osarusan

Contrary to what you think, I’m not trying to provoke you. Yet you’ve been getting highly provoked anyway. My “shitting all over” your comment was actually me explaining to you how your stance does the exact opposite of what you think it does. I took the time to explain it in detail, and you didn’t acknowledge any of it. You just dug in deeper and took it personally almost to the point of having a meltdown.

I don’t know what else to tell you. I’ve been trying to have a discussion here, and it feels like you’re trying to have an argument. I haven’t seen any effort on your part to discuss genuinely, just fighting and moralizing. Any challenge to your position is taken as a personal insult, to which you then respond with hostility and dishonesty. That’s why I think you’re a troll.

It sounds like we both agree this was a waste of time, so let’s just let it end here. Next time we can both try to do better.

There it is again.

Look dude, if the shoe fits, wear it.

If you don’t want people to think you’re a troll, then do better than this.

Pointing out that your position is terrible is not an insult to you. Just another one of your dishonest arguments, like how you misrepresent every thing that is said to you instead of engaging with people honestly.

At this point, I can’t see you as anything other a troll. Talking to you is like talking to a religious fundamentalist. You have no respect for the other party you’re speaking to and only speak down from a position of moralistic arrogance.

And if you’re not a troll, then jesus… be better than this.

And there it is, just as predicted.

I’ve explained the solution to the problem, I’ve explained why holding your vote hostage doesn’t work the way you think it does, and I’ve explained how you’re being duped into supporting the end result you claim not to want above all else.

I don’t see any point in continuing this. You didn’t seem to read or acknowledge what I wrote, and just went and repeated the same thing all over again. It’s like you’ve put yourself up on a pedestal of moralizing ignorance and just plug your ears to everything that threatens to knock you off. I can’t force you to understand something if you don’t want to understand it, and I don’t feel like repeating myself over and over again when it won’t be acknowledged or read.

You’ll probably reply with some more insults and straw man arguments like you’ve been doing, but some other user whose mind isn’t closed with arrogance and whose thinking is not blinded by their own privilege might see then and realize just how blind, foolish, and self-defeating this purity position is.

Definitely it’s our duty to pressure him to change his mind. In fact, there are so many ways to do that. But holding your vote hostage is not one of them.

In fact, holding your vote hostage is just about the worst thing you could do, because 1) Biden will never know about it, since it amounts to a mere mathematical 1 or a 0 that doesn’t bring any information to him, and 2) it directly supports the election of a candidate who would bring more genocide. If genocide is your single-issue-vote, and it sounds like it is, then you are absolutely making the worst political choice you can. That’s not my opinion; that’s a mathematical fact.

You blue-no-matter-who voters have zero leverage and no voice.

Never was a more clueless statement expressed on lemmy.

My dude, like you said it is our duty to reach out to him and try to change his mind. Politics is not decided once every four years in the ballot box. That’s how presidents are decided. Politics is policy, and that is decided every day of the year. If you sit on your ass and every for years you make a protest vote in support of the greater evil, you are the exemplification of the “idiot swing voter” who is so dumb they vote against their own interest. In other words, the exact kind of person who the GOP bamboozles in order to retain their power.

If your goal is to minimize genocide, are you honestly comfortable playing the role of a stooge who actually helps bring about more and worse genocide???

Throw out this idea that a protest vote will do anything helpful at all. A protest vote mathematically helps to serve the person who you least want elected. This is a mathematical fact. For example, if you hate Democrats but you just don’t love Trump enough, so you do a protest vote for the Libertarian candidate, your ballot is actually doing more to help Biden! And conversely, if you absolutely don’t want Trump to win, but you don’t like Biden enough to vote for him so you do a protest vote for Greens, or a write-in for AOC, or whatever, you are actually giving support to Trump!

This is mathematical fact, not some opinion of mine and the other posters here. That’s what we’re trying to illustrate to you and those like you.

I sympathize with your position. I would prefer AOC, or Bernie, or some other candidate than Biden. But the election is a binary choice, and doing anything other than voting for candidate A or candidate B works out mathematically to supporting the candidate you favor the least.

So back to holding Biden’s feet to the fire. Do that. Always do that. March, sign petitions, be an activist. Write emails to Biden. Write to your senators and House representatives. Be active in politicians beyond pressing a button once every four years. That’s how you make a difference.

And if you actually care about genocide as much as you post about it, then please grasp the undeniable reality that a protest vote actually undermines your own cause.

I’m pretty sure that Biden is a reasonable politician who has shown over and over again throughout his long career that he both listens to people and that he is willing to change is mind. He’s done so time and time again.

Man it’s unfortunate that you privileged moralizing purists are not as reasonable as Biden. You guys absolutely refuse not to support more and worse genocide for some awfully stupid reason. I would love to see you change your mind and actually work towards the greater good.

If you can choose between “less genocide” and “more genocide” and you don’t choose “less genocide,” then you have absolutely no moral high ground to stand on.

Look, if pointing out this issue gets you this angry, it should be a clear sign that deep down you understand the problem and your cognitive dissonance is deafening you to it. Refusing to have a conversation and just resorting to tantrums and namecalling is a bad look, and it betrays the emptiness of your moralizing.

A vote for Biden does more to help Palestinians than your support for Trump does.

Man. Imagine having not only the privileged arrogance you demonstrate in your previous post, but also the blind conceit to accuse others of hypocrisy when you can’t even see how the consequences of your own actions lead to more harm for the people you claim to care about.

You’re broadcasting “let them eat cake” levels of arrogant privilege.

but we’d all live.

This is actually not the case.

But you, yes, your privileged ass probably will live and be fine. Plenty of other people will be much worse off or even dead under Trump. So feel good and pat yourself about supporting Trump instead of voting for a better world, but spare the rest of us your privileged arrogance.

You should feel shame if your inaction supports the greatest evil.

In a way, there’s an argument to be made there. If you’re not doing everything you can to help defeat evil, then you are allowing that evil some amount of support.

On the other hand, your vote is black and white. By not voting for the one person who has an actual chance to beat Trump, your actions are inarguably are supporting Trump.

These “red line” commenters are so blinded by their own purity tests that they can’t see they’re actually supporting the greater genocide. Every thread here on lemmy is full of them, and they all make the same case, but they refuse to acknowledge the actual reality, which is that not voting for the one person who has an actual chance to beat Trump, they’re actually supporting him. Not as much as they would if they actually voted for him, but still significantly.

If Trump wins by a narrow margin, it will be because of these red-liners who valued their own purity over the lives of others.

The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.

Using this methodology makes all concept of justice moot. If we can’t make a determination without firsthand knowledge, then we can’t ever prosecute or judge anyone but our own selves. No reasonable argument can ever be made if this is the foundation one relies on. Thus, it is an absurd retreat into solipsism.

It’s not empiricism. He’s disguising nihilistic cynicism as skepticism.

His argument boils down to he think that we should doubt someone when they tell us their own feelings. He’s claiming that if we don’t have 100% certainty about something being true, then we have 0% certainty. It’s almost a retreat into solipsism, suggesting that because we can’t know with perfect certainty, then we have perfect uncertainty.

Doubting that someone who says “I didn’t want to be kissed” didn’t actually want to be kissed is to outright call them a liar. It’s victim blaming. He’s just trying to mask that behind a false veneer of skepticism and mental acrobatics because he knows that his position actually sounds appalling when presented straight-forward.