If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they're lying.
Evidence or GTFO.
I addressed your argument re “definition”, what the definition was, and what makes a definition.
That's not what I said at all. That's just repeatedly asserting "this is how I use it" while completely ignoring my point.
No accusations have been made, it’s all here for anyone else to see (as long as they don’t share your cognitive dissonance, that is).
What is? What have I said that demonstrates I fit your definition of "tankie?"
Really? You addressed the argument that opposing war can be used to accuse the person of supporting the other side? The thing that you're doing right now? Where? Apparently you even addressed it "directly!" I don't see that anywhere. All I see is, "No, I use it to mean this" over and over.
It doesn't matter what you call me or accuse me of. It's based on nothing. How did you come to the conclusion that I'm an "authoritarian" who "wants to crush dissent with tanks or any other means?" Was is because I said we should build fewer tanks?
I'm suggesting that if it were me, and I was gonna go down either way, I'd rather die knowing that I helped rid the world of at least one of those rat bastards.
Blah blah blah. What a bunch of drivel.
Yes, I'm evil. I'm evil because I refuse to kill or torture animals. I'm evil because I want people to act genuinely rather than based on image and self-aggrandizement. Sure, who even cares. Your moral framework is so obviously absurd and ridiculous that it can be dismissed without a second thought.
It's like you've confused the concept of morality with that of politeness. You're like the final boss of concern trolling. Utterly absurd. Laughable. Impoliteness is not immoral. Causing living beings to suffer needlessly is.
Go eat a carcass, bloodmouth.
The guy who got killed doing nonviolent shit?
That nonviolent shit will get you killed.
Ah, but some of us enjoy being rude to carnists, and as humans, we do what makes us feel better no matter what.
Seriously, where do you get off? Acting all holier-than-thou and calling us "evil" while simultaneously coming from a place of pure self-interest and saying that you were only doing it to "look like a good person." Pick a lane. Either you're a heartless, amoral sociopath, or you're trying to claim the moral high ground, you can't do both at once.
I'd rather not have people in it purely for the image. If anything, that's far more damaging than anything I or any other vegan on here is doing. A rude true believer is a hell of a lot more respectable than someone who's only in it to show off and congratulate themselves.
But go ahead, scratched liberal, go torture and kill animals because a person was rude to you on the internet. Some of us have a conception of right and wrong that goes beyond putting on a front, and if you don't, then you were only ever pretending to care anyway. That is, assuming anything you said is true and you're not just a concern-trolling carnist who's never had anything to do with veganism in the first place.
You need numbers and you need those numbers to have guns. They are not stopping, they do not care about right or wrong, and there is no telling how far they're going to go. Without the threat of armed resistance, what is stopping them from open massacres?
Guns will not keep you safe, granted. But not having a gun obviously won't keep you safe either. Think about what you're saying, you're relying on the fascists to act in good faith, out of the kindness of their hearts. That's nonsense.
Nonviolence is a tactic, it can be an effective tactic, but it is only a tactic. If conditions reach a point where that tactic is not applicable or effective, then it will be time to change tactics. What's the plan if they start firing up the gas chambers?
I voted and encouraged others to do so.
Harris and Clinton bent over backwards to win over the mythical "moderate republicans" and ate shit. Only reason Biden won was because of COVID.
If the democrats can't be pressured or reasoned with, that's all the more reason to give up on them.
In 1970, the National Guard opened fire on a crowd of peaceful, unarmed students, killing four and wounding nine more. A Gallup poll conducted a week after the shooting found that 58% of Americans blamed the students for the massacre, with only 11% blaming the guardsmen. Many students who were present at the massacre were shunned by their own families, some were even disowned, and some were told that even more students should have been killed to teach them a lesson.
The students, for their part, couldn't even comprehend what was happening at first. Many of them thought the soldiers' weapons were loaded with blanks, that they were just trying to intimidate them. After the massacre, many of the students wanted to reassemble and continue peacefully demonstrating, in defiance of the guard. One of the professors convinced them to disperse, by shouting at them that all of them would be killed.
