple.
I have no cognitive dissonance on this issue.
How naive of you to think it's that simple.
So now you're concerned with "looking cool". Your priorities are very strange.
This is not "extremely well understood". That is flat out misinformation. Your level of confidence on this is far beyond what any scientist or philosopher would admit.
That's the physicalist perspective, but there are other perspectives, and the philosophical debate on physicalism vs dualism is far from settled.
Plus, our scientific understanding of consciousness is far from comprehensive. We still have no idea how our experience actually emerges from neurological activity.
I mean.... that description quite accurately describes me. I'm a broken person who has become convinced capitalism is a major source of strife in today's world, and have come to believe in socialism as the answer.
However... that hasn't led me to champion authoritarian states that repress people. There must be a little something extra thrown in there. My guess would be an unacknowledged desire to replace their oppressors.
This reminds me, I wrote something on the subject once:
When you're privileged, and never had to fight for anything in life, you probably won't even recognise it when you see it happen right in front of you. In fact, you might even write it off as baseless antagonism, a thoughtless disruption of peace, and side with the oppressors.
"What do you mean he didn't pay you? He's an honourable man! He pays me, every friday, on the dot! You must be lying."
Even more insidiously, though, is the fact that, even if you do suffer and fight your whole life, you still may not see it as oppression. You may even begin to think it the natural order of things, even begin to value and love the suffering, as a trial that proves your worth in life, internalising the values of your oppressors, until even the thought of a better life becomes not only fantasy, but dangerous sacrilege.
"He didn't pay you? Of course he didn't pay you. Welcome to life. Pay? You want a blowjob with that, too? Get real."
And with this internalisation of your oppressors' values, this adoption of their mindset, and the unquestioning acceptance of the status quo in its current form, once enough does eventually become enough, and you finally get it into your head that things can change, the inevitable form of that change becomes a mirror image: yourself in the throne of oppressor, cracking the whip not only upon your former master, but also upon your former comrades (now, as ever, seen only as competition) for the simple reason that the throne exists, and must be filled, for why else should it exist, other than to seat a whipcracker?
"There's no law telling him to pay you, why are you even surprised? You expect him to do it out of the goodness of his heart? Of course not. And when I'm on top, I won't pay you either."
sImPLY OPErATiNg A MeAT GRInDER
A meat grinder needs meat, you dunce. Activating the grinder in this metaphor is invading Ukraine. "Throwing people in the grinder" is sending people to stop the grinder.
If a coup needed to happen to stop surrender...
Sounds like they were planning on surrendering, no?
You're doing absolutely nothing to back up your argument.
By talking about the effect (enshittification) instead of the cause (capitalism). One could read your initial comment and conclude that the only problem is enshittification, and not even think about capitalism as the cause, since you didn't mention it.