This will be the 1 (1) time I respond with much more than requesting you answer the very simple, non-loaded question.
Asking that question implies there is actually a choice to be made.
Two choices, actually. 1. To claim to be against genocide or not. 2. To claim to support voting for genocidal candidates or not. I figure these go together so I put them together as joint. Based on your complaining, I have just done you a great service is unraveling my very simple question. It was otherwise indecipherable by mere mortals!
I’ve said this multiple times.
Nope, you’ve gone off to talk about your excuses for your unstated honest answer just like other liberals, choosing to leave an implication for the answer rather than direct and honest.
“Do you want normal coffee of decaff?” Implies there is both normal and decaff coffee to be chosen from - else, why would they mention both?
Be against genocide or for it. Vote for genocidal candidates or don’t. Quite simple but you instead dwell on straw men and avoiding answering. This is a common liberal behavior on this topic. It comes from your discomfort with the honest answer that would match your dissembling.
Also - not a libera
Painfully obviously a liberal.
Rather odd thing to call someone who suggests that the proletariat should seize the means of production.
Many liberals ape the phrases but spend their time defending ruling class talking points and sheepdogging for genociders. May you someday cease being a traitor to that proletariat.
So, I await a yes or no answer to my simple and non-loaded question, liberal.
This will be the 1 (1) time I respond with much more than requesting you answer the very simple, non-loaded question.
Already lying, because you only continue to repeat yourself.
Two choices, actually. 1. To claim to be against genocide or not.
This is already established. We’re already in agreement about the morality of genocide. If you genuinely thought any differently - and weren’t just trying to bait me into a rhetorical trap, a low-effort “gotcha” - you wouldn’t even be talking to me. Someone who is actually for genocide is not worth arguing with.
To claim to support voting for genocidal candidates or not.
No, your bad-faith attempt at the Socratic Method is transparent. Let me walk you through the obvious scene you’ve constructed for me, that I refuse to play into:
You: Do you think you should support genocide or vote for genocide deniers?
Me: No.
You: So do you suggest voting for [insert random third party candidate] who pledges to end the genocide in Gaza 1?
Me: Not really, no.
You: Gasp! The contradiction! You say you should vote against genocide, yet are against those who want to stop the genocide!
1 - as soon as they manage to get more than 0.01% of votes some decades from now!
Does that about sum it up?
By the way, you never asked what I actually suggest. Even though I’ve already stated that. Though you dismissed it as posturing.
What you’re doing is a motte-and-bailey defence. You ask if I support voting for those who would perpetuate genocide, presenting the vote as a choice between genocide and no genocide. Then when I point out this rhetorical flourish, you retreat to “no, I’m just asking a simple question of if you support genocide”. It’s incredibly dishonest and disingenuous.
I figure these go together so I put them together as joint. Based on your complaining, I have just done you a great service is unraveling my very simple question. It was otherwise indecipherable by mere mortals!
It’s clear this is intended to come off as “faux arrogance”, though nonetheless still supposed to make me feel silly for “not getting it”. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Nope, you’ve gone off to talk about your excuses for your unstated honest answer
I’ve already stated my honest answer. I do not support genocide, or support genocide deniers. I do, however, recognise that the situation is more complex than just that, and voting is not going to end this genocide. If you want real results, you need to take more drastic action and put your money where your mouth is. But, like I’ve said - you won’t.
just like other liberals
No need for name-calling, here. Insults are uncouth.
choosing to leave an implication for the answer rather than direct and honest.
I’ve answered multiple times, though that answer is oddly missing from your quotes of my comment. Strange that you’d ignore that part of my comment, quite key to the discussion, considering its rather short length.
choosing to leave an implication for the answer rather than direct and honest.
The thing is, that might have been true earlier on, but not at this point where I verbatim said “no”. Also, this is a disingenuous framing; I didn’t merely “leave implications as to my answer” and nothing else. I also rejected the basis of your question, which is the appropriate response to a question you believe is unfounded. I do not have to “honestly answer” a question about my brother if I don’t have a brother, for example. And in this instance, I refuse to allow the election to be framed as a simple choice between genocide and no genocide. You’re not revealing any hypocrisy, you’re instead refusing to deal with the complexities of the absolute shitshow that is your country’s politics.
Be against genocide or for it.
I’m against it.
Vote for genocidal candidates or don’t.
I really wish it were that simple. But, if you vote for a candidate that isn’t one of the two major ones, you are burying your head in the sand and living ina fantasy world where your electoral system actually works as it should and isn’t completely wrapped up in bourgeois interests. They will not allow an actual party of the people to run. They will never listen to the voice of the proletariat. If you want to change that, voting isn’t gonna work. You need to get off your ass and change the world with your comrades. But you won’t.
Quite simple but you instead dwell on straw men and avoiding answering.
Completely empty accusation bereft of a clear example.
This is a common liberal behavior on this topic.
Again, baseless and irrelevant insult for no other reason than to attempt to upset me.
It comes from your discomfort with the honest answer that would match your dissembling.
Calling my words “dissembling” won’t magically rewrite reality to make it come true. I’m telling you my honest take on this, and you’re rejecting everything I’m saying for no other reason than the fact I’m calling out your naive view of the world.
You have such complete faith in the system, that you can simply vote the genocide away. What’s more liberal than that?
Sure, you can deny this, come back at me and say, “no, I’m not saying that at all! That’s just a straw man!”
But if that’s not your point, then I’m sorry, but you don’t even have a point. You keep repeating “vote for genocidal candidates or don’t”. If you don’t actually mean those words, then you’re just writing meaningless gibberish.
Painfully obviously a liberal.
Thing is, not only do you not have any evidence for this, but your reasoning concerning it is rather shaky. Instead of listening to what I actually say, you instead point to hidden meaning behind my words. And this hidden meaning isn’t what you consider liberal - oh no, that would actually make sense as an argument - but you suggest that the mere presence of a hidden meaning (that, may I mention once more, you imagined) is itself a liberal trait. I quote again:
[…] just like other liberals, choosing to leave an implication for the answer rather than direct and honest.
I coulda sworn that a liberal was a person who believes in liberal democracy, aka bourgeois democracy, alongside other enlightenment values like individualism, freedom of speech, equality before law, and other fart-sniffing propaganda buzzwords, though most importantly a rabid devotion to capitalism and its surrounding ideology.
Many liberals ape the phrases but spend their time defending ruling class talking points and sheepdogging for genociders.
Interesting. Which talking points of theirs have I defended, and which genociders in particular have I “sheepdogged” for?
May I point you to the many times that I have denigrated the very institution you’re defending participation in?
You can call my stated opinions “aping the phrases” if you want - which amounts to outright gaslighting in my estimation, considering I have zero faith in liberal democracy whatsoever, which is the reason I believe trying to actually start/support a party that goes against bourgeois interests is doomed to fail. The system is designed that way. Any party that gains power in this system is inevitably going to end up suborned to capital. It’s just how it works. So, once more: either change the system or do the best you can within it. I’d prefer not to prolong the current horror show, but I’m not naive enough to think a real revolution is gonna happen any time soon.
May you someday cease being a traitor to that proletariat.
Oh, please. Stop with that baseless posturing. Your continued insistence that we actually try to embolden yet another future oppressor another political party within a fundamentally bourgeois establishment does not move me to thinking you’re any kind of communist.
So, I await a yes or no answer to my simple and non-loaded question, liberal.
You are replying to a comment that has an answer to your question: an emphatic no.
First, the comment literally does not have the word “no” in it.
Second, as a reminder the question was, “Are you against genocide and voting for genocidal candidates?” You are telling me the answer, which was like pulling teeth over 7+ comment exchanges, is “no”. Got it. Will log that in the ol’ memory bank. You are either not against genocide or believe you should vote for genocidal candidates, or both.
That is indeed consistent with the dissembling zi mentioned before and why there is such cognitive dissonance: because people that hold that opinion are often embarrassed of it, they know it (correctly) makes them look like either monsters or those complicit with them, having no respectable principles.
