Lmao, I engaged with all your arguments, but you cannot do the same for me.
What you call yourself doesn’t matter if you’re completely wrong. The only thing that matters is the tangible reality, which you are going against without providing a single evidence of why you’re right and why I’m wrong, when I argued extensively on my view.
You’re still at this? I made several arguments in that comment that you can reply too independent of the definition you use for liberalism, if you’re just gonna continue to be this childish, then I have nothing else to talk about. Either respond to my comment or fuck right off.
And since you’re gonna read this, like it or not, your definition of being a liberal has no basis in reality and is based on a theory that was never meant to you, no matter how much mental masturbation you make to justify it. The bourgeoisie used it to put themselves in power and continue to use it to maintain capitalism. You can cry all you want about how capitalism and liberalism as somehow separate, it won’t change reality.
Yep. I’m somewhat new to some of these ideas, and there’s a whole bunch of people trying to raise points at the same time.
If I’m going to learn, and respond intelligently I need to make sure I don’t get burnt out, and if this guy opens in such a blatantly bad faith way I’d rather spend the time replying to one of your or the many other intelligent comments I’ve been getting.
If I misjudged them, they now know how to phrase it to get a reply and I’ve told them they’re free to comment again and make an argument.
Yep. I’m somewhat new to some of these ideas, and there’s a whole bunch of people trying to raise points at the same time.
Then say that; don’t’ try to pull a dismissive “you’re wrong, but I can’t be bothered to explain why” dodge that you did.
and if this guy opens in such a blatantly bad faith way
He didn’t, and it’s bad faith of your to say he did.
they now know how to phrase it to get a reply and I’ve told them they’re free to comment again and make an argument.
They spent a lot of time writing out an extensive argument, and they have every right to expect that, if they did it again, you’d find some new procedural nitpick to justify not responding to it.
He didn’t, and it’s bad faith of your to say he did.
if they did it again, you’d find some new procedural nitpick to justify not responding to it.
Then that’s it. If I’m bad faith the discussion needs to end.
If you understand why they might not want to type up a long comment only for the other person to find some nitpick then you 100% understand why I ignored that one specific comment and replied to every single other comment on this thread.
Including to you actually multiple times to which one comment you replied
You’ve captured the flaw in liberalism extremely succinctly.
Thank you for the compliment. It’s funny to see you reply to me in so many different threads I feel like Schrodingers faith right now. Am I good faith? Bad faith? Who knows.
Because you refuse to believe what your senses are clearly showing you! This is the result of multigenerational propagandization. Fine. Don’t believe it. Merely suspend disbelief, and it’s good faith.
I’m not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but it’s not brain-bending to grasp this concept.
Great, I’ll make sure to report you to the mods if your openly admitting to acting in bad faith.
Feel free to do that, if I’ve broken the rules they should remove my comment. I didnt realize this was getting so personal so I will take this as the end of the convo, even across the other threads, just letting you know so you don’t waste time replying to those.
It would only be a compliment if you were trying to capture the flaw in liberalism.
Feel free to do that, if I’ve broken the rules they should remove my comment. I didnt realize this was getting so personal so I will take this as the end of the convo, even across the other threads, just letting you know so you don’t waste time replying to those.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre
I was. Again, I appreciate the compliment. Take care.
Glad to hear you’ve decided to abandon liberalism.
I’m liberal, you aren’t.
The only definition of liberal you will allow is one I do not hold, a strawman that completely contradicts all of my values.
That’s the end of the conversation then. I’m sorry you wasted your time typing this up.
If you have anything beyond semantic arguments on labels I would lead with that next time.
Lmao, I engaged with all your arguments, but you cannot do the same for me.
What you call yourself doesn’t matter if you’re completely wrong. The only thing that matters is the tangible reality, which you are going against without providing a single evidence of why you’re right and why I’m wrong, when I argued extensively on my view.
Hey I’m sorry. I just gave your comment an actual read and only the first paragraph I initially read was bad faith patronizing.
In the rest you did bring up points worth responding to so I apologize and I will do that in a bit.
Just keep in mind I may actually have some knowledge in history and just might be able to back up claims I make.
Well getting you to acknowledge that was like pulling teeth.
I will engage with any content in your argument.
I’m not going to argue with your definition of liberal.
I would love to keep talking but I’m the liberal, accept my definition of my own system of beliefs or I have nothing to say but “nu uh”.
Wow, scratch a liberal and they’ll tell you not to do that because they don’t like getting scratched.
How revealing.
Then just respond to my arguments.
No, it’s scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.
Make an argument.
You ignored their argument
You’re still at this? I made several arguments in that comment that you can reply too independent of the definition you use for liberalism, if you’re just gonna continue to be this childish, then I have nothing else to talk about. Either respond to my comment or fuck right off.
And since you’re gonna read this, like it or not, your definition of being a liberal has no basis in reality and is based on a theory that was never meant to you, no matter how much mental masturbation you make to justify it. The bourgeoisie used it to put themselves in power and continue to use it to maintain capitalism. You can cry all you want about how capitalism and liberalism as somehow separate, it won’t change reality.
Liberalism is a death cult
Respectfully, that’s where I tried to leave it 2 comments ago
It’s not about liking or not liking it.
If you’re in a different reality than me, there’s not much we’re going to be able to say. I’d rather spend my energy on people in the same reality
:'(
They gave you an incredibly lengthy response and you’re just going to cut and run?
Yep. I’m somewhat new to some of these ideas, and there’s a whole bunch of people trying to raise points at the same time.
If I’m going to learn, and respond intelligently I need to make sure I don’t get burnt out, and if this guy opens in such a blatantly bad faith way I’d rather spend the time replying to one of your or the many other intelligent comments I’ve been getting.
If I misjudged them, they now know how to phrase it to get a reply and I’ve told them they’re free to comment again and make an argument.
Then say that; don’t’ try to pull a dismissive “you’re wrong, but I can’t be bothered to explain why” dodge that you did.
He didn’t, and it’s bad faith of your to say he did.
They spent a lot of time writing out an extensive argument, and they have every right to expect that, if they did it again, you’d find some new procedural nitpick to justify not responding to it.
Then that’s it. If I’m bad faith the discussion needs to end.
If you understand why they might not want to type up a long comment only for the other person to find some nitpick then you 100% understand why I ignored that one specific comment and replied to every single other comment on this thread.
Including to you actually multiple times to which one comment you replied
Thank you for the compliment. It’s funny to see you reply to me in so many different threads I feel like Schrodingers faith right now. Am I good faith? Bad faith? Who knows.
Because you refuse to believe what your senses are clearly showing you! This is the result of multigenerational propagandization. Fine. Don’t believe it. Merely suspend disbelief, and it’s good faith.
I’m not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but it’s not brain-bending to grasp this concept.
I refuse to believe that which I’ve seen no evidence for.
So long as it is more convenient to sarcastically quip about how you’re right instead of explaining it, I will struggle to be convinced by your words.
You’ve commented the evidence yourself.
Then why did you claim I can’t see it?
Great, I’ll make sure to report you to the mods if your openly admitting to acting in bad faith.
No, because the comment you ignored was extensive and full of reasonable points, which you then ignored with the excuse of a brief nitpick.
It would only be a compliment if you were trying to capture the flaw in liberalism.
Sentences like this certainly push the needle towards bad faith.
Feel free to do that, if I’ve broken the rules they should remove my comment. I didnt realize this was getting so personal so I will take this as the end of the convo, even across the other threads, just letting you know so you don’t waste time replying to those.
I was.
Again, I appreciate the compliment. Take care.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre
Glad to hear you’ve decided to abandon liberalism.