Look they first thing I’m confused about is why you started your comment with a sympathetic viewpoint to North Korea, like I would’nt open my essay about how nuclear energy is good with Chernobyl wasnt that bad. Your basically delegitimising everying else after that

That's a perfect demonstration of my point. The only thing I said about North Korea is that there are fake stories about it, which is true. I have no interest in saying or tolerating false claims just to make my position seem more appealing, or to avoid being accused of something. If speaking truth delegitimizes me somehow, if it makes people think I'm a bad person or something, then so be it, it doesn't change what's true.

And then I disagree with the false and exaggerated claims unchallenged part. What exactly do you mean. This seems like a catch all to dismiss anything that you disagree with.

I linked a video to give an example of what I was talking about. I recommend watching it, it's a little long but it's informative while being entertaining and well-produced (it has 3.6 million views with good reason). The video describes a story that was very widespread in the media with lots of mainstream sources talking about it, which claimed that everyone in North Korea had to get the same haircut as Kim Jong Un. That story was completely and totally false, it was a wholesale fabrication. The two guys in the video travel to North Korea and get a perfectly normal haircut to disprove it. It also mentions several other stories that turned out to be fake news.

You're jumping to conclusions when you say that I "use it as a catch-all to dismiss anything I disagree with." I'm not going to dismiss claims that are actually backed by evidence, but I am going to investigate whether there is actually evidence backing up a given claim.

More importantly, because the only state you’ve mentioned is North Korea I’m now prompted to assume the AES’s you’re talking about is north Korea.

That's a silly assumption, as there'd be no need for a term like that if it only applied to one country. AES states also include for example Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, China, and the USSR (prior to it's collapse).

Whomst amongus could've predicted that you couldn't answer?

I never claimed that the Republicans are not unreasonable. As you say, the Tea Party was very unreasonable, and republicans at that time stonewalled Obama, despite his all of his attempts at reasonable compromise. That's my point, it isn't new.

My issue is that the narrative of reasonableness is tied to the status quo. When the status quo is failing, then people will be more prone to drastic changes then staying the course. If the two sides are "the status quo" and "not the status quo," then the worse the status quo gets, the more prone people will be to consider the "not the status quo" option. If you think things are generally headed in the right direction, I suppose that's fine, but if you feel, as I do, that conditions are deteriorating, then that's a problem, and if that continues, then it becomes inevitable that the strongest "not the status quo" option is going to win, whether now or later.

That's why I think it's a better strategy for the left to embrace progressive policies in a very bold way, in order to present an alternative vision of the future that is distinct from both the status quo and the far-right. Those policies would be the best chance of setting us on a positive path that would prevent things from falling into chaos, while also offering an alternative to the failing capitalist status quo that isn't fascism. Because the road we're on currently makes fascism an inevitability.

If what you say is true, and the democrats are now assured victory on the basis of being the only reasonable party left, then why is this election still a toss-up?

Integrity, lmao. Some people just really don't like being proven wrong, I guess.

Then I can't imagine what kind of worries reading Jonathan Swift would give you.

Huh didnt you beginn the whole comment by telling you “have bunch of cats”?

Woosh.

Yeah no shit, but the number would be even higher if fewer people were vegan.

I didn’t choose to term anti-science beliefs as reality. Society did, and then I went along with it so as not to be incomprehensible to you. If by “reality”, we mean “An objectively extant world”, then there’s no such thing, and I oppose belief in such a thing. But if by reality we mean “The world society thinks is objectively extant”, then that thing is anti-science.

That which has the potential to smack you if you pretend it doesn't exist is objectively real. It is nonsense to say that that is not real or that anything else is more real than that. There is no "world society thinks is objectively extant." Society contains a lot of people who disagree on a lot of things. Scientists and supporters of trans rights are part of society.

Please don’t begrudge me for accepting your premise that consensus reality is reality.

Never said that. That's your position, isn't it? My position is that there is an objective reality that exists regardless of what people believe.

Cause the brain doesn’t work like that, you dipshit. Didn’t I say our perceptual reality is governed by cognitive laws? Cognitive laws don’t allow me to just do that. Weren’t you paying attention, or do you just have a kindergartener’s understanding of psychology?

Sorry, I suppose I've only been schooled in laws that, uh, actually exist and are observable and testable. I suppose I do have a kindergartener's understanding of these magical psychic laws you've made up, I know nothing about how they supposedly work, please excuse my ignorance.

Swing and a miss. Try going in the opposite direction.

Which was probably the intent from the start.

Are you a Maoist?

Hillary Clinton thank you for bringing that up. What do you think the window would be if Hillary Clinton won? Easy, it would be further left. You’re making my case for me.

Instead Trump won and guess what happened to the Overton window? It went off the cliff to the right. And it’s still there because he won and could win again. You’re making this too easy.

It is, in fact, very easy to have a conversation when you're only having it with yourself.

If you agreed with everything I said, do you think that would make you more correct or less correct? That's right, more correct. Therefore I'm right. You're making my case for me, this is too easy, blah blah blah.

Sure, there could be some specific cases where they're correct. But if you can't say anything about elections unless it's generalizable to all circumstances, then you can't say anything about elections at all. I'm speaking generally.