“Shooting this dog will save the world. Take this gun. Will you shoot it?” Is also a yes or no question, but answering it entertains the notion that shooting the dog will save the world. The correct answer is “put the gun down, you’re acting silly. Killing the dog won’t save the world.”
I fucking agree that both candidates are disasters for Palestine. But if you’re really gonna try to challenge that beast, start organising for a grassroots movement to overthrow the entire corrupt bourgeois state to place the means of production in the hands of the proletariat.
But you won’t. I know you won’t. So in the meantime, you have to choose your best realistic option: vote. And you also have to be realistic when you vote. A third party candidate would need a genuine miracle to win at this stage, because they need serious momentum early on in the election season to have even a modicum of a chance at winning. And the FPTP system guarantees that only one of the two major parties will win.
So you’re left with an imperialist who also wants to shit on their own country, and an imperialist who sort of paternalisticslly wants to “help” their country. Neither are great. Neither are even “good”. But one stinks a little less.
The context very well makes it clear you’re assuming that. Of course it would be better if you could vote for a candidate that wasn’t a bloodthirsty imperialist. But that’s sadly your only realistic option in your shithole country. Voting third party will be pissing your vote into the wind.
Like I said, either rise up or vote.
At least you have guns over there. You don’t have our excuse.
A question that asks me whether I agree with voting for genocide definitely assumes I am able not to. And if you acknowledge that it isn’t possible - why ask? It’s a useless question.
Also, this isn’t “bad faith” or “dithering”. Yet another of your dishonest techniques: accusing someone of being a troll just for challenging your assumptions.
Bad faith is asking someone a question then claiming you asked a totally different question. You’re like a child asking “why can’t I have a PS5?” over and over again, ignoring me when I say “we don’t have enough money”, as if that answer doesn’t make sense to you.
It is a loaded question begging me to agree with you under threat of looking bad otherwise. Don’t you dare try this again.
By the way - my answer to your question is already in the previous comment. It is “of course (if that were possible)”.
Like - are you actually fucking stupid? Of course I would prefer not to vote for fucking genocide! Don’t be simple. Don’t be a fucking idiot. But things are not so simple. You either vote for genocide or throw away your vote. Those are your only options in this vote.
The question was: “So then you agree that you should not support genocide nor vote for genocidal candidates?” I.e. not loaded and not containing the content you are going on and on about.
“Shooting this dog will save the world. Take this gun. Will you shoot it?” Is also a yes or no question, but answering it entertains the notion that shooting the dog will save the world. The correct answer is “put the gun down, you’re acting silly. Killing the dog won’t save the world.”
I fucking agree that both candidates are disasters for Palestine. But if you’re really gonna try to challenge that beast, start organising for a grassroots movement to overthrow the entire corrupt bourgeois state to place the means of production in the hands of the proletariat.
But you won’t. I know you won’t. So in the meantime, you have to choose your best realistic option: vote. And you also have to be realistic when you vote. A third party candidate would need a genuine miracle to win at this stage, because they need serious momentum early on in the election season to have even a modicum of a chance at winning. And the FPTP system guarantees that only one of the two major parties will win.
So you’re left with an imperialist who also wants to shit on their own country, and an imperialist who sort of paternalisticslly wants to “help” their country. Neither are great. Neither are even “good”. But one stinks a little less.
Waiting on that yes or no answer.
Edit: and I didn’t ask a loaded question so gtfo with that excuse.
It is a loaded question. It assumes that there is a way to vote that will actually end the genocide.
Accept reality. Either choose your oppressor or remove them yourself.
No it doesn’t.
I await your yes or no answer. Please do less making things up.
The context very well makes it clear you’re assuming that. Of course it would be better if you could vote for a candidate that wasn’t a bloodthirsty imperialist. But that’s sadly your only realistic option in your shithole country. Voting third party will be pissing your vote into the wind.
Like I said, either rise up or vote.
At least you have guns over there. You don’t have our excuse.
I’ll let you know what I assume, thanks. It’s not a loaded question, you don’t have to agree to anything implicitly, just the actual answer.
Anyways, I await your yes or no answer.
PS this bad faith dithering is the aforementioned cognitive dissonance. It is not complexity, it is discomfort with being frank when challenged.
A question that asks me whether I agree with voting for genocide definitely assumes I am able not to. And if you acknowledge that it isn’t possible - why ask? It’s a useless question.
Also, this isn’t “bad faith” or “dithering”. Yet another of your dishonest techniques: accusing someone of being a troll just for challenging your assumptions.
Bad faith is asking someone a question then claiming you asked a totally different question. You’re like a child asking “why can’t I have a PS5?” over and over again, ignoring me when I say “we don’t have enough money”, as if that answer doesn’t make sense to you.
It is a loaded question begging me to agree with you under threat of looking bad otherwise. Don’t you dare try this again.
By the way - my answer to your question is already in the previous comment. It is “of course (if that were possible)”.
Like - are you actually fucking stupid? Of course I would prefer not to vote for fucking genocide! Don’t be simple. Don’t be a fucking idiot. But things are not so simple. You either vote for genocide or throw away your vote. Those are your only options in this vote.
The question was: “So then you agree that you should not support genocide nor vote for genocidal candidates?” I.e. not loaded and not containing the content you are going on and on about.
I await your yes or no response, liberal.
Asking that question implies there is actually a choice to be made. I’ve said this multiple times.
It also ignores that I’ve answered “no”, twice.
“Do you want normal coffee of decaff?” Implies there is both normal and decaff coffee to be chosen from - else, why would they mention both?
Also - not a liberal. Rather odd thing to call someone who suggests that the proletariat should seize the means of production.