The Democrats wouldn’t be making peace with the revolutionaries, lmao. Your hypothetical is already absurd when you imagine that the revolution would risk secret assets to rig elections, but the very idea that outright revolution would be going on and elections would both continue and that the democrats somehow would be aiming for peace with revolutionaries is even more fantastical.
I reject the hypothetical because it will never happen.
Ok, to scared to answer because you don’t like cognitive dissidence, no problem. I’ll talk with people who are willing to have a good faith discussion if you’re not even willing to try to understand people around you.
Not a great tactic for getting support for your cause but you do you
Dudes argument was the hypothetical could and would never happen, but that’s the whole point of hypotheticals. I was going to use it to illustrate a point but hey, they copped out.
That, while the revolution is important and what we need to work towards, it’s also not happening right now. Right now, we need to do what we can. The US government still exists, the empire isn’t toppled yet, so while that system is still around, you should be doing what you can within and without the system to help people. So yeah, both sides are bad, but one is slightly less bad and the other has gone rabid, so maybe don’t hand over the reigns to the rabid worse people? Both are shit sandwiches but one is on fire and covered in glass, so if you have to make everyone eat some of the sandwich, do the regular shit sandwich.
I know what a hypothetical is, the purpose of a hypothetical is to propose a relevant and reasonable question. Your hypothetical only makes sense if we assume that the DNC would treat revolutionaries differently from how the GOP would, which is historically inaccurate. Accusing me of bad-faith for pointing out where your hypothetical falls apart is nonsense, it isn’t bad-faith to reject a useless hypothetical, I took your hypothetical seriously and responded as such.
It was going to illustrate a point but hey, whatever, if you can’t figure out how to play in the sandbox it’s not my fault. I was going somewhere but if you’re refusing to work with me then we can try this a different way or not bother.
What point were you trying to illustrate? That it would be strategically better to organize under a milquetoast liberal regime than a republican regime? My response is how I already responded, neither is acceptable and both would pivot to open fascism against revolution if it actually broke out.
Hell, in modern days, organizing under the GOP is paradoxically easier because they are less competent managers of empire, and spark more discontent among the populace, driving support for revolutionary change. I would never argue for voting for the GOP though, so that’s why I support third party voting, at most.
Nah, accelerationism would be supporting the DNC. Accelerationism isn’t “ruin everything,” it’s a strategy that says that if capitalism continuing results in crisis, we should have the most competent managers of empire in the front seat. This accelerates capital accumulation and crisis. I also said I am not in favor of the “ruin everything” tactic either.
That’s why I am a revolutionary, and I don’t support the DNC nor GOP. I told you why I wouldn’t vote for the GOP nor DNC. Sacrificing minority groups is unnacceptable, and climate change is an ever-present danger. That’s why revolution is necessary.
You’re probably referencing the Nazi bar that stalks communists at the end there, for what reason I don’t know.
The Democrats wouldn’t be making peace with the revolutionaries, lmao. Your hypothetical is already absurd when you imagine that the revolution would risk secret assets to rig elections, but the very idea that outright revolution would be going on and elections would both continue and that the democrats somehow would be aiming for peace with revolutionaries is even more fantastical.
I reject the hypothetical because it will never happen.
Bro never heard of what hypothetical means, lmao
Ok, to scared to answer because you don’t like cognitive dissidence, no problem. I’ll talk with people who are willing to have a good faith discussion if you’re not even willing to try to understand people around you.
Not a great tactic for getting support for your cause but you do you
“What if my arms and legs turn into rubber and droop down and you have to help me carry my arms like a big firehose”
“Not only is that never gonna happen, it has fuck all to do with studying for your driving test”
“Psh, bro’s never heard of a hypothetical.”
Dudes argument was the hypothetical could and would never happen, but that’s the whole point of hypotheticals. I was going to use it to illustrate a point but hey, they copped out.
What was the point gonna be?
That, while the revolution is important and what we need to work towards, it’s also not happening right now. Right now, we need to do what we can. The US government still exists, the empire isn’t toppled yet, so while that system is still around, you should be doing what you can within and without the system to help people. So yeah, both sides are bad, but one is slightly less bad and the other has gone rabid, so maybe don’t hand over the reigns to the rabid worse people? Both are shit sandwiches but one is on fire and covered in glass, so if you have to make everyone eat some of the sandwich, do the regular shit sandwich.
I know what a hypothetical is, the purpose of a hypothetical is to propose a relevant and reasonable question. Your hypothetical only makes sense if we assume that the DNC would treat revolutionaries differently from how the GOP would, which is historically inaccurate. Accusing me of bad-faith for pointing out where your hypothetical falls apart is nonsense, it isn’t bad-faith to reject a useless hypothetical, I took your hypothetical seriously and responded as such.
It was going to illustrate a point but hey, whatever, if you can’t figure out how to play in the sandbox it’s not my fault. I was going somewhere but if you’re refusing to work with me then we can try this a different way or not bother.
What point were you trying to illustrate? That it would be strategically better to organize under a milquetoast liberal regime than a republican regime? My response is how I already responded, neither is acceptable and both would pivot to open fascism against revolution if it actually broke out.
Hell, in modern days, organizing under the GOP is paradoxically easier because they are less competent managers of empire, and spark more discontent among the populace, driving support for revolutionary change. I would never argue for voting for the GOP though, so that’s why I support third party voting, at most.
Removed by mod
Nah, accelerationism would be supporting the DNC. Accelerationism isn’t “ruin everything,” it’s a strategy that says that if capitalism continuing results in crisis, we should have the most competent managers of empire in the front seat. This accelerates capital accumulation and crisis. I also said I am not in favor of the “ruin everything” tactic either.
That’s why I am a revolutionary, and I don’t support the DNC nor GOP. I told you why I wouldn’t vote for the GOP nor DNC. Sacrificing minority groups is unnacceptable, and climate change is an ever-present danger. That’s why revolution is necessary.
You’re probably referencing the Nazi bar that stalks communists at the end there, for what reason I don’t know.
Sorry, you haven’t made a very compelling argument so I’m going to keep doing what I’m doing, thanks.