Your comment about anarchists and electorialism was a response to a comment saying anarchists prefer the center right party over the far right party. No one said anything about anarchists canvassing and fundraising for the center right party.
Your criticisms of canvassing and fundraising, while not entirely untrue, are absolutely irrelevant to to topic at hand. When you’re having a discussion, you keep your comments relevant to the topic of discussion. That’s like… the basics of conversation.
Correct, that doesn’t make them non sequiturs. What makes them non sequiturs is being unrelated to the topic. I choose not to engage because they’re irrelevant, not the other way around. I choose this because I don’t entertain Gish Gallop distractions, they muddy the water of productive conversations.
I was tryiig to get across that anarchists don’t “prefer” any party, if they have the alternative of not focusing on electoralism. That’s not a non-sequitur, that’s correcting a lacking representation of aiarchists.
Anarchists usually also prefer liberal democracy over a feudal system. But stopping at that statement would also misrepresent anarchists.
Preference is relative. In a binary choice, the less bad option is preferred. This was the clear message of the comment you replied to.
Your reply neither refuted this, nor effectively communicated the message you’re currently on. All it does is imply that anarchists benefit in some way from ignoring elections.
I can be critical of what other people do. That’s like… the basics of systemic societal critique.
Your criticisms are non sequiturs.
Your comment about anarchists and electorialism was a response to a comment saying anarchists prefer the center right party over the far right party. No one said anything about anarchists canvassing and fundraising for the center right party.
Your criticisms of canvassing and fundraising, while not entirely untrue, are absolutely irrelevant to to topic at hand. When you’re having a discussion, you keep your comments relevant to the topic of discussion. That’s like… the basics of conversation.
Just cause you don’t want to engage with a conversation doesn’t mean thah the other person makes non sequiturs.
Correct, that doesn’t make them non sequiturs. What makes them non sequiturs is being unrelated to the topic. I choose not to engage because they’re irrelevant, not the other way around. I choose this because I don’t entertain Gish Gallop distractions, they muddy the water of productive conversations.
I was tryiig to get across that anarchists don’t “prefer” any party, if they have the alternative of not focusing on electoralism. That’s not a non-sequitur, that’s correcting a lacking representation of aiarchists.
Anarchists usually also prefer liberal democracy over a feudal system. But stopping at that statement would also misrepresent anarchists.
Preference is relative. In a binary choice, the less bad option is preferred. This was the clear message of the comment you replied to.
Your reply neither refuted this, nor effectively communicated the message you’re currently on. All it does is imply that anarchists benefit in some way from ignoring elections.
As I said: just because you don’t want to engage, doesn’t mean that it’s a non-sequitur.
As I said, it’s not a non sequitur because I’m not engaging, I’m not engaging because is a non sequitur. It’s a very simple concept.
You keep telling yourself that you’re not making excuses for not engaging. /s