You're viewing a single thread.
Given the attitudes on this platform I'm bracing for the downvotes, but I genuinely wish you and others like you would stop trying to (nearly daily) insult/shame others into voting the way you want. You should watch this video by Bernie Sanders about winning votes for Biden on merit and logic. Note that he never uses insults, and the reasoned arguments Sanders has been making for months convinced me to stop telling people to vote 3rd party months ago. I'm now willing to ask people to vote Biden in spite of my reservations - not because Biden is great but because Trump absolutely cannot be allowed to win.
You and others with the same views could try that approach as opposed to reflexively calling everyone who brings up concerns or expresses reservations fascists, complete idiots, bots, and so on. I have no clue why so many people on Lemmy believe that incessantly attacking everyone who disagrees with them with the most extreme accusations they can muster makes their position welcoming or attractive. I won't speak for others but I was won over by calm reason, not being called slurs every time I opened Lemmy.
not because Biden is great but because Trump absolutely cannot be allowed to win.
Oh, here I thought my argument was something else.
It's funny, though, because when you emphasize that Trump can't be allowed to win, the chorus of the MLs and their defenders is "HE CAN'T JUST BE NOT TRUMP, THE LESSER EVIL IS STILL EVIL".
You and others with the same views could try that approach as opposed to reflexively calling everyone who brings up concerns or expresses reservations fascists, complete idiots, bots, and so on. I have no clue why so many people on Lemmy believe that frequently insulting everyone who disagrees with them with the most extreme accusations they can muster makes their position welcoming or attractive.
I'm not trying to attract MLs. MLs and their useful idiots are lost causes. This isn't about convincing people who are already set in their ways - it's about warding off the braindead points of propagandists so everyone can see what they are before making the mistake of buying in.
"I'm allowed to call people idiots, fascists, etc. basically daily because I can justify it." Everyone willing to dehumanize and denigrate others has what they believe to be validating reasons. I can't stop you from trying to win people over by insulting everyone who disagrees, but I wanted to be a voice asking for kinder, calmer discourse a la the Bernie video I posted.
“I’m allowed to call people idiots, fascists, etc. basically daily because I can justify it.”
I'm allowed to call out fascists for being fascist fucks because kindness and sweetness doesn't stop fascism.
You keep up on the flower power, though.
I can read your post history. I'm getting tired making the same point but insults are, as near as I can tell, your go-to and I don't even know if you try anything else. You've insulted people disagreeing with you several times just today. I mean, look at how dismissive you are (kindness doesn't work, flower power) of me and Senator Sander's approach of using calmly delivered facts to win over those who will likely decide the upcoming election. It's an attempt to make sure people are convinced you are a true defender of democracy and that your modus operandi of attacks are the only reasonable way to do it properly.
But whatever. I've made my point, given a solid example of what I think is a far more attractive approach that has worked for me and others, and that's all I wanted to add to the conversation. Feel free to reiterate that I'm a idiotic hippy who will usher in unending fascism.
I can read your post history. I’m getting tired making the same point but insults are, as near as I can tell, your go-to and I don’t even know if you try anything else. You’ve insulted people disagreeing with you several times just today.
Just today? Funny thing is, today the only two arguments I've gotten into are "Is letting fascists into power actually bad?" (it is) and "Is genocide of Ukrainians wrong enough to do literally anything about?" (it is).
Sorry if you find that a disagreement worthy of respectful dialogue, but personally, I find neither fascism nor genocide to be respectable.
Just today?
What did I say about being able to read your post history?
- "But hey, since when are fascists internally consistent?"
- "Democracy is. I didn’t realize that this metaphor was getting too complex for you."
- Here's your post from today where you call LibLefts "useful idiots who serve above (authoritarians) only to be purged when the revolution is complete". You also say they support terrorism, and their only solution to community violence is lynch mobs.
- "It doesn’t matter. They don’t believe in democracy, much less convincing people. They’re vanguardist fascists, after all."
- "Wow. Literally saying the quiet part out loud - “As long as the Democrats are not 100% in line with my views, it’s okay to endorse inaction and the takeover of a fascist regime on the pretext that the Democrats Aren’t Good Enough™”"
- "I’m used to tankie whinging about how they can’t support fascist regimes without being called out."
- "The literal opposite of the truth. But I guess the guilt of having MLs backstab the leftist opposition so Fascist Spain could win hurts your point, huh?"
- "Oh, they see the connection. They just want Republicans in office. They don’t give a fuck about the suffering of minorities, they just want the worst possible option in power so they can feel smug about “not supporting the system”."
Those are all examples from just the last 2 hours, across multiple threads. The tragic thing is, I probably agree with a lot of your points. You really do appear to want to deliver those points with as much dehumanization and dismissal as possible however.
Ironically, for how often this dude calls others foreign plants, he uses British language like whinging, which in the US is spelled whining.
What did I say about being able to read your post history?
