“I’m allowed to call people idiots, fascists, etc. basically daily because I can justify it.” Everyone willing to dehumanize and denigrate others has what they believe to be validating reasons. I can’t stop you from trying to win people over by insulting everyone who disagrees, but I wanted to be a voice asking for kinder, calmer discourse a la the Bernie video I posted.
I can read your post history. I’m getting tired making the same point but insults are, as near as I can tell, your go-to and I don’t even know if you try anything else. You’ve insulted people disagreeing with you several times just today. I mean, look at how dismissive you are (kindness doesn’t work, flower power) of me and Senator Sander’s approach of using calmly delivered facts to win over those who will likely decide the upcoming election. It’s an attempt to make sure people are convinced you are a true defender of democracy and that your modus operandi of attacks are the only reasonable way to do it properly.
But whatever. I’ve made my point, given a solid example of what I think is a far more attractive approach that has worked for me and others, and that’s all I wanted to add to the conversation. Feel free to reiterate that I’m a idiotic hippy who will usher in unending fascism.
I can read your post history. I’m getting tired making the same point but insults are, as near as I can tell, your go-to and I don’t even know if you try anything else. You’ve insulted people disagreeing with you several times just today.
Just today? Funny thing is, today the only two arguments I’ve gotten into are “Is letting fascists into power actually bad?” (it is) and “Is genocide of Ukrainians wrong enough to do literally anything about?” (it is).
Sorry if you find that a disagreement worthy of respectful dialogue, but personally, I find neither fascism nor genocide to be respectable.
What did I say about being able to read your post history?
“But hey, since when are fascists internally consistent?”
“Democracy is. I didn’t realize that this metaphor was getting too complex for you.”
Here’s your post from today where you call LibLefts “useful idiots who serve above (authoritarians) only to be purged when the revolution is complete”. You also say they support terrorism, and their only solution to community violence is lynch mobs.
“It doesn’t matter. They don’t believe in democracy, much less convincing people. They’re vanguardist fascists, after all.”
“Wow. Literally saying the quiet part out loud - “As long as the Democrats are not 100% in line with my views, it’s okay to endorse inaction and the takeover of a fascist regime on the pretext that the Democrats Aren’t Good Enough™””
“I’m used to tankie whinging about how they can’t support fascist regimes without being called out.”
“The literal opposite of the truth. But I guess the guilt of having MLs backstab the leftist opposition so Fascist Spain could win hurts your point, huh?”
“Oh, they see the connection. They just want Republicans in office. They don’t give a fuck about the suffering of minorities, they just want the worst possible option in power so they can feel smug about “not supporting the system”.”
Those are all examples from just the last 2 hours, across multiple threads. The tragic thing is, I probably agree with a lot of your points. You really do appear to want to deliver those points with as much dehumanization and dismissal as possible however.
What did I say about being able to read your post history?
You mistake me. When I said “Just today?” I meant it as a preface to “I’ve only been in two arguments today, and neither of them were with causes worthy of respect - namely, support for fascism, and support for genocide”
Here’s your post from today where you call LibLefts “useful idiots who serve above (authoritarians) only to be purged when the revolution is complete”.
That’s a meme, man, of what is effectively a horoscope for political nerds, and it makes fun of all the quadrants.
“The literal opposite of the truth. But I guess the guilt of having MLs backstab the leftist opposition so Fascist Spain could win hurts your point, huh?”
I’m sorry, how am I supposed to respond to a blatant bad faith effort to spread historical misinformation? “That’s definitely true”?
how am I supposed to respond to a blatant bad faith effort to spread historical misinformation?
With facts and sources to back up those facts. You can disagree with someone in a civil manner. If you actually care about my point about delivery, please watch that Bernie video.
Your meme does indeed make fun of all quadrants, but I used it because it’s an example of the type of the insults. And let’s be honest, there’s evidence in those other posts that some of those opinions are not JUST satire for you. I mean, you called me out for being naively kind and employing “flower power”, aka chances are you think I’m one of the useful idiots.
Aside from that, like I said - I can’t stop you from insulting people. Your arguments seem to point to a belief in your right to do so. I don’t think I would force you even if I could since I usually try to convince people instead. If I didn’t change your mind, maybe I will change the minds of some others who may read this.
Historical misinformation spreads most readily simply by being repeated and undisputed.
You can disagree with someone in a civil manner.
Disagreeing with someone civilly acknowledges the validity of their point or position. Positions like “Genocide is okay to tolerate” or “Blatant historical misinformation spread in bad-faith and not ignorance” are not valid, and should not be acknowledged in a manner that implies they’re valid.
