• OBJECTION!
      link
      fedilink
      English
      8
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Not necessarily

      Why not? You’re claiming they’re operating on a principle of trying to accelerate collapse, and that Trump is the candidate to do that. But this is completely inconsistent with what the person is saying they’ll do. It doesn’t explain their behavior.

      Who says they aren’t?

      So we’re just making things up whole cloth about people now?

      • norbert
        link
        fedilink
        -56 months ago

        It’s cute of you to step in to defend your alt account, but you can’t be serious.

        They’re an accelerationist, for whatever reason, they want collapse. The quicker it happens the better, they admitted as much above.

        You’re supposing that Trump is the candidate to do that, I think most of lemmy would agree with you so I’ll cede that point.

        That point ceded, we can agree most of lemmy won’t vote for Trump right? So what would be the point of talking about voting Trump here? It’s far more effective for the accelerationist (who likely isn’t conservative anyway) to be a “leftist” who’s so disgusted with how corrupt and unfair the system is they simply just check out and encourage others to check out as well, “both sides are the same” of course.

        So we’re just making things up whole cloth about people now?

        We’re inferring things, it’s quite a bit different comrade.

        • OBJECTION!
          link
          fedilink
          English
          56 months ago

          It’s cute of you to step in to defend your alt account, but you can’t be serious.

          Lmao.

          Is there anything that could possibly falsify any of your evidence-free “inferences?”

        • lad
          link
          fedilink
          English
          46 months ago

          You seem to be trying to solve this like social deduction games, but I don’t think this is a correct or good thing to do