If we play along though, can your share your definition of a strawman? Would it be less of a “strawman” to say ‘You will advocate for your own death, and the death of others, so long as the Ds delay the trigger pulling by 1ns.’?
If you answer yes/no to that “strawman” then I’ll explain my aim.
Sorry, yes you did. I, ironically, got misdirected by the “strawman” bit.
My aim is to understand your thought process, check my own perspective, crowdsource actual solutions to little problems like fascism, and push back against misinformation/disinformation.
Specifically here, I’m trying to highlight the death spiral that results from the false dichotomy you seem trapped in. I don’t have a solution, but I need you to understand your “solution” is a core component of the underlying problem.
Do you see that question as a strawman because I made the consequences explicitly personal instead of abstract? Is it less of a strawman to say “you will support genocide abroad so long as the Dems delay pulling the trigger by 1ns.”?
Specifically here, I’m trying to highlight the death spiral that results from the false dichotomy you seem trapped in. I don’t have a solution, but I need you to understand your “solution” is a core component of the underlying problem.
It’s not a false dichotomy, especially once the primaries are over.
I guess you haven’t paid much attention to how American elections work (or First Past the Post in general), but the party in third place has 3% of the vote, which is far from a plurality when the top two are at 35% and 30%. Because they’re so far from plurality, they act as a “spoiler” party, harming the closest party to them.
Do you see that question as a strawman because I made the consequences explicitly personal instead of abstract? Is it less of a strawman to say “you will support genocide abroad so long as the Dems delay pulling the trigger by 1ns.”?
No, because you are still making up a position of mine to confirm via question. So I’ll answer your new straw man of “you will support genocide abroad so long as the Dems delay pulling the trigger by 1ns.” again:
No, I don’t/wouldn’t.
Are you seriously this confused on what a straw man argument is?
It is. The Ds and Rs are not two separate monoliths. They are friends, coworkers, and individuals who’s class/professional interests are directly in conflict with our own.
I think you are misunderstanding my position. I am saying do not support or legitimize them and it is important to call them out on their bullshit instead of running cover for them. I do view voting for them as legitimization, I am asking the questions I am to try and provide you an opportunity to share some perspective that changes/conflicts/opposes that. So far, you have done the opposite.
No, because you are still making up a position of mine to confirm via question.
I am specifically asking for clarity around your previously stated position:
If the Rs are enthusiastic about supporting genocide and the Ds are toying with going against it? I’ll vote D.
You have contradicted this statement twice now without any explanation as to why, or how it differs. What changed? The point of that “straw man” is for you to explicitly call it out and clarify where the difference lies. Just saying “strawman!” doesn’t clarify anything for either of us.
It is. The Ds and Rs are not two separate monoliths. They are friends, coworkers, and individuals who’s class/professional interests are directly in conflict with our own.
Literally none of that has anything to do with whether or not we’re talking about a false dichotomy.
I think you’re confused about what a “false dichotomy” is, or maybe you think “It is” is a good explanation for your reasoning. It isn’t.
I think you are misunderstanding my position. I am saying do not support or legitimize them and it is important to call them out on their bullshit instead of running cover for them. I do view voting for them as legitimization, I am asking the questions I am to try and provide you an opportunity to share some perspective that changes/conflicts/opposes that. So far, you have done the opposite.
Again, this is based on your misunderstanding of First Past the Post voting systems.
It’s like if someone pointed a gun at your friend and your neighbor and said, “Who should I shoot? If you say nothing, I will shoot your friend.”
People like you say nothing and get their friend shot, but feel righteous for it, proud that they did not endorse murder of their neighbor.
I am specifically asking for clarity around your previously stated position:
If the Rs are enthusiastic about supporting genocide and the Ds are toying with going against it? I’ll vote D.
You have contradicted this statement twice now without any explanation as to why, or how it differs.
No I haven’t. I get that you('re pretending you) don’t understand my position despite explaining it to you several times, but that doesn’t change the fact that I explained it. I can’t make you understand it.
When you ask silly questions based on straw men, you are not endeavoring to understand my position. It’s fine if you don’t actually want to, but stop wasting time pretending you do.
It’s like if someone pointed a gun at your friend and your neighbor and said, “Who should I shoot? If you say nothing, I will shoot your friend.”
I do kind of like this metaphor. So what do you do? Say “shoot me instead!”? You sacrificed yourself and the person shooting people still has your friend and neighbor at gunpoint. Why would the gunman do what you say, and if they do what is stopping them from shooting your friend and neighbor as well?
Do you say “shoot my neighbor!”? Why would the gunman do what you say? He’s more likely to shoot you for being bold and confident than anything, and next most likely to shoot your friend out of spite.
Do you say “shoot yourself!”? While a clever response, I do agree this is the equivalent of “third party” voting. There is zero reason for the gunman to honor the rules of the game and suicide themselves.
