Of course I know what one is. That’s kinda the problem here. A rhetorical question, among other things, is intended to make a point. The obvious point concluded from answering this question in the morally correct way is that it is always wrong to support genocide or vote for genocidal candidates, in a sort of Kantian categorical imperative.
If you know what one is why did you answer it? lol
Damn you are literal-minded. The idea of “it doesn’t need an answer” isn’t like… a law. It’s a poetic description of the fact it makes you think. The discussion isn’t supposed to just, like… stop there, is it? After the question has prompted the thought you’re supposed to re-engage, enlightened by the knowledge the rhetorical question gave you.
Also… you asked me to…?
I’m just trying to get on the same page man, you’re not making it easy
It’s not overly literal to know that rhetorical questions are for making a point, not asking you a question. Yet again the basixa taught to children are something you think is just doo dang literal.
Anyways, the purpose of my rhetorical quest3 is for you to take a little time, do some self-crit, and think about the similarities between your behavior and those of genocide apologetic liberals, and then come back and talk about that if you would want to continue.
I am not seeing any accounting of my blatant point in your responses. You have missed it all, apparently. So I will wait for you to engage with it and I will be dismissing your attempts to steer this in your various confused directions.
It’s not overly literal to know that rhetorical questions are for making a point, not asking you a question.
Yes - and then?
Yet again the basixa taught to children are something you think is just doo dang literal.
Sticking to the basics is taking it too literal, yes.
Anyways, the purpose of my rhetorical quest3 is for you to take a little time, do some self-crit,
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.
the similarities between your behavior and those of genocide apologetic liberals
I think you’re projecting that. I have not once ever provided genocide apologia and nor do I ever even remotely condone it. I think you’re assuming intentions I don’t have, and I would prefer for you to not do that. 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. I interpreted your rhetorical question as shaming anyone who votes for either of the two obvious potential winners.
Maybe this appears to you as me “defending” the Democrat party. They don’t deserve defending. 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.
I am not seeing any accounting of my blatant point in your responses.
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.
You have missed it all, apparently.
That’s nice of you to say.
So I will wait for you to engage with it and I will be dismissing your attempts to steer this in your various confused directions.
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.
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.
Sure. I fucked up bad enough that you ended up thinking I’m a liberal. I can admit that.
Now what? What’s the point? Because when I read back through the thread, you did indeed come in and say it’s easy to just not vote for genocide. And sure, I guess you could just not vote, or third party. But you don’t actually think that someone other than them will win, do you?
Something other than voting is needed for the genocide to stop. Real action needs to happen. People need to organise, agitate, demonstrate, prefigure - and that’s just the start.
Surely we agree on this? If not, then what’s the point?
Of course I know what one is. That’s kinda the problem here. A rhetorical question, among other things, is intended to make a point. The obvious point concluded from answering this question in the morally correct way is that it is always wrong to support genocide or vote for genocidal candidates, in a sort of Kantian categorical imperative.
If you know what one is why did you answer it? lol
Buddy you gotta take a break you just aren’t making sense anymore
Damn you are literal-minded. The idea of “it doesn’t need an answer” isn’t like… a law. It’s a poetic description of the fact it makes you think. The discussion isn’t supposed to just, like… stop there, is it? After the question has prompted the thought you’re supposed to re-engage, enlightened by the knowledge the rhetorical question gave you.
Also… you asked me to…?
I’m just trying to get on the same page man, you’re not making it easy
It’s not overly literal to know that rhetorical questions are for making a point, not asking you a question. Yet again the basixa taught to children are something you think is just doo dang literal.
Anyways, the purpose of my rhetorical quest3 is for you to take a little time, do some self-crit, and think about the similarities between your behavior and those of genocide apologetic liberals, and then come back and talk about that if you would want to continue.
I am not seeing any accounting of my blatant point in your responses. You have missed it all, apparently. So I will wait for you to engage with it and I will be dismissing your attempts to steer this in your various confused directions.
Yes - and then?
Sticking to the basics is taking it too literal, yes.
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.
I think you’re projecting that. I have not once ever provided genocide apologia and nor do I ever even remotely condone it. I think you’re assuming intentions I don’t have, and I would prefer for you to not do that. 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. I interpreted your rhetorical question as shaming anyone who votes for either of the two obvious potential winners.
Maybe this appears to you as me “defending” the Democrat party. They don’t deserve defending. 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.
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’s nice of you to say.
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.
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.
Rather than attempt conversation in good faith you have decided to reject the basics of language taught to children.
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 don’t think you know what projection is. I have the antithesis of these sentiments both inside and out.
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 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?
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.
Which rhetorical question? My agitational questions are usually non-rhetorixal, but they do challenge.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
Sure. I fucked up bad enough that you ended up thinking I’m a liberal. I can admit that.
Now what? What’s the point? Because when I read back through the thread, you did indeed come in and say it’s easy to just not vote for genocide. And sure, I guess you could just not vote, or third party. But you don’t actually think that someone other than them will win, do you?
Something other than voting is needed for the genocide to stop. Real action needs to happen. People need to organise, agitate, demonstrate, prefigure - and that’s just the start.
Surely we agree on this? If not, then what’s the point?
As noted in my other comments I will not be responding further.
I agree that it’s wrong to support genocide or vote for genocidal candidates.