A socialist who advocates entryism into US electoral politics is confused and probably not a socialist. You haven’t even heard of Luxemburg’s essay, a staple of early reading lists. Have you consumed any socialist theory, not through an LLM? What in your head makes you a socialist in the same breath you, in your own words, vote for genocide of the Palestinian people?
Is it Gavin? Kamala? Who’s next? You’re a Westerner roleplaying as a leftist. You will never convince a leftist to sponsor a genocide like you have. It’s not happening now, or ever. The idea that you see benefit in voting for a genocidal administration means you’re so much farther right than you’ll probably ever realize. Your harm reduction theory will go down in history as complicity.
You respond so angrily and accusatorily. Why would I reply with an lol if you are actually making an attempt at communication? Why do you assume I use LLMs? I have given zero indication that either of those beliefs would be true. You are showing yourself to be someone that comes up with a view that you don’t change despite all signs pointing to it being wrong. Either you are a troll, or your preferred method of discussion is to speak loudly with fingers in your ears.
I’ve read plenty of socialist theory, but I have never gone through a socialist reading list. Plenty of derivative works cover the same stuff as that pamphlet.
And again, you seem to be purposefully ignoring my point, likely because you’ve already decided what you think I believe, and are unwilling to change that view despite me telling you you are wrong.
I don’t advocate for any candidates on either side. There is no candidate that I back. If I could start the revolution myself tomorrow, I would. But I can’t. No one can. The way I see it, the revolution won’t come due to who you do or do not vote for. If you disagree, explain why. Tell me, what are you accomplishing by not voting? That’s what I’ve been asking since the very beginning, and yet you, for some reason, choose to continue being uncouth and not actually engaging in this conversation.
You seem to think I’m upset. I’ve been enjoiying our chat. I’ve been on the internet long enough to not let some random troll get on my nerves. I’m just genuinely curious in what logic lead you to your decision. Now, I’ve already said what I accomplished by voting. But you should know that, as you have presumably been reading my responses. If you aren’t going to answer my question in your next response, I’m going to have to call it here. I’m patient, but my enjoyment of this conversation was from the pretense that you would eventually stop your seething and barking and actually open up on your thoughts around voting. From your current behaviour, I’m disappointed to say I can’t see that happening. I’ll just have to find someone else with your same stance that is actually up for a discussion.
I will never, for even a second, back down from liberals. Your ideology is shameful, and you know that because you’re trying to pass yourself off as a socialist.
You sponsor genocide and try to justify it in bad faith. You got called out and dismantled and all you have left is “muh civility”. And now you’ve run out of steam.
So just to be clear, the reason you didn’t vote is that you won’t back down to liberals? Sounds a lot like "owning the libs, " which is the reason I see a lot for why people voted for Trump. I mean, it’s finally a reason I guess. Thank you for sharing.
Earlier you referenced the trolley problem. In the standard trolley problem setup, do you think that the morally correct move is to not touch the lever?
I don’t argue in bad faith. I’m not being malicious or dishonest. I genuinely feel that, as folks who are voting-eligible in the US, we are in a form of the trolley problem. I don’t know how it could be seen any other way.
As for being called out and dismantled, you haven’t even contested my decision besides saying it’s wrong. That’s not an argument. I want to see some logic behind why you condemn a choice, and logic as to why your choice is better. If it’s because voting leads to genocide, I want to hear your explanation on why not voting doesn’t lead to genocide. Considering that, by your own admission, you make voting decisions based around “not backing down to liberals”, maybe you really don’t hold that opinion with any logic to back it.
For a scoialist, you are very focused on specific candidates. I’m not going to tell you who to vote for, I don’t think of things in that way. When it comes time to vote, I suggest voting for whoever you personally think will lead to the most harm reduction, as it’s the only good option I see us having. Expecting more from the system is putting more faith into capitalism than it deserves. Last presidential election, I felt that was Kamala, and honestly not by much, but I’d genuinely like to hear why you may have thought that not voting would be the least harmful option.
A socialist who advocates entryism into US electoral politics is confused and probably not a socialist. You haven’t even heard of Luxemburg’s essay, a staple of early reading lists. Have you consumed any socialist theory, not through an LLM? What in your head makes you a socialist in the same breath you, in your own words, vote for genocide of the Palestinian people?
Is it Gavin? Kamala? Who’s next? You’re a Westerner roleplaying as a leftist. You will never convince a leftist to sponsor a genocide like you have. It’s not happening now, or ever. The idea that you see benefit in voting for a genocidal administration means you’re so much farther right than you’ll probably ever realize. Your harm reduction theory will go down in history as complicity.
Time for a “lol”?
You respond so angrily and accusatorily. Why would I reply with an lol if you are actually making an attempt at communication? Why do you assume I use LLMs? I have given zero indication that either of those beliefs would be true. You are showing yourself to be someone that comes up with a view that you don’t change despite all signs pointing to it being wrong. Either you are a troll, or your preferred method of discussion is to speak loudly with fingers in your ears.
I’ve read plenty of socialist theory, but I have never gone through a socialist reading list. Plenty of derivative works cover the same stuff as that pamphlet.
And again, you seem to be purposefully ignoring my point, likely because you’ve already decided what you think I believe, and are unwilling to change that view despite me telling you you are wrong.
I don’t advocate for any candidates on either side. There is no candidate that I back. If I could start the revolution myself tomorrow, I would. But I can’t. No one can. The way I see it, the revolution won’t come due to who you do or do not vote for. If you disagree, explain why. Tell me, what are you accomplishing by not voting? That’s what I’ve been asking since the very beginning, and yet you, for some reason, choose to continue being uncouth and not actually engaging in this conversation.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with refusing to sponsor genocide, and everything wrong with the opposite.
You are a confused SocDem who readily admits to intentionally voting for genocide. To not antagonize you would be a failure of ethics.
I just want to understand your stance. What are you accomplishing by not voting?
What did you accomplish by voting? You sold your soul for a game you didn’t even win. It’s no wonder you’re so agitated by my ethics.
You seem to think I’m upset. I’ve been enjoiying our chat. I’ve been on the internet long enough to not let some random troll get on my nerves. I’m just genuinely curious in what logic lead you to your decision. Now, I’ve already said what I accomplished by voting. But you should know that, as you have presumably been reading my responses. If you aren’t going to answer my question in your next response, I’m going to have to call it here. I’m patient, but my enjoyment of this conversation was from the pretense that you would eventually stop your seething and barking and actually open up on your thoughts around voting. From your current behaviour, I’m disappointed to say I can’t see that happening. I’ll just have to find someone else with your same stance that is actually up for a discussion.
I will never, for even a second, back down from liberals. Your ideology is shameful, and you know that because you’re trying to pass yourself off as a socialist.
You sponsor genocide and try to justify it in bad faith. You got called out and dismantled and all you have left is “muh civility”. And now you’ve run out of steam.
Is it Gavin?
So just to be clear, the reason you didn’t vote is that you won’t back down to liberals? Sounds a lot like "owning the libs, " which is the reason I see a lot for why people voted for Trump. I mean, it’s finally a reason I guess. Thank you for sharing.
Earlier you referenced the trolley problem. In the standard trolley problem setup, do you think that the morally correct move is to not touch the lever?
I don’t argue in bad faith. I’m not being malicious or dishonest. I genuinely feel that, as folks who are voting-eligible in the US, we are in a form of the trolley problem. I don’t know how it could be seen any other way.
As for being called out and dismantled, you haven’t even contested my decision besides saying it’s wrong. That’s not an argument. I want to see some logic behind why you condemn a choice, and logic as to why your choice is better. If it’s because voting leads to genocide, I want to hear your explanation on why not voting doesn’t lead to genocide. Considering that, by your own admission, you make voting decisions based around “not backing down to liberals”, maybe you really don’t hold that opinion with any logic to back it.
For a scoialist, you are very focused on specific candidates. I’m not going to tell you who to vote for, I don’t think of things in that way. When it comes time to vote, I suggest voting for whoever you personally think will lead to the most harm reduction, as it’s the only good option I see us having. Expecting more from the system is putting more faith into capitalism than it deserves. Last presidential election, I felt that was Kamala, and honestly not by much, but I’d genuinely like to hear why you may have thought that not voting would be the least harmful option.
I thought you were done? Can’t help yourself, eh? Now you’re asking me trolley problem shit and talking about harm reduction.
Sheesh. Totally and thoroughly cooked. You’re metaphorically short circuiting like all liberals do when pressed on Gaza.