United States | News & Politics

Yes - and then?

And then you can choose whether to engage and address the point that was made or to not do so and either disengage or act in bad faith. Guess which option you chose.

Sticking to the basics is taking it too literal, yes.

Rather than attempt conversation in good faith you have decided to reject the basics of language taught to children.

I admit I haven't communicated very well, but perhaps you also need to reflect on your own ability to listen. Communication is two-way, and I have not made it impossible for you, despite you gesturing in that direction.

Nope I've done a great job. Seeking fault in others when you've been called out, trying to "level the field", is textbook defensive behavior BTW. It is okay for you to be wrong and for me to be right and cool. That is a thing that is actually the case and you should make peace with it.

I think you're projecting that.

I don't think you know what projection is. I have the antithesis of these sentiments both inside and out.

I have not once ever provided genocide apologia and nor do I ever even remotely condone it.

Rather than doing any self-reflection you are simply doing a defense - with the expected lashing out.

Take as much time as you need. Can you really see zero similarities in your initial responses to me and those of the genocidal apologetic liberals I was responding to? Do you really see zero similarity between your reticence to answer my question and liberals' reticence? I mean, it is right there, plain as day. You just have to do actual self-criticism.

And sure it isn't fun to do self-crit, but I will provide a tip: it is much easier if you do it earlier rather than after you have already become petty and dug yourself a thousand holes.

I think you're assuming intentions I don't have, and I would prefer for you to not do that.

I think your responses here indicate that you generally do not have cognizant intentions whatsoever and are purely reactive. Guess who else is like that, even using your exact same initial framing and reticence to answer a simple question. Do you see any similarities yet?

My only point I wanted to make is that the coming US election is very unlikely to result in anyone other than the two imperialist, genocidal parties winning.

Remove the "imperialist, genocidal" part and you are literally doing the main genocide apologetic talking point that is every liberals attempt to deflect from agitation. How do you not see the similarities?

You were hardly informing me of anything. The only effect is to run interference and undermine my point, which you initially did so in an insulting way that did not have that talking point in it whatsoever. You are giving yourself far too much credit.

I interpreted your rhetorical question as shaming anyone who votes for either of the two obvious potential winners.

Which rhetorical question? My agitational questions are usually non-rhetorixal, but they do challenge.

Maybe this appears to you as me "defending" the Democrat party. They don't deserve defending.

Nope. I saw your reply as internalized liberalism, as attempting to draw attention to your own patronizing point that tried to make voting for genociders into a "complex" issue as if half-remembered high school civics is such a revelation. Really, this is an escape hatch for those facing cognitive dissonance. Based on that suspicion, I treated you as a fellow liberal attempting to deflect and posed the direct question to you, expecting the same evasive behavior of other liberals.

And, hey, guess what you did for something like 30 comments.

The only positive I can offer is that their domestic policy is less dystopic than the Republicans - but that's not a high bar. It's still more capitalism. No, I do not actually condone them. I just think it's naive to think anyone other than the Ds or Rs would win.

Tell me who, by username, is this naive person. Tell me who thinks that. Show your evidence.

If you cannot find them, then tell me, what is the real meaning of your point? What does it serve if your opponent is a straw man? What was your actual thought process, because it 100% was not, "TheOubliette just said a third party was gonna win the election".

What blatant point is that? That you think I'm a liberal? There's no need to "account for" that. It's just false. You might as well call be a Martian.

That you did the liberal song and dance and your actions speak much louder than your current rationalizations. The parallels are pretty obvious. I suggested that you actually spend time looking for them. That you actually do some self-crit to look at the answer to the rhetorical question of why you deflected from my question over and over, called it a loaded question, presented 3 different answers, invented entire questions I never asked, and then belabored the false premise that it had all been above board and you had clearly answered ages ago. You should do self-crit on why you maintain that the dishonest bullshitting described above is just you doing your bestest as a smol bean leftist. And then take a wider view to look at the emotional content and why it parallels liberals, which is to say, you felt scratched and took a turn to rightward patterns of bad faith engagement.

I have been relatively patient and nice, all things considered.

That's nice of you to say.

It isn't it? Like I said, I am very patient. Very few people would have done anything other than insult you and move on. Remember that.

I'm not "steering". I'm answering and trying to actually engage in a dialogue with you. "Dismissing" that just means you're dismissing understanding.

Looks like I was too nice, really. I indulged your responses.

Anyways, take time to self-crit. You are not taking the needed time or doing the reflection. You are not pointing out the specific failures, let alone the parallels I have repeatedly highlighted and that you have wholesale ignored. I shouldn't have needed to highlight them. You should have taken time to find them yourself by doing some honest self-crit. You are very reactive to criticism, including vakid criticism, and should do it yourself rather than relying on me to describe it because you are too defensive to actually take a step back and recognize basic facts about this interaction.