You are making a lot of assumptions about me without really knowing anything about me. I would like to continue this discussion but I don’t think it’s worth it if you want to insist on being intellectually dishonest.
I do not consider myself a neoliberal. I spent 5 years of my life living and working on communes. I am, quite literally, a communist.
Okay. So, which one do you think we should vote for?
I guess I’m confused. Are you advocating for accelerationism regardless of the cost to human life?
That doesn’t seem particularly at odds with what I said, but I guess I’m glad you’ve got it all figured out. I’m hoping your plans to change the system work out. Genuinely. If you have actionable, realistic, achievable ideas for removing the corrupting influence of money from the world at large, I’m all ears.
In the meantime I’ll to continue to vote for whichever candidate (that stands a realistic chance at winning) I feel will do the least harm to the people I love and the institutions I begrudgingly tolerate.
I’ve already mentioned that I’m a moron, this should reinforce that.
I see. In that case, I think you may fundamentally misunderstand the world. You seem to want to frame it up as though there’s some master plan or conspiracy, instead of a bunch of individuals working in hotly contested fields, just trying to keep their jobs by doing what they perceive as best at any given moment.
From my point of view Biden didn’t have to lift a finger to expose Donald Trump as worse. Trump seemed happy to do that himself. But then, as I said, I’m a moron.
Stupid as I am, though, I don’t have to lower myself to calling people “losers”. I retired that word from my vocabulary when I graduated from elementary school.
We must have watched different debates, then. I saw one weak but curated personality, and one flawed human being. Maybe both of us are just incapable of seeing past our biases?
Is this… are you… Are you serious?
This is a ridiculous equivalence on its face, and you should feel ridiculous for saying it. A debate does not have a “winner” beyond that which any number of biased observers, such as yourself, attempt to assert. This is not baseball.
The winners in any debate, if there must be any, are the people who use what they see and hear to inform their voting choices. What, exactly, do you perceive DJT to have said and done on that stage that will convince supposed “undecided” voters to vote for him? What do you perceive Biden to have said or done that would make them decide that Mr. Trump is the better choice?
As you said:
“Undecided” voters fall into two categories:
Trump voter: “Iah aint tellin’ YEW who IAHM a-votin’ FER!”
Undecided voter trying to choose between voting and not voting.
Nobody is undecided between the candidates.
Were you yourself undecided? Or perhaps planning to vote for Biden prior to the debate, but now will vote for Trump instead? Given your analysis of undecided voters, I fail to see how the debate would have motivated the non-voters to go out and vote for a President Trump.
What I saw, personally, was two very old men who have wildly different takes on ethics and the seriousness of the position. One of which has a lot of practice being on camera. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden’s performance at the debate was at least somewhat intentional, setting up a wonka-esque reversal for debate #2. Considering recency bias, along with the media’s desperate need to turn everything into contentious clickbait, I think it would be a pretty brilliant tactic, even.
Of course, what do I know. I’m a moron. Much like your opinion, mine has very little value.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha,
This is some top tier mental gymnastics. Holy shit, I hope you’re a troll. You’re literally on the internet discussing your plans to commit fraud. Mensa-level shit, here.
People are going to buy CP one way or another… that means you should make it and sell it to them, right?
Grow the fuck up, and maybe train a LLM on ethics, you’re going to need some education on the subject if you hope to stay out of prison.
Thanks for elaborating! You raise a lot of good points.
I recently tried to consolidate all of my various email addresses into Thunderbird and oh boy is it fun trying to get a 20 year old Gmail account to cooperate. I often find myself having to open up Gmail in my browser just to get anything more complex than checking or writing new email accomplished. It doesn’t help that I have a quarter of a million messages organized between ~70 “folders”, I’m sure, but holy hell… it’s a nightmarescape. Thunderbird never stops querying the server. I’m about ready to backup all of the old messages and just burn the whole account down.
None of those are problems for me.
What is it that you hate about email, then? You’ve piqued my curiosity.
So, the Amazon & Walmart strategy?
How can you call it a “free market” if it’s actually a “free market*”?
*terms and conditions apply
Granted, but, begging the question… does that mean rightward pressure has been exerted on the overton window such that people’s attempts to move it leftward have been frustrated?
The term is named after the American policy analyst Joseph Overton, who proposed that an idea’s political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range, rather than on politicians’ individual preferences. … The Overton window is an approach to identifying the ideas that define the spectrum of acceptability of governmental policies. It says politicians can act only within the acceptable range. Shifting the Overton window involves proponents of policies outside the window persuading the public to expand the window.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Data does not actually support the idea that politics are shifting right:
The title of your article is literally:
America More Liberal than 50 Years Ago—But Change Not Reflected in Its Politics
They weren’t even that good as a kid if you read anything else
Here’s an excellent analysis of how and why the Harry Potter hype of the late 90s was very intentionally manufactured and sold to kids.
People who twist words around to intentionally misrepresent their conversational partners are neither arguing in good faith, nor are they good people, generally. Your parents should have taught you this. Do better.
Bad Faith Arguments:
It means that you’re not arguing to come to a mutual understanding. In a true debate/argument, both sides must be willing to acknowledge if the other side has good points and be open to changing their minds. If you tell someone you want a “debate” but you really just want to antagonize them or preach to them, you are lying when you say you want to “argue”.
Bad faith generally is an intent to deceive.
Here are some resources:
You can do better if you decide to. The first step to being better is learning how to converse and debate like a mature adult. You will continue to be labeled a troll if you decide you’d rather just keep acting like an uneducated, petulant child.
Well, at least you acknowledge it. That’s a start. You’re more self-aware than the bulk of the ‘righteous crusaders of truth™’ that I’ve encountered.
Just for fun, because I’m bored, what facts have I ignored so far in our conversation? Remember, I’m @LengAwaits. Don’t get me confused with the other people you’ve been talking to. I’m a different person who hasn’t weighed in on any of your supposed “facts” so far. I’m not here to argue about popular political figures. I’m only here to call out glaring biases and bad faith arguments. Surely you’ll engage with me on a more intellectual level than what you’ve so far managed to muster?
I see. Frankly I can’t live my life with that level of pessimism, because if I adopt that sort of outlook then I’m very likely to sink much deeper into depression, something I’ve struggled with all my life. That sort of thinking genuinely leads me to hopelessness and suicidality.