This continued dishonesty and gaslighting can now come to an end.
First, the comment literally does not have the word “no” in it.
Are you joking? Well, for fuck’s sake: no. There it is. I’ve answered so many variations of “I do not support genocide or genocidal candidates” that I’m genuinely baffled you haven’t figured it out yet. What is wrong with you??
Second, as a reminder the question was, “Are you against genocide and voting for genocidal candidates?”
No, it was “do you support” them.
You are telling me the answer, which was like pulling teeth over 7+ comment exchanges, is “no”.
No, I told you that long, long ago.
Got it. Will log that in the ol’ memory bank.
Why are you being sarcastic?
You are either not against genocide or believe you should vote for genocidal candidates, or both.
Nope. Neither. (:
That is indeed consistent with the dissembling zi mentioned before and why there is such cognitive dissonance
There has been no dissembling or cognitive dissonance: that is merely your unfounded accusation, apropos of absolutely fuckin’ nothing. You’re just arguing this for the sake of it at this point, i.e. trolling. I also don’t quite understand why you said “zi”.
because people that hold that opinion are often embarrassed of it, they know it (correctly) makes them look like either monsters or those complicit with them, having no respectable principles.
Yes, I agree with that assessment of such a person that you described.
However, I never actually said what you’re claiming I did.
I have done neither, thanks.
In the very comment I’m replying to, you literally just took my answer as the inverse of what it was (by pretending you asked the reverse of what you did), and did so in complete seriousness, expecting me to actually fall for it.
Are you joking? Well, for fuck’s sake: no. There it is.
You’re acting like I’m the silly one. I’ve reminded you that it is a yes or no question and I’m looking for a yes or a no 5-6 times at least. The sentence I was responding to incorrectly claimed you gave an emphatic no when you 100% had not even said the word, let alone emphatically.
I’ve answered so many variations of “I do not support genocide or genocidal candidates” that I’m genuinely baffled you haven’t figured it out yet.
You have not. You have, as I have noted repeatedly, starting going off talking about how this is a complex topic and oh here is an electoral rationalization and hey look over there an insult and oh man it is a loaded question (though it isn’t) so you can’t answer.
What is wrong with you??
Nothing, I’m being normal and reasonable. If this were a face to face conversation you’d be the person reminded to answer a yes or no question with yes or a no five times in a row while dithering lol.
No, it was “do you support” them.
I put the question in quotation marks because it was verbatim what I asked. Your next reply is the one that you called an “emphatic no” as it if were so obvious. Take all the time you need to put together the mystery of question-answer.
No, I told you that long, long ago.
lol bullshit. The teeth pulling and whining about loaded questions. I asked for a direct yes or no answer many times and you refused.
Why are you being sarcastic?
Because I suspected you would dither again and maybe even contradict yourself, as is the tendency of folks that behave like yourself.
Nope. Neither. (:
Hey look I was right about contradicting yourself.
There has been no dissembling or cognitive dissonance
Just 10+ comments of you trying to avoid a yes or no question to talk about trite electoral logic instead and trying to pretend it was a loaded question.
that is merely your unfounded accusation
I didn’t think it would need explanation since we were both there and it is right above us in the comment chain. Eventually, every person dishonestly invested in deflection tires themselves out and gets confused, then starts blaming others for it.
apropos of absolutely fuckin’ nothing
I don’t think you know what that idiom means.
You’re just arguing this for the sake of it at this point, i.e. trolling. I also don’t quite understand why you said “zi”.
There is almost nothing to argue about. We have reached the point where you can’t follow a linearly-ordered question and answer nor recognize what quotation marks mean, leading to a situation where you want to pretend I didn’t ask the thing I copy + pasted from just a few comments ago. It is you just dithering and getting confused because you can’t give a straight answer to a yes or no question and stand by it.
“zi” is just a typo.
Yes, I agree with that assessment of such a person that you described.
It describes your behavior.
However, I never actually said what you’re claiming I did.
