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.
Idk sounds like accelerationist talk. Easier for the revolution if Republicans are in charge? They are bad at managing things and make people mad enough for a revolution! Which I want! (Totally not saying to vote for them for the sake of the revolution guys ;) Justsayintho!)
Just ah, willing to sacrifice those real world minorities though that’s cool.
Whatever, should’ve known after seeing a post from a whole community that you suck that it wasn’t worth it to engage.
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.
When did I make that argument to begin with? My point was that voting is less than the bare minimum. My point was never that “voting actively damages the movement.” I advocate voting for communist parties, even if they never win, as it helps solidify the fact that liberal democracy cannot bring systemic change.
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.
Idk sounds like accelerationist talk. Easier for the revolution if Republicans are in charge? They are bad at managing things and make people mad enough for a revolution! Which I want! (Totally not saying to vote for them for the sake of the revolution guys ;) Justsayintho!)
Just ah, willing to sacrifice those real world minorities though that’s cool.
Whatever, should’ve known after seeing a post from a whole community that you suck that it wasn’t worth it to engage.
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.
Ok genocide supporter, just don’t complain about Nuremburg 2
Offer a better solution then
A better solution would be doing away with genocidal ghouls like you.
Against the hypothetical? Or in general?
You have not made a compelling argument to stop voting.
When did I make that argument to begin with? My point was that voting is less than the bare minimum. My point was never that “voting actively damages the movement.” I advocate voting for communist parties, even if they never win, as it helps solidify the fact that liberal democracy cannot bring systemic change.
Are you confusing my points for someone else?