Unruffled [they/them] @ Flatworm7591 @lemmy.dbzer0.com

wiki-user: unruffled

---

Read more

Posts

438

Comments

686

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

It takes two to tango, Rhoeri. But you are right I suppose, so I'll leave it here.

I'm simply responding directly to your comments. I agree we have strayed from the original topic, so will leave it there.

😂

Ok I suppose maybe you are right in this case.

I think moderating a heated conversation you are a part of is also bullshit. You can’t be arguing with someone, tell them to do something in the argument, and then say “failure to follow mod direction” or whatever when they don’t. Or, you can, but it’s bullshit.

1. Not sure which thread you were reading but I wasn't arguing with the individual in that thread at all afaik, NSXRN was.
2. The onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence, but all they did was deflect the question and hand wave. When called out, they deflected again.
3. When I stepped in to ask them to "put up or shut up" they deflected yet again so I removed their reply.

As for the rest of your comments NSRXNs reply seems to have covered it.

I don't get the analogy. Who are the firefighters supposed to represent?

A more accurate analogy would be that the Democrats were responsible for the building's fire safety, but they were given a big donation by a company that provides for-profit fire services, so they decided to outsource it. Then the private fire company keeps reducing services, raising prices, and cutting staff to make more profit. The tenants all complain, but the Democrats refuse to accept feedback or to cancel the contract. Then one day, the Republicans are voted in charge, because the tenants are so fed up with the management of the Democrats. The Republicans award the contract to another company on even worse terms, because the owner made a big donation to their campaign. They also couldn't give a shit about the tenants. One day, the building burns down. The Democrats tell the surviving tenants that they should have voted for the lesser evil because they would (maybe) have been better off. That's where we are now.

An absence of evidence is just that. I haven't posted in support of libraries either. Does that mean I'm anti-books? You are using fundamentally flawed logic.

The reason I have a hate boner for the Democrats is because they handed the election to Trump. And because they refuse to change course, except to slide more to the right to chase those precious Republican votes. Their only actually progressive members are routinely undermined by the party leadership and sidelined in favour of neo liberal types. So yes, you have "proven" the bleeding obvious, well done. It's not like I've tried to hide my opinions lmao.

Totally agree with your first point. But the US democratic system is barely democratic imo, and tactical voting simply reinforces the existing 2 party system. The only chance they have for meaningful policy change is breaking the two party monopoly.

Edit: but that's exactly what the Democrats and Republicans don't want to happen.

You'll never change the system by complying with the system.

My inaction? I'm not American. And neither do I accept the pitiful attempt of Democrats to deflect blame onto everyone but themselves for their embarrassing loss to a literal moron. You lot fucked around with plutocracy and reached the endgame early. Sucks to be you I guess.

How it works in your country you mean? Where voters have basically no say in the candidates they can vote for, and are attacked and disparaged by both major parties if they have the temerity to vote for a candidate they actually like? Sounds like a healthy "democracy" to me, sure. The whole point of a democracy is voting for folks who represent your views. If neither of the two mainstream parties reflect your views then you are completely disenfranchised under that system. Accepting the premise that only one of two parties can ever win a Presidential election means that you have already given up on democracy. Holding your nose and voting for the least worst candidate only serves to prop up the two party system in perpetuity, and ensures your views will never be represented in the future.

Not on this instance matey lol. But LW for sure.

Classic Democrat take. Propaganda didn't win Trump the election. The painful incompetence of Biden and Kamala handed him the election. And the painful incompetence of Trump will (hopefully, as in hopefully there's another election) lead to the election of whoever the next completely unlikable and unpopular Democratic candidate is. Have you folks ever thought of running a candidate who would actually tackle income inequality and fairly tax the rich? Nah, didn't think so.

Ah yes, the least-worst option voting tactic, which ensures only one of two corrupt, incompetent parties can ever win the Presidency. Hardly vote inspiring is it? Do better.

Good for you. But I don't see the problem with dunking on anyone who supports genocide, and that includes the Dems, sadly. Why would any leftist USasian bother voting if their choices are confined to either supplying weapons to genocidal regimes, or supplying bombs to genocidal regimes?

Maybe folks don't want to vote for their own oppressors, whether the oppressor in chief is Trump or Harris? But Harris would have been less oppressive you say? Tell that to the working poor who have ballooned in numbers under both Democrats and Republicans. And tell it to the Palestinians, most of whom were killed with Biden's bombs.

Oh yes, I forgot democracies can only have two candidates to choose from, both with the same foreign policy towards Israel. Do you want a democracy or not? If so, there's got to be room for more parties and candidates.

There can be only two candidates to choose from, and both will be genocide supporters, and you will be happy you have a vote.

Believe it or not, not everyone is a shit stain American who got to vote for one of your two shitty mainstream candidates, both of which support Israel to the hilt.

Put up or shut up.