I am claiming you gave a “no” answer to my question. You know, the thing you are saying you emphatically did do. The thing you tried to get sassy about in the beginning of your comment and are now trying to walk back lmao. The only question is: deeply confused or trying to play with the truth? Could go either way, there is plenty of precedent for either.
In the very comment I’m replying to, you literally just took my answer as the inverse of what it was (by pretending you asked the reverse of what you said)
I’m going to go with “deeply confused”. No need for me to keep repeating the same things about quotes and linear time.
and did so in complete seriousness, expecting me to actually fall for it.
Ah yes my dastardly plan of asking a simple yes or no question in plain text and then taking your " emphatic no" and trying to move on. Alas. Now we get to return to your favorite topic: hearing me ask the question again and again to see if you would like to join the world of those with the courage of their convictions and stand by a yes or no answer. Are you excited?
Gaslighting, clear as day.
I have no intention to make you feel crazy. I am trying to keep you focused, if anything. And I have described what happened quite accurately. Please take as much time as you need to compare what I have said to our comments and ask questions if something doesn’t add up to you.
But now we get back to your favorite ever thing. Since you are apparently very confused about what question you gave an “emohatic no” to, and now want to take it back, I will just ask it again. Remember,! Vakid answers are “yes” or “no”! I believe in you! You can reveal your position on it! You’ve got this!
Are you against genocide and voting for genocidal candidates?
This will be the 1 (1) time I respond with much more than requesting you answer the very simple, non-loaded question.
Two choices, actually. 1. To claim to be against genocide or not. 2. To claim to support voting for genocidal candidates or not. I figure these go together so I put them together as joint. Based on your complaining, I have just done you a great service is unraveling my very simple question. It was otherwise indecipherable by mere mortals!
Nope, you’ve gone off to talk about your excuses for your unstated honest answer just like other liberals, choosing to leave an implication for the answer rather than direct and honest.
Be against genocide or for it. Vote for genocidal candidates or don’t. Quite simple but you instead dwell on straw men and avoiding answering. This is a common liberal behavior on this topic. It comes from your discomfort with the honest answer that would match your dissembling.
Painfully obviously a liberal.
Many liberals ape the phrases but spend their time defending ruling class talking points and sheepdogging for genociders. May you someday cease being a traitor to that proletariat.
So, I await a yes or no answer to my simple and non-loaded question, liberal.
Already lying, because you only continue to repeat yourself.
This is already established. We’re already in agreement about the morality of genocide. If you genuinely thought any differently - and weren’t just trying to bait me into a rhetorical trap, a low-effort “gotcha” - you wouldn’t even be talking to me. Someone who is actually for genocide is not worth arguing with.
No, your bad-faith attempt at the Socratic Method is transparent. Let me walk you through the obvious scene you’ve constructed for me, that I refuse to play into:
1 - as soon as they manage to get more than 0.01% of votes some decades from now!
Does that about sum it up?
By the way, you never asked what I actually suggest. Even though I’ve already stated that. Though you dismissed it as posturing.
What you’re doing is a motte-and-bailey defence. You ask if I support voting for those who would perpetuate genocide, presenting the vote as a choice between genocide and no genocide. Then when I point out this rhetorical flourish, you retreat to “no, I’m just asking a simple question of if you support genocide”. It’s incredibly dishonest and disingenuous.
It’s clear this is intended to come off as “faux arrogance”, though nonetheless still supposed to make me feel silly for “not getting it”. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I’ve already stated my honest answer. I do not support genocide, or support genocide deniers. I do, however, recognise that the situation is more complex than just that, and voting is not going to end this genocide. If you want real results, you need to take more drastic action and put your money where your mouth is. But, like I’ve said - you won’t.
No need for name-calling, here. Insults are uncouth.
I’ve answered multiple times, though that answer is oddly missing from your quotes of my comment. Strange that you’d ignore that part of my comment, quite key to the discussion, considering its rather short length.