My position is there is no correct response to this game. The reason people are dying is because a deranged lunatic is shooting people, not how the victims are responding to the madman’s game.
I have heard your talking points parroted hundreds of times and I still do not understand. The metaphor you provided is a perfect example of what I don’t understand about your position/perspective. What exactly were you trying to communicate with it?
The message I am trying to get across is that the gunman can not be trusted, yet you insist that playing by their rules will somehow result in the best outcome and insisting my evidence otherwise will “drive voter apathy”.
How do you propose dealing with this metaphorical gunman?
Deflecting won’t get you out of this.
If we play along though, can your share your definition of a strawman? Would it be less of a “strawman” to say ‘You will advocate for your own death, and the death of others, so long as the Ds delay the trigger pulling by 1ns.’?
If you answer yes/no to that “strawman” then I’ll explain my aim.
lmao, tuff
I already answered your ridiculous question. Maybe you should polish up on your English reading skills?
Sorry, yes you did. I, ironically, got misdirected by the “strawman” bit.
My aim is to understand your thought process, check my own perspective, crowdsource actual solutions to little problems like fascism, and push back against misinformation/disinformation.
Specifically here, I’m trying to highlight the death spiral that results from the false dichotomy you seem trapped in. I don’t have a solution, but I need you to understand your “solution” is a core component of the underlying problem.
Do you see that question as a strawman because I made the consequences explicitly personal instead of abstract? Is it less of a strawman to say “you will support genocide abroad so long as the Dems delay pulling the trigger by 1ns.”?
It’s not a false dichotomy, especially once the primaries are over.
I guess you haven’t paid much attention to how American elections work (or First Past the Post in general), but the party in third place has 3% of the vote, which is far from a plurality when the top two are at 35% and 30%. Because they’re so far from plurality, they act as a “spoiler” party, harming the closest party to them.
No, because you are still making up a position of mine to confirm via question. So I’ll answer your new straw man of “you will support genocide abroad so long as the Dems delay pulling the trigger by 1ns.” again:
No, I don’t/wouldn’t.
Are you seriously this confused on what a straw man argument is?
It is. The Ds and Rs are not two separate monoliths. They are friends, coworkers, and individuals who’s class/professional interests are directly in conflict with our own.
I think you are misunderstanding my position. I am saying do not support or legitimize them and it is important to call them out on their bullshit instead of running cover for them. I do view voting for them as legitimization, I am asking the questions I am to try and provide you an opportunity to share some perspective that changes/conflicts/opposes that. So far, you have done the opposite.
I am specifically asking for clarity around your previously stated position:
You have contradicted this statement twice now without any explanation as to why, or how it differs. What changed? The point of that “straw man” is for you to explicitly call it out and clarify where the difference lies. Just saying “strawman!” doesn’t clarify anything for either of us.
Literally none of that has anything to do with whether or not we’re talking about a false dichotomy.
I think you’re confused about what a “false dichotomy” is, or maybe you think “It is” is a good explanation for your reasoning. It isn’t.
Again, this is based on your misunderstanding of First Past the Post voting systems.
It’s like if someone pointed a gun at your friend and your neighbor and said, “Who should I shoot? If you say nothing, I will shoot your friend.”
People like you say nothing and get their friend shot, but feel righteous for it, proud that they did not endorse murder of their neighbor.
No I haven’t. I get that you('re pretending you) don’t understand my position despite explaining it to you several times, but that doesn’t change the fact that I explained it. I can’t make you understand it.
When you ask silly questions based on straw men, you are not endeavoring to understand my position. It’s fine if you don’t actually want to, but stop wasting time pretending you do.
I do kind of like this metaphor. So what do you do? Say “shoot me instead!”? You sacrificed yourself and the person shooting people still has your friend and neighbor at gunpoint. Why would the gunman do what you say, and if they do what is stopping them from shooting your friend and neighbor as well?
Do you say “shoot my neighbor!”? Why would the gunman do what you say? He’s more likely to shoot you for being bold and confident than anything, and next most likely to shoot your friend out of spite.
Do you say “shoot yourself!”? While a clever response, I do agree this is the equivalent of “third party” voting. There is zero reason for the gunman to honor the rules of the game and suicide themselves.
My position is there is no correct response to this game. The reason people are dying is because a deranged lunatic is shooting people, not how the victims are responding to the madman’s game.
I have heard your talking points parroted hundreds of times and I still do not understand. The metaphor you provided is a perfect example of what I don’t understand about your position/perspective. What exactly were you trying to communicate with it?
The message I am trying to get across is that the gunman can not be trusted, yet you insist that playing by their rules will somehow result in the best outcome and insisting my evidence otherwise will “drive voter apathy”.
How do you propose dealing with this metaphorical gunman?