You’re making quite a lot of frankly weird assumptions.
I’ve clearly stated what i’m referring to and how i got there, if you think there is an unsupported statement then reference it directly and i will respond.
That being said, fuck, i think i’ve seen two posts next to each other and missed where it changed from them to you.
That’s entirely my bad and i apologise, my response was supposed to be for the other person.
“You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves in to.”
Though it is occasionally possible to point out how their arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny and get them to engage on it.
Only works with the ones not doing it on purpose, however.
key words there are discourse and discussion.
As is explained in a few responses to your paradox of tolerance reply (that you seem to have conveniently not replied to so far), the kind of discussion or conversation they are referencing requires both parties to be working in good faith.
from your own reference
as long as we can counter them by rational argument
If one party can’t or won’t provide logic or reasoning to their side of an exchange, that’s not a discussion because there is nothing to discuss with someone not willing to engage in good faith.
There are absolutely places that are ideological echo chambers, despite claiming otherwise, but banning someone for the inability (or unwillingness) to engage in good faith isn’t a removal based on ideology it’s a removal based on not adhering to the basic tenets of how discussions are supposed to work.
If it just so happens that most of that kind of banning happens to people with ideologies you subscribe to, perhaps it’s worth considering how you can help these people understand how to have an actual conversation.
That all being said, from what i’ve seen here I’d guess you’re on the purposeful bad faith side of things so I’m not expecting any reasonable consideration, but feel free to surprise me (or block me, i suppose).
You don’t seem to understand a lot of my reply, let’s see if we can clear some stuff
I would argue i understood your reply fine, i wasn’t arguing against the merit (or lack thereof) of your points, only that they weren’t related to the message you were replying to.
The post was complaining about the 2nd amendment folks not getting upset that ICE was treading on people’s rights
Not really, i already provided a rough translation, it seems we aren’t going to agree on interpretation so let’s just agree to disagree on this one.
… Why would they? Why would you expect any other group to defend your rights.
A somewhat valid point… in a situation where it applies, alas, it does not in this case.
You don’t seem to understand what satire is.
I understand the post was satire, with an edge of actual outrage, or at least that’s my interpretation.
Given that you also seem to recognise it as satire, it seems odd you’d go out of your way to reply in such a serious tone, but you do you.
Even more strange is that you’d argue against positions never taken, but we’ve already been over that.
Either the original poster was truly upset the 2nd amendment folks were not defending other people’s rights. Or he was trying to make a satirical point outlining that 2nd Amendment people had no intention of defending people’s rights and just wanted guns. I think given the context it is the latter. Satire is great when trying to convince others that the other party is wrong I.E. Gun rights advocates were possibly lying
All of that is still based on an points never raised in the original reply, see my original translation.
I’m simply pointing out that when there is need on the left to defend yourselves with firearms you’ve undermined your case. Look up videos with armed protesters or what the Black Panthers are doing to repel ICE. The police and ICE are a lot less willing to deploy excessive force or even to engage with armed individuals.
That’s a more complicated discussion and i don’t disagree on some of those points, but it still doesn’t apply here because there was no reference to defense of gun rights, simply pointing out the hypocrisy of using a position to argue that you wouldn’t take in the actual situation, see my original translation.
I literally quoted Carl Marx what makes you think I’m not on the left? Go left enough and guns are back on the table.
I made no assumption of your place on the political spectrum, i stand by my original reply.
Though i will concede i did make it seem like it was aimed at you directly and that was not my intention, my bad.
TL;DR;
Your reply doesn’t make sense because it seems you didn’t understand what was said. (intentionally or unintentionally)
Ah, so you just picked a subject that was gun related but not actually related to the reply, to be angry about.
That could still be you missing the point accidentally i suppose.
OK, how about i lay out what was said, and you can see how your reply doesn’t relate to it at all.
This is the exact moment the 2nd amendment was meant for. Now behold ! Literally 0 of the 2nd amendment guys will do anything about it…
Translation:
The 2nd amendment people are loud about protecting their right to guns, a large part of which is the need for said guns to be available in the case of a corrupt government arising that would require armed resistance, a “well regulated militia” , so to speak.
And yet here we are with the government shooting civilians in the streets and the 2nd amendment people are nowhere to be seen.
So, let check you reply for relevance against the original statement:
2nd amendment isn’t just for the 2nd amendment guys. Attacking gun rights when the left will likely need them in the coming years is short sighted.
Nobody was attacking gun rights.
To attempt satire by saying that a right wing facist advocating for gun rights, is also expected to advocate for my rights is weakness in the face of aggression.
Nobody mentioned fascists or requiring anyone to advocate for anyone else’s rights.
The right doesn’t laugh at the satire, they laugh at you.
I’m not sure how this relates to either the original message you responded to, or your reply to it.
I will say however that a basic level of reading comprehension and good faith (the latter more than the former) would be required before i personally cared about someone’s opinion of me, laughter included.
