• agamemnonymous
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    unless something is done to stop it, which is what I advocate for

    Water on the grease fire

      • agamemnonymous
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Like I said

        I’m not gonna nuh-uh-yuh-huh with someone who doesn’t understand elections

        I made my point, it remains valid. You’re throwing water on a grease fire because it’s obvious to you that water puts out fire.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          The only reason you’re talking about “nuh-uh-yuh-huh” is because you can’t make a coherent argument beyond that.

          Your “point” is grounded in deliberate lies and mischaracterization.

          Me: If I see something that’s going to start a house fire, I should try to stop it or put it out, or, failing that, plan around the house fire occuring.

          You: Your strategy is for the house to burn down.

          In what way is that not a blatant and deliberate lie?

          • agamemnonymous
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            If I see something that’s going to start a house fire, I should try to stop it or put it out, or, failing that, plan around the house fire occuring.

            You see a grease fire on the stove (shortcomings of the duopolistic system), you know that water puts out fire (voting for a candidate is how they get elected), and you refuse to let any words sway you from throwing water on the grease fire (voting for a spoiler candidate in a FPTP election).

            The only blatant and deliberate lie here was when you claimed to have supported this strategy with any logic or evidence. In fact you demonstrated yourself how, historically, it’s led to fascism every time.

            You are not a serious person. Clearly we’ve gotten far enough down the chain that there are no naive leftist passers by left to debunk your nonsense for. I’m not wasting any more time thrashing a position you’ve already said you can’t be reasoned out of. I hope you’re at least getting paid well to be such a freckles class traitor.

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              You’re just spewing lies left and right without defending yourself at all. You know that every word you’re saying is a blatant lie and you just don’t care.

              The only blatant and deliberate lie here

              This is just you going “nuh uh” again. You can’t defend what you said at all, so you just assert it wasn’t a lie without backing it up at all.

              In fact you demonstrated yourself how, historically, it’s led to fascism every time.

              I haven’t actually done this. Of course, what you lie and call a “”“strategy”“” is actually just a recognition of trends beyond my ability to control. Those trends do not always lead to fascism, but when fascism emerges, it’s generally because of a failure to stop that trend.

              To be clear, your blatant, knowing lie is claiming that by recognizing a trend I’m somehow responsible for it.

              Absolutely incredible for you to accuse me of being unreasonable, or a class traitor, or being paid off, when you’re defending the powerful through lies and bad faith.