You mistake me. When I said "Just today?" I meant it as a preface to "I've only been in two arguments today, and neither of them were with causes worthy of respect - namely, support for fascism, and support for genocide"
Here’s your post from today where you call LibLefts “useful idiots who serve above (authoritarians) only to be purged when the revolution is complete”.
That's a meme, man, of what is effectively a horoscope for political nerds, and it makes fun of all the quadrants.
“The literal opposite of the truth. But I guess the guilt of having MLs backstab the leftist opposition so Fascist Spain could win hurts your point, huh?”
I'm sorry, how am I supposed to respond to a blatant bad faith effort to spread historical misinformation? "That's definitely true"?
how am I supposed to respond to a blatant bad faith effort to spread historical misinformation?
With facts and sources to back up those facts. You can disagree with someone in a civil manner. If you actually care about my point about delivery, please watch that Bernie video.
Your meme does indeed make fun of all quadrants, but I used it because it's an example of the type of the insults. And let's be honest, there's evidence in those other posts that some of those opinions are not JUST satire for you. I mean, you called me out for being naively kind and employing "flower power", aka chances are you think I'm one of the useful idiots.
Aside from that, like I said - I can't stop you from insulting people. Your arguments seem to point to a belief in your right to do so. I don't think I would force you even if I could since I usually try to convince people instead. If I didn't change your mind, maybe I will change the minds of some others who may read this.
With facts and sources to back up those facts.
Historical misinformation spreads most readily simply by being repeated and undisputed.
You can disagree with someone in a civil manner.
Disagreeing with someone civilly acknowledges the validity of their point or position. Positions like "Genocide is okay to tolerate" or "Blatant historical misinformation spread in bad-faith and not ignorance" are not valid, and should not be acknowledged in a manner that implies they're valid.
Your meme does indeed make fun of all quadrants, but I used it because it’s an example of the type of the insults. And let’s be honest, there’s evidence in those other posts that some of those opinions are not JUST satire for you.
I mean, no, but is "Every political position, even the one I'm part of, has flaws" really that bad in your eyes?
If I didn’t change your mind, maybe I will change the minds of some others who may read this.
That's the right approach, honestly.
Historical misinformation spreads most readily simply by being repeated and undisputed.
This is admittedly a bit nitpickey, but I specifically said you address misinformation with facts and sources to back up those facts. That's the opposite of repeating and/or letting it go undisputed.
Disagreeing with someone civilly acknowledges the validity of their point or position.
No. You can say, emphatically, "you're wrong" without also calling someone idiotic, etc.
is “Every political position, even the one I’m part of, has flaws” really that bad in your eyes?
I've said right from the start that I agree with some points you make, and I stand by that. Being aware that everyone is wrong sometimes is undeniably a virtue.
That’s the right approach, honestly.
Thank you :) I appreciate that, and respect that you're willing to give me that even if we have had our disagreements today.
not because Biden is great but because Trump absolutely cannot be allowed to win.
I hear all the time "Biden can't run on being not Trump".
And Biden is great. He's done a crap load.
Biden has done some good things. I disagree that he's great. If you want specifics, the first 90 seconds of that Sanders video is him detailing several grievances I agree with in a clear, concise and fairly complete list. However, to quote Sanders: "But while we may have our disagreements with Biden, it's important to take a minute to think about what a Trump presidency would mean to our country, and in fact the world."
I know what needs to be done which is why I stopped encouraging/supporting 3rd party or undecided voting months ago. I could go on a lot longer, but that's the bottom line. I'll join the effort to stop Trump - just don't ask me to agree that my concerns are invalid or have been adequately addressed.
Lol see there it is. You chose to focus on the "not Trump". I may watch it later, but you see? I talk about how Biden's done great, and you talk about how he's not Trump.
So you won't spend 90 seconds to watch the criticisms laid out, but you'll take the time to tell me they are all either nonexistent or invalid?
That's not what I said, so now you're horribly bad faith and I'm no longer willing to converse with you. Funny how you emphasis "not insult/shame" and then pull out that absolutely horrendous bad faith move.
(FYI I'm on mobile and not watching at the moment.)
No. You said "Biden is great". I said, "I acknowledge he's done some good, I still disagree, and here's a concise list of reasons why. In spite of that, I'm willing to get on board to fight Trump". You replied (and this is an exact quote): "I talk about how Biden’s done great, and you talk about how he’s not Trump", completely disregarding that I directly addressed why I don't think Biden is great. I did NOT just talk about how he's not Trump.
How am I arguing in bad faith? That is the sequence of events, and it's easily confirmed. I'm also not calling you out just because you didn't watch the video. I'm saying you didn't watch AND disregarded that I explicitly gave you the video as a source for my disagreement with you to instead say I focus on "not Trump". Now you've doubled down with a response that paints me as arguing in bad faith and linking that to insults/abuse. I never insulted you. Disagreeing is not inherently a slur or abusive, nor is pointing out the holes in an rebuttal. If you don't have time to watch the vid that's understandable but wait to respond until you do or at least don't say I only focused on "not Trump" when that's provably not the case.