Your meme does indeed make fun of all quadrants, but I used it because it’s an example of the type of the insults. And let’s be honest, there’s evidence in those other posts that some of those opinions are not JUST satire for you.
I mean, no, but is “Every political position, even the one I’m part of, has flaws” really that bad in your eyes?
If I didn’t change your mind, maybe I will change the minds of some others who may read this.
Historical misinformation spreads most readily simply by being repeated and undisputed.
This is admittedly a bit nitpickey, but I specifically said you address misinformation with facts and sources to back up those facts. That’s the opposite of repeating and/or letting it go undisputed.
Disagreeing with someone civilly acknowledges the validity of their point or position.
No. You can say, emphatically, “you’re wrong” without also calling someone idiotic, etc.
is “Every political position, even the one I’m part of, has flaws” really that bad in your eyes?
I’ve said right from the start that I agree with some points you make, and I stand by that. Being aware that everyone is wrong sometimes is undeniably a virtue.
That’s the right approach, honestly.
Thank you :) I appreciate that, and respect that you’re willing to give me that even if we have had our disagreements today.
“I’m allowed to call people idiots, fascists, etc. basically daily because I can justify it.” Everyone willing to dehumanize and denigrate others has what they believe to be validating reasons. I can’t stop you from trying to win people over by insulting everyone who disagrees, but I wanted to be a voice asking for kinder, calmer discourse a la the Bernie video I posted.
Removed by mod
I can read your post history. I’m getting tired making the same point but insults are, as near as I can tell, your go-to and I don’t even know if you try anything else. You’ve insulted people disagreeing with you several times just today. I mean, look at how dismissive you are (kindness doesn’t work, flower power) of me and Senator Sander’s approach of using calmly delivered facts to win over those who will likely decide the upcoming election. It’s an attempt to make sure people are convinced you are a true defender of democracy and that your modus operandi of attacks are the only reasonable way to do it properly.
But whatever. I’ve made my point, given a solid example of what I think is a far more attractive approach that has worked for me and others, and that’s all I wanted to add to the conversation. Feel free to reiterate that I’m a idiotic hippy who will usher in unending fascism.
Just today? Funny thing is, today the only two arguments I’ve gotten into are “Is letting fascists into power actually bad?” (it is) and “Is genocide of Ukrainians wrong enough to do literally anything about?” (it is).
Sorry if you find that a disagreement worthy of respectful dialogue, but personally, I find neither fascism nor genocide to be respectable.
What did I say about being able to read your post history?
Those are all examples from just the last 2 hours, across multiple threads. The tragic thing is, I probably agree with a lot of your points. You really do appear to want to deliver those points with as much dehumanization and dismissal as possible however.
You mistake me. When I said “Just today?” I meant it as a preface to “I’ve only been in two arguments today, and neither of them were with causes worthy of respect - namely, support for fascism, and support for genocide”
That’s a meme, man, of what is effectively a horoscope for political nerds, and it makes fun of all the quadrants.
I’m sorry, how am I supposed to respond to a blatant bad faith effort to spread historical misinformation? “That’s definitely true”?
With facts and sources to back up those facts. You can disagree with someone in a civil manner. If you actually care about my point about delivery, please watch that Bernie video.
Your meme does indeed make fun of all quadrants, but I used it because it’s an example of the type of the insults. And let’s be honest, there’s evidence in those other posts that some of those opinions are not JUST satire for you. I mean, you called me out for being naively kind and employing “flower power”, aka chances are you think I’m one of the useful idiots.
Aside from that, like I said - I can’t stop you from insulting people. Your arguments seem to point to a belief in your right to do so. I don’t think I would force you even if I could since I usually try to convince people instead. If I didn’t change your mind, maybe I will change the minds of some others who may read this.
Historical misinformation spreads most readily simply by being repeated and undisputed.
Disagreeing with someone civilly acknowledges the validity of their point or position. Positions like “Genocide is okay to tolerate” or “Blatant historical misinformation spread in bad-faith and not ignorance” are not valid, and should not be acknowledged in a manner that implies they’re valid.
I mean, no, but is “Every political position, even the one I’m part of, has flaws” really that bad in your eyes?
That’s the right approach, honestly.
This is admittedly a bit nitpickey, but I specifically said you address misinformation with facts and sources to back up those facts. That’s the opposite of repeating and/or letting it go undisputed.
No. You can say, emphatically, “you’re wrong” without also calling someone idiotic, etc.
I’ve said right from the start that I agree with some points you make, and I stand by that. Being aware that everyone is wrong sometimes is undeniably a virtue.
Thank you :) I appreciate that, and respect that you’re willing to give me that even if we have had our disagreements today.
Ironically, for how often this dude calls others foreign plants, he uses British language like whinging, which in the US is spelled whining.