OBJECTION! @ Objection @lemmy.ml Posts 19Comments 2,756Joined 12 mo. ago
What's "horrible" about it? It's a very simple negotiating tactic that even a toddler can understand. The difference is that we aren't throwing a fit because we didn't get some toy we wanted or something, we're throwing a fit because people are being murdered en masse before our eyes. If ever there was an appropriate time to throw a fit, that time is now.
Since our cause is correct and indisputably justified, the only thing that matters is whether the tactic is effective or not. And obviously it is effective, if the other side is being intransigent as they are, then "Do what we want, or else," packs a lot more punch than "Do what we want, pretty please?"
Yeah if you think Bush was an acceptable choice and not a fascist then you don't really have a leg to stand on with this "commies love gulags" nonsense. You think this El Salvador shit is new? Those of us who were paying attention know that Bush did the same shit, while they did their fair share of torturing alleged "terrorists" with no due process in our own black sites, the worst abuses were conducted in foreign countries like Egypt, when we sent prisoners there knowing full well how they'd be treated. Some of us have been fighting this battle for over 20 years, nice of you to finally wake up and notice now that someone you hate is doing it, but it would be nice if you'd notice when the people you like are doing it too.
It's so stupid when liberals, defending a system with the largest prison population per capita in the world, with indefinite detention without trial, mass surveillance, etc, still try to take the moral high ground on that issue just because the word "gulag" sounds scary and foreign.
we root for the worst possible outcome
The meme is about voting third party, not Republican.
But yes, there have to be consequences to us not getting what we want. It's a very simple concept.
This is just blind unconditional loyalty to the Democrats with extra steps.
If your plan is really to get voting reform done, then obviously the best strategy is to make support for a candidate conditional on them supporting it - because democrats do not always or even "usually" support it. Otherwise, there is zero incentive to implement it and a strong disincentive to do so - you won the election using the old rules, but if you change the rules, who knows?
You types are so silly about this issue. The very reason that we need RCV is the same reason we won't get it. In the same way that FPTP blocks popular support for other progressive causes like "Don't do genocide," it also blocks causes like, "Implement RCV." It's like if my car won't start and you tell me to just drive it to a mechanic. If we have some mechanism for implementing RCV, we should also just use that mechanism to get the other policies we want.
Your position would be more sensible and coherent if you were looking to achieve it through a mechanism outside of voting, but to insist on trying to use the tool you recognize as broken to repair itself is an absurdity, it's completely irrational.
The only question worth discussing regarding voting is whether or not any conditions should be imposed on the democrats at all. If you say yes, then we can have a conversation of what those conditions should be, obviously, "supporting genocide" is unacceptable, but whether RCV should be a red line is another conversation. But if you say no, then your position on RCV is completely irrelevant, you'll get it if the democrats say you do and won't if they say you don't and nothing about your behavior will change either way. It's pure fantasy at that point, your support for RCV exists purely within your own mind and has no influence or effect on anything that happens in the world, you might as well be trying to wish a pony into being.
Good. Since we're the deciding factor, we have increased influence and more negotiating power going forward. Now the democrats (whose slogan is also "No rights!") might actually listen to our demands next time if they don't want to eat shit again.
And if they still won't, then it's obviously necessary to replace them and that has to start somewhere.
This is the same as saying that we can't say animals want to avoid pain unless we can prove that they're capable of conceptualizing pain in the abstract, it's spurious bullshit.
Survival instincts are incredibly well documented and proven beyond a doubt, you are completely wrong.
Yes, you very clearly are.
Maybe "unopposed" in the sense that you don't want to literally force meat down vegans throats, but you are certainly opposed in the sense that you will reach for any argument, no matter how spurious, to argue against veganism, and are actively trying to persuade people not to be vegans.
I don't understand why you people always feel the need to play games like this. I suppose it's a standard motte-and-bailey tactic, take a more minor position rhetorically because it's easier to defend, while you privately hold a more extreme position that you don't want to submit to critique. It's bad faith and cowardly, you should want your real beliefs to be critiqued. But you're more concerned with "winning" than the truth.
Right, because you're a narcissist and incapable of ever admitting (or even convincing of the possibility) that you're ever in the wrong, even in cases where you very clearly are.
Honestly I'm not at all convinced that you actually believe half the things you say, it's just a bunch of rhetorical positioning. Your actual belief is opposition to veganism and then you reach for any words or positions that allow you to attack it, even if they make no fucking sense or require you to ignore evidence and hyperfocus on random specific points while ignoring the bigger picture. It's bad faith debate pervertry of the highest level.
No it isn't. We can tell animals don't want to die in the same way we can tell they don't want to feel pain, by the fact that they try to avoid it. We don't need to prove that they're able to "abstractly conceptualize nonexistence" or whatever to establish that fact.
Your arguments would be a lot more coherent if you rejected the idea that we can tell what's happening in a creature's mind by how they react. Of course, then you could apply the same logic to humans and it would be solipsism, but at least solipsism is a coherent, internally consistent idea, unlike your bullshit.
Yeah, and other people feel the same way when what they say is factual and what you're saying is a load of bull.
Yeah, that's even more debate pervertry, with a side of narcissism. "Um, acktually, I don't want to debate, I just want everyone to agree with me 🤓"
I'm fascinated by this worldview in which we can suffiently ascertain the workings of an animal's mind by observing their behavior when it comes to trying to avoid feeling pain, but not when it comes to trying to avoid dying.
That is, assuming that's your genuine position and you're not just playing games.
and, yea, i didn’t click on one link, and i admitted it when it was pointed out.
"Yes I went full offense despite no reading the other person's evidence and the shit I was saying was wrong and completely uncalled for, but I eventually realized my mistake, and then continued my offense."
Yeah, no. You were talking out of your ass, realized you were talking out of your ass, but then didn't let up when you did. You're even still pushing the offense now, by making this thread to complain about it. You don't escalate an issue like this when you've got that much egg on your face. The other person was 100% correct, the fact that there was a minor flaw in the evidence presented by the person you initially responded to does not give you license to ignore other evidence, and it certainly doesn't give you license to ignore other evidence and then go on the offensive. You are extremely out of line and acting like a narcissist.
I'm not antivegan, but I am anti-consumer activism
Just because animals cry out and try to run away when you hurt or try to kill them doesn't mean they feel pain or want to live
What a disengenous asshat. I can't stand these people who are all like, "My only problem with your cause is I don't think you're persuing it the right way," but then they very obviously disagree with the cause and are just saying that shit because they aren't willing to defend their actual positions.
Yes, but the difference is that they were right. This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Saying "Go fuck yourself" can be perfectly called for and justified in certain contexts, but extremely uncalled for in others. They had basis to say that, because you were fucking wrong. You did not, because you were fucking wrong.
From what I'm seeing, there's a consistent pattern of behavior of trying to hide behind language, civility, and tone while being disingenuous as fuck and acting in bad faith.
Imagine an argument over a vaccines where the pro-vaccine person has a bunch of evidence in their favor and the antivaxxer keeps bringing up a flaw in one specific paper that the other person isn't even relying on. The pro-vaccine person would be perfectly justified in getting frustrated, accusing the other person of lying or operating in bad faith, etc. But if the antivaxxer did the same - even if they parroted the exact same language - they would be completely unjustified and out of line, even moreso than they already were. So no, you don't get to hide behind this "it was a direct quote" excuse, because you're the one who was out of line. You don't have the right to hurl accusations back at people when they're right and you don't have a leg to stand on.