The thing is, that might have been true earlier on, but not at this point where I verbatim said “no”. Also, this is a disingenuous framing; I didn’t merely “leave implications as to my answer” and nothing else. I also rejected the basis of your question, which is the appropriate response to a question you believe is unfounded. I do not have to “honestly answer” a question about my brother if I don’t have a brother, for example. And in this instance, I refuse to allow the election to be framed as a simple choice between genocide and no genocide. You’re not revealing any hypocrisy, you’re instead refusing to deal with the complexities of the absolute shitshow that is your country’s politics.
I’m against it.
I really wish it were that simple. But, if you vote for a candidate that isn’t one of the two major ones, you are burying your head in the sand and living ina fantasy world where your electoral system actually works as it should and isn’t completely wrapped up in bourgeois interests. They will not allow an actual party of the people to run. They will never listen to the voice of the proletariat. If you want to change that, voting isn’t gonna work. You need to get off your ass and change the world with your comrades. But you won’t.
Completely empty accusation bereft of a clear example.
Again, baseless and irrelevant insult for no other reason than to attempt to upset me.
Calling my words “dissembling” won’t magically rewrite reality to make it come true. I’m telling you my honest take on this, and you’re rejecting everything I’m saying for no other reason than the fact I’m calling out your naive view of the world.
You have such complete faith in the system, that you can simply vote the genocide away. What’s more liberal than that?
Sure, you can deny this, come back at me and say, “no, I’m not saying that at all! That’s just a straw man!”
But if that’s not your point, then I’m sorry, but you don’t even have a point. You keep repeating “vote for genocidal candidates or don’t”. If you don’t actually mean those words, then you’re just writing meaningless gibberish.
Thing is, not only do you not have any evidence for this, but your reasoning concerning it is rather shaky. Instead of listening to what I actually say, you instead point to hidden meaning behind my words. And this hidden meaning isn’t what you consider liberal - oh no, that would actually make sense as an argument - but you suggest that the mere presence of a hidden meaning (that, may I mention once more, you imagined) is itself a liberal trait. I quote again:
I coulda sworn that a liberal was a person who believes in liberal democracy, aka bourgeois democracy, alongside other enlightenment values like individualism, freedom of speech, equality before law, and other fart-sniffing propaganda buzzwords, though most importantly a rabid devotion to capitalism and its surrounding ideology.
Interesting. Which talking points of theirs have I defended, and which genociders in particular have I “sheepdogged” for?
May I point you to the many times that I have denigrated the very institution you’re defending participation in?
You can call my stated opinions “aping the phrases” if you want - which amounts to outright gaslighting in my estimation, considering I have zero faith in liberal democracy whatsoever, which is the reason I believe trying to actually start/support a party that goes against bourgeois interests is doomed to fail. The system is designed that way. Any party that gains power in this system is inevitably going to end up suborned to capital. It’s just how it works. So, once more: either change the system or do the best you can within it. I’d prefer not to prolong the current horror show, but I’m not naive enough to think a real revolution is gonna happen any time soon.
Oh, please. Stop with that baseless posturing. Your continued insistence that we actually try to embolden
yet another future oppressoranother political party within a fundamentally bourgeois establishment does not move me to thinking you’re any kind of communist.I guess third time’s a charm, right?
I don’t see a yes or no.
See why I didn’t elaborate before? Liberals that are deflecting love to take up any space you give them - except for what they were trying yo avoid.
So hey, let me know when you can answer a simple question. Are you against genocide and voting for genocidal candidates?
Try reading again:
I asked yes or no question and I don’t see a yes or no.
This simole fact should not require so much repetition and explanation, but we both know why that is happening. Pure cognitive dissonance.
You are replying to a comment that has an answer to your question: an emphatic no.
This continued dishonesty and gaslighting can now come to an end.
First, the comment literally does not have the word “no” in it.
Second, as a reminder the question was, “Are you against genocide and voting for genocidal candidates?” You are telling me the answer, which was like pulling teeth over 7+ comment exchanges, is “no”. Got it. Will log that in the ol’ memory bank. You are either not against genocide or believe you should vote for genocidal candidates, or both.
