lennybird @ lennybird @lemmy.world

Posts

6

Comments

2,540

Joined

2 yr. ago

Uh, what?

The judge specifically said it was rape, didn't they?

Simple. Truthful. This needs to be repeated everywhere.

Yeah not reading that lol. Sad troll. Tagged. Bye, bye little tankie.

lol what a peculiar fella. Have a good day.

lol no fucking shit? This is a meta-discussion. I didn't know I was talking to a Trump supporter. Thought we could discuss like adults, but clearly not.

Is that real world enough for you?

So, your plan is to waste debate time and call yourself a Socialist.

No. That is a mischaracterization and oversimplification of what I wrote (like how did you get that from my second paragraph?). I'm already going to be called a socialist; and until the word and others like it are unpacked, they will always be used to fearmonger. Best to address it head-on and take away the power to demonize. I mean just see how many times Mamdani was asked about it during his latest interviews, including with NPR. You have to confront it because it's a curiosity with the unknown for so many people.

At its core, you must rewire the literal circuitry of people's brains to link policies -> socialism, or better yet, Nordic model. But if you don't strongly link these policies to a ideological package, people will feel adrift. It's why political parties are so attractive. People like pigeon-holing things. Granted, I would also say that I am not a socialist, but a social democrat and strong advocate of a mixed Nordic Model economy— which itself is overwhelmingly more palatable for swing-voters, and even some Trump supporters I've talked with.

Why not do something like say “This is what Ike backed back when he was President. Are you calling Ike a Communist?”

I'm open to saying that; but neither is that mutually-exclusive to what I intended to say. And if it was Trump I'm debating, he probably would say "yes, that Ike was a communist" or "no Ike couldn't be a commie, he was a Republican!" And then ramble on incoherently about cats & dogs.

No doubt, you need quick-witted quips back in debates that go on the attack, I agree. In fairness my response is probably better suited for a town hall or interview.

As far as my decision-making on that would go, I think it would depend on if the actual electorate is believing that mischaracterization, and if I have access to actually respond directly to those people or not.

In a debate for instance, I'd aim to hand-wave that away in dismissal but then pivot and say, "let's talk about what I really envision for our country and you can tell me if that sounds good to you....[explains]... And so for these great things, you'll probably end up asking, "but how will we pay for it? [explains ROI, our excess costs now, the amount of wealth of the billionaire class and corporate coffers, etc.]"

If after that the debate moderator or opponent continues to push hard on, "but are you a socialist. Are you a communist!?" I'd take that as an invitation to say explain the differences and how the happiest countries of the world are properly mixed economies between the spectrum of socialism to laissez-faire capitalism.

I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately the amount of right-wing propaganda out there will label any real challenger as being socialist whether that's Mamdani or the "radical marxist socialist commie" that was... Kamala Harris?

So progressives must decide whether they hide from the term, enabling the fearmongering, or openly embracing it to show there is nothing wrong with it.

Second to that, I feel they should be pivoting the questions not just to policy but to definitionally explain the notion of socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracies; how in reality — as in actual, realized, tangible results, not utopian fantasies — some of the happiest and most successful countries by the data are ones who embraced a properly mixed economy; that is, social democracies or the Nordic Model.

I recently had what was maybe one of my biggest wins in a conversation with a maga by explaining it this way. They're so damn confused and believe all trade and bartering, all markets, and any scale of monetary income will vanish. That big bad guv'mint isn't necessarily so bad when it's protected from outsized corporate and billionaire power and firmly in the hands Of the People.

This is neither sustainable for Russia nor does anything but further galvanize Ukrainians against the Russian terrorist invader.

They clearly learned nothing from London stoicism.

One underestimates the power and scope of right-wing propaganda, and especially how it taps into machismo idolization, sadly.

Remember that these are the cultists who look at daily weather to disprove climate change. Recognizing overall trends is not their strongsuit.

I assume embarrassment on the world stage helped move this along given the Olympics?

The problem is that last one:

The vast majority of Americans (80%) support the U.S. government’s deportation of migrants without permanent legal status who have been convicted of a violent crime.

How far can "violent" and "conviction" be stretched in order to justify wrongful deportations?

Hence your substantive engagement on what I did mention?

I dish back that which has been dished out.

Never claimed this.

Implied.

Never claimed this.

So you are saying Democrats and Harris would've been better?

None of this is about hate, it’s about which policy decisions are better than others.

And Harris had overall better policy decisions, correct?

Again, never claimed.

So you agree Harris had overall better policy decisions, correct?

Everything you’re saying comes across as being less about “how do we improve things” and more “I need someone to be angry at.” I would propose directing that anger at the politicians instead of your fellow voters.

The two notions aren't mutually-exclusive. You see, in order to improve things, fools asserting defeatist false equivalence fallacy rhetoric need to learn from their disastrous mistakes. Because you're the one responsible, that is making you a bit uncomfortable, I suspect.

I would propose making fewer logical fallacies next election cycle.

If I was religious I would definitely think he was the devil quoting scripture.

Compounding deflections now, I see. Was a pretty simple question, really.

If we're going with blind attacks then I think Ivanov has hit the vodka a little too heavy today, maybe?

I love how you dodged more than half of the issues, knowing you didn't have jack shit. Respectfully, of course.

Sounds like one is complicit in genocide with respect to both climate change and Ukraine.

(by the way: you love mamdani; if they're all the same, why did he run as a Democrat? You should hate him too, right? So I guess they're not all the same and Democrats are, objectively better, is that right?)

So you're condoning genocide and dodging the fact that Democrats were objectively better for the people of Ukraine?

Classic deflection.

Because it's irrelevant. Even entertaining collusion, your argument that we cut out the middleman and hand the keys to the GOP is unquestionably worse in every logical way.

Last I checked, Dems gave more aid to Ukraine. Are you saying you're complicit on the Russian genocide against Ukraine?

You're the reason we have Trump. Absurd.

Criticism of Dems, specifically false equivalence botherism, was objectively disinfo. We know Israel and Russia have troll farms that supported Republicans, and many people including yourself lapped up that rhetoric. Doesn't matter if you're a US citizen or not. You helped amplify the propaganda. So thanks for that.

Billions in aid to Gaza and West Bank even through 2022 prove the point regardless, but sure: https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-usaid-gaza-ceasefire-0a56d5d591c249eb5e44ba29c9adaa3e

You still didn't answer: do you not care about all those issues?