You undermine your own defense with others on the left.
As we’ve established above, this is also unrelated.
Also, “anybody who doesn’t agree with me is a lefty” is a weak foundation for both conversation and understanding.
OK so, benefit of the doubt.
You know that statement wasnt asking for protection right?
@mods The rest of this chain was offensive, but this comment consisting solely of a personal attack is not ?
That is my matrix username
Ah, makes sense.
I respond to a someone probably exploring communism asking about a term with an emphasis on the deleting of certain posts spreading misinformation, which might miss guide the person asking the question into some kind of vaushist “leftism” or turn them off from exploring marxism. The specific posts spreading misinformation are claiming a very accusatory claim used by western imperialists to make a government look bad, which in a less fortunate country that is just developing, could be the result of support for a coup to put in a puppet government. Whether you support that claim which is objectively false (https://tankie.tube/w/p/kFZ2joQah4kmt2KSpzPHtb?playlistPosition=6&resume=true <-- is an entertaining starter with sources) is irrelevant when people think these people spreading such disinformation are some kind of heroes.
That also makes sense, mostly, i disagree with some of it on a logical principle level, but i really don’t have a personal horse in any of the political parts i also don’t know/care enough to get one.
All the things you said might be true, they all might be false, though i suspect they’re all subjective enough to be context dependent, i also suspect we aren’t going to agree on the difference between subjective and objective, which is my main disagreement with the statement as a whole.
My main point was, there were answers that are now deleted, that is provably true.
The subjective accuracy of those answers isn’t really the point and no claim was made on that aspect.
Also, the implied /s for “mysterious” didn’t land and that’s on me.
@Williama:Genzedong
I’m not sure what this means, is this a reference i’m supposed to know?
Come on lib send me the Tiananmen Square video of tanks doing the things you claim they do. @Williama:Genzedong
Not sure if this is aimed at me, but i haven’t claimed anything to do with tanks, at any point, ever.
Some answers haven’t “disappeared for mysterious reasons”,
That’s fair , i meant “mysterious reasons” in a less factual and more sarcasm way, but i can see how that might have not come across.
it’s for spreading misinformation.
That’s subjective, which is what that whole thread is about no?
I wasn’t really emphasizing the subjectivity of the claims, as much as just pointing out that answers had been removed and they might be found in the modlog.
You seem to have a strong opinion on this, i do not.
If you disagree then come on, send me a video of the “horrendous crimes committed by China in Tiananmen Square”
I’m sure you can search for whatever videos you need, i haven’t made any claims i would need to provide video evidence for.
I won’t be providing evidence of positions i haven’t taken or claims i haven’t made, that would be silly.
I fully consent. @Williama:Genzedong.
Still not sure what this reference is.
Surely at least one of the “victims of the massacre” would have recorded something the “ruthless military regime” and their oh so very “despicable acts of massacre”.
See the above section about there being no claims or positions taken.
If you want to imagine i’ve sent you proof of this imaginary claim i’ve made so you can be upset in your imagination , feel free.
If you and other libs are annoyed that the devs are “tankies”, then go back to reddit.
See above re: claims that never happened
edit: damn, that’s a high percentage of sodium for pointing at a thing that provably exists in the modlog.
worth checking the modlog, seems there were answers that have since disappeared for mysterious reasons.
Yeah, re-reading it myself , it was a weird example and that may have been where they were going with it.
That a disingenuous reply at best, the choice is clearly “person doesn’t do enough to help your people” vs “person who actively allows great harm to your people”.
The example could probably have done with being gender neutral, but even so.
I’m not sure why you zeroed in on the female part and not the “doesn’t do enough to help your people” part.
As i said, i don’t disagree in principle.
All i was saying in that response was that inaction should also be factored in to any consideration of morality.
I don’t disagree in principle.
Lets take your scenario of not voting for fascist-lite as a means to fight against Full-Fat fascist.
In the current American system ( the greatest and most functional system /s), not voting effectively gives the vote to the eventual victor (that’s reductive but you know what I mean)
Assuming the BigFash win, the choice of inaction would be more impactful than the action of voting for DietFash.
On a relative scale and depending on how you feel about fascism I suppose.
So yes the participation and outcome matter but the effect isn’t always equal.
Inactively participating in the rise of the GrandMasterFash would be the cost of feeling good about not actively voting for the LesserFash.
Ultimately it’s shit choices all around, but that’s the point of the lesser of two evils, right?
Inaction when action is an option is still a choice.
One of the major premises of the trolley problem is the choice.
It’s very specifically a scenario where everything is a choice.
The only way to not choose a scenario option is to not participate at all.
If you are forced to use “lite” rather than normal ublock origin then you’ve probably already lost this fight because you’re in a browser that forces manifest v3 extensions only.
So you get crippled ad-blockers (by design).
I appreciate it.
Yeah, I’m on the default but i’ll explore the other ones now, see if there is anything i prefer.