That is indeed consistent with the dissembling zi mentioned before and why there is such cognitive dissonance: because people that hold that opinion are often embarrassed of it, they know it (correctly) makes them look like either monsters or those complicit with them, having no respectable principles.
I have done neither, thanks.
Are you joking? Well, for fuck’s sake: no. There it is. I’ve answered so many variations of “I do not support genocide or genocidal candidates” that I’m genuinely baffled you haven’t figured it out yet. What is wrong with you??
No, it was “do you support” them.
No, I told you that long, long ago.
Why are you being sarcastic?
Nope. Neither. (:
There has been no dissembling or cognitive dissonance: that is merely your unfounded accusation, apropos of absolutely fuckin’ nothing. You’re just arguing this for the sake of it at this point, i.e. trolling. I also don’t quite understand why you said “zi”.
Yes, I agree with that assessment of such a person that you described.
However, I never actually said what you’re claiming I did.
In the very comment I’m replying to, you literally just took my answer as the inverse of what it was (by pretending you asked the reverse of what you did), and did so in complete seriousness, expecting me to actually fall for it.
Gaslighting, clear as day.
You’re acting like I’m the silly one. I’ve reminded you that it is a yes or no question and I’m looking for a yes or a no 5-6 times at least. The sentence I was responding to incorrectly claimed you gave an emphatic no when you 100% had not even said the word, let alone emphatically.
You have not. You have, as I have noted repeatedly, starting going off talking about how this is a complex topic and oh here is an electoral rationalization and hey look over there an insult and oh man it is a loaded question (though it isn’t) so you can’t answer.
Nothing, I’m being normal and reasonable. If this were a face to face conversation you’d be the person reminded to answer a yes or no question with yes or a no five times in a row while dithering lol.
I put the question in quotation marks because it was verbatim what I asked. Your next reply is the one that you called an “emphatic no” as it if were so obvious. Take all the time you need to put together the mystery of question-answer.
lol bullshit. The teeth pulling and whining about loaded questions. I asked for a direct yes or no answer many times and you refused.
Because I suspected you would dither again and maybe even contradict yourself, as is the tendency of folks that behave like yourself.
Hey look I was right about contradicting yourself.
Just 10+ comments of you trying to avoid a yes or no question to talk about trite electoral logic instead and trying to pretend it was a loaded question.
I didn’t think it would need explanation since we were both there and it is right above us in the comment chain. Eventually, every person dishonestly invested in deflection tires themselves out and gets confused, then starts blaming others for it.
I don’t think you know what that idiom means.
There is almost nothing to argue about. We have reached the point where you can’t follow a linearly-ordered question and answer nor recognize what quotation marks mean, leading to a situation where you want to pretend I didn’t ask the thing I copy + pasted from just a few comments ago. It is you just dithering and getting confused because you can’t give a straight answer to a yes or no question and stand by it.
“zi” is just a typo.
It describes your behavior.
I am claiming you gave a “no” answer to my question. You know, the thing you are saying you emphatically did do. The thing you tried to get sassy about in the beginning of your comment and are now trying to walk back lmao. The only question is: deeply confused or trying to play with the truth? Could go either way, there is plenty of precedent for either.
I’m going to go with “deeply confused”. No need for me to keep repeating the same things about quotes and linear time.
Ah yes my dastardly plan of asking a simple yes or no question in plain text and then taking your " emphatic no" and trying to move on. Alas. Now we get to return to your favorite topic: hearing me ask the question again and again to see if you would like to join the world of those with the courage of their convictions and stand by a yes or no answer. Are you excited?
I have no intention to make you feel crazy. I am trying to keep you focused, if anything. And I have described what happened quite accurately. Please take as much time as you need to compare what I have said to our comments and ask questions if something doesn’t add up to you.
But now we get back to your favorite ever thing. Since you are apparently very confused about what question you gave an “emohatic no” to, and now want to take it back, I will just ask it again. Remember,! Vakid answers are “yes” or “no”! I believe in you! You can reveal your position on it! You’ve got this!
Are you against genocide and voting for genocidal candidates?