How was it possible for the public to see it that way? Because of how the media spun it. Even before the massacre, they were saying that the protests were full of "outside agitators" and claiming that they had been doing things like lacing the water supply with LSD. Of course, it eventually "came out" that these claims were complete bullshit based on nothing. So, once the moment had passed, they quietly printed retractions.
All that shit still happens today. It happens every single time a cop murders someone, whether it's Renee Good or George Floyd. The right wingers immediately start digging for any possible way to spin it and if they can't then they simply lie, and if the lie falls apart it doesn't matter, by that point people will have forgotten and moved on.
Yes they will kill you. They'll put people down like dogs and worry about how to justify it later. People want to believe the world is just, and that often means blaming the victim. They'll do it and they'll get away with it too.
Buy a gun.
Say that it’s valid to place conditions on voting democrat. Then explain what possible condition could be more valid than “no genocide.”
Literally nothing else you can say matters at all. Because if you can't answer this, then when you say your position is not unconditionally voting democrat, you are simply lying.
If you want to argue for unconditionally supporting them, and admit that that is your position, then it might be worth considering any of your other arguments, because then at least you're being honest and consistent. But unless you can either do that or answer my challenge, you are obviously engaging in bad faith and dishonesty.
Either you're ok with placing conditions on them or you support them unconditionally. That's what "unconditionally" means. You don't get to have it both ways.
And, if you can answer that challenge, then you'll have already refuted all the arguments you just made for me.
I never said to unconditionally vote for the Democratic candidates to begin with so the rest of your response to this imagined position is moot.
Y'all always play this little game. "I didn't say that, don't put words in my mouth." OK then, say unequivocally that that is not your position. Say that it's valid to place conditions on voting democrat. Then explain what possible condition could be more valid than "no genocide."
You just don't like me rephrasing your position bluntly.
I’m advocating for maximizing the power of your vote in the system we currently have. If you’re living in a district in a state with any kind of ranked choice voting, absolutely vote third party if that’s where your alignment falls.
No, you have it completely backwards. I am going to vote according to my values and beliefs. If they give me ranked choice voting, then I will happily put them above the Republicans. Otherwise, they will acquiesce to my minimum demands or they will not get my vote.
Third parties just aren’t viable in districts without ranked choice, so to get ranked choice we the voters need to put candidates who support election reform in power thru the major party primaries. Which is exactly what I’m advocating for
Oh, you're one of those. "My car broke down." "Well then, just drive it to the mechanic!"
The problem that ranked choice is meant to address is that the current system does not provide a viable means for us to get policy enacted. Your "solution" is to keep using ineffective, broken means in the hopes that it will somehow be effective at fixing itself. If we could achieve RCV through the existing system, then we could just achieve whatever end policy we want through the existing system. The logic is incredibly backwards, putting the cart before the horse.
If you had an ounce of spine, then you would demand RCV, then you would say that you should only vote for those candidates who support it. And if enough people did that, perhaps it could be achievable. And I'd certainly have more respect for your position.
As it is, your position is simply complete, unconditional support for the democrats, and then you say some irrelevant shit about voting reform to distract from that fact. Like, "It would sure be nice if the king decided to institute democracy out of the kindness of his heart, I'll keep supporting him either way though." If that is false, then address my first paragraph.
I don't think Trump being president is better than Kamala, which is why I didn't vote for him.
If Kamala had won, then she would still be black bagging people to concentration camps. ICE existed before and both Biden and Kamala explicitly support it. The silver lining is that, because Trump is doing it blatantly, as you say, at least more people are aware of it and upset about it. Doing fascism while following the rules and keeping everything out of sight and out of mind is arguably worse, but it's kind of a toss up.
Of course, the strategies I mentioned were and are longshots, which may take a while to work if they will at all. But they have a nonzero chance of working, which is more than "vote blue no matter who" does. That is, if the goal is actually stopping fascism and not just easing into it more comfortably.
Again, blandly asserting "I'm right and you're wrong." I don't know if you're just stubborn, or if you lack the capacity to engage beyond that. Either way, you obviously have nothing to contribute.