Otherwise I would just block you for your contrarian bullshit takes that leave no stone unturned to misrepresent the comment above.
Me, directly quoted, the relevant bit of which you’ve been contesting and which started our argument:
Trying to reason with right-wing voters in this country is a lost fucking cause.
You, directly quoted:
you are by dismissing the very act of a democratic formation of opinion by debating with one another.
If my argument is that some people can’t be reasoned with and that it’s a lost cause to try, and your response is that that argument is anti-democratic, what does that leave except
A. That you are implying that everyone’s mind can be changed, and that you can’t dismiss deeply entrenched demographics as targets for persuasion without being anti-democratic
OR
B. That democracy means you have to try to change everyone’s mind, even if you know full well that the argument is pointless, will go nowhere, and will not succeed
Either argument smacks of Christian fundamentalism, and I grew up in that religious tradition, so I can recog-fucking-nize it. It’s a soul-based approach to politics, not a results-based approach.
Me, directly quoted, the relevant bit of which you’ve been contesting and which started our argument:
You, directly quoted:
If my argument is that some people can’t be reasoned with and that it’s a lost cause to try, and your response is that that argument is anti-democratic, what does that leave except
A. That you are implying that everyone’s mind can be changed, and that you can’t dismiss deeply entrenched demographics as targets for persuasion without being anti-democratic
OR
B. That democracy means you have to try to change everyone’s mind, even if you know full well that the argument is pointless, will go nowhere, and will not succeