497
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago

That's a pretty strange thing to disagree with. It's very straightforward logic so it would take quite a bit of evidence to put it in doubt.

And I have no idea what evidence you're looking at but I know what evidence you're not looking at, for example, the rise of Hitler in Germany. As the status quo became worse and worse, more people turned away from the establishment parties and to the far-right (and to the far-left, unfortunately to a lesser extent), which brought about the end of the republic. You can see similar cases in most every fascist state that has ever existed. I would very much like to know which historical examples you are looking at that don't support my third statement.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 days ago

Oh, I thought you were talking about people abandoning the status quo for the left. I do not contest that frustrated people flock to fascism. Your strategy is excellent at driving people to fascism, I've been saying that from the start.

Do we not agree that flocking to fascism is bad? In that case yeah, our goals are definitely not aligned.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

That's a deliberate mischaraterization of my position. There is not a single thing I've said anywhere that could possibly be construed into what you said.

Obviously, people flocking to fascism is bad. But that is what's going to happen so long as what passes for the left is aligned with the declining status quo. That's why the only two possibilities for stopping fascism are implementing policies that will actually stop the decline, or creating a leftist party that can criticize the establishment while offering a non-fascist explanation of the decline and how to fix it.

Since you retracted your disagreement with my third statement, I'll ask again - which of my three statements is wrong?

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 days ago
  1. Your strategy is for people to get fed up with the status quo (Dems) and unseat them for good.

  2. You cite examples of how this plays out in fascist states all the time.

Seems like a justified characterization.

My rejection is entirely contingent on your rejection of what I had mistakenly presumed was an implicit assumption: the goal is to disrupt the status quo with a leftist power, not a fascist one.

If you reject that assumption, then sure, you are doing exactly the right thing to help unseat the status quo with a fascist power.

If you want to adopt that assumption, then no I still disagree with your third statement.

All the examples you could think of were specifically fascist. The strategy doesn't work for leftists, it specifically breeds fascism. There's no evidence of this strategy replacing the status quo with leftists.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Your strategy is for people to get fed up with the status quo (Dems) and unseat them for good.

Liar. Where did I claim this?

What I've said, that you're deliberately mischaraterizing, is that people will inevitably get fed up with the status quo (Dems) and turn to fascism, unless something is done to stop it, either the Dems enacting the necessary policies or people moving to a new party, which are what I advocate for. In other words, the exact opposite of what you're characterizing my position as.

Is this all you have? You can't actually find fault with my reasoning, so finding yourself backed into a corner you just try to lie and slander your way out of it?

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 days ago

unless something is done to stop it, which is what I advocate for

Water on the grease fire

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 days ago

So you've given up even trying to argue now.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 days ago

Like I said

I'm not gonna nuh-uh-yuh-huh with someone who doesn't understand elections

I made my point, it remains valid. You're throwing water on a grease fire because it's obvious to you that water puts out fire.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

The only reason you're talking about "nuh-uh-yuh-huh" is because you can't make a coherent argument beyond that.

Your "point" is grounded in deliberate lies and mischaracterization.

Me: If I see something that's going to start a house fire, I should try to stop it or put it out, or, failing that, plan around the house fire occuring.

You: Your strategy is for the house to burn down.

In what way is that not a blatant and deliberate lie?

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

If I see something that's going to start a house fire, I should try to stop it or put it out, or, failing that, plan around the house fire occuring.

You see a grease fire on the stove (shortcomings of the duopolistic system), you know that water puts out fire (voting for a candidate is how they get elected), and you refuse to let any words sway you from throwing water on the grease fire (voting for a spoiler candidate in a FPTP election).

The only blatant and deliberate lie here was when you claimed to have supported this strategy with any logic or evidence. In fact you demonstrated yourself how, historically, it's led to fascism every time.

You are not a serious person. Clearly we've gotten far enough down the chain that there are no naive leftist passers by left to debunk your nonsense for. I'm not wasting any more time thrashing a position you've already said you can't be reasoned out of. I hope you're at least getting paid well to be such a freckles class traitor.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 days ago

You're just spewing lies left and right without defending yourself at all. You know that every word you're saying is a blatant lie and you just don't care.

The only blatant and deliberate lie here

This is just you going "nuh uh" again. You can't defend what you said at all, so you just assert it wasn't a lie without backing it up at all.

In fact you demonstrated yourself how, historically, it’s led to fascism every time.

I haven't actually done this. Of course, what you lie and call a """strategy""" is actually just a recognition of trends beyond my ability to control. Those trends do not always lead to fascism, but when fascism emerges, it's generally because of a failure to stop that trend.

To be clear, your blatant, knowing lie is claiming that by recognizing a trend I'm somehow responsible for it.

Absolutely incredible for you to accuse me of being unreasonable, or a class traitor, or being paid off, when you're defending the powerful through lies and bad faith.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 days ago

Sounds like projection from a class traitor to me.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago

Sounds like someone caught in a lie to me.

[-] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)
[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago

Why do you love "nuh uh"-ing so much and then you complain about it? If you don't like it then you shouldn't do it. Maybe you were lying about not liking that just like you lied about everything else. Idk why people in your camp always lie so much.

this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
497 points (90.0% liked)

Political Memes

5381 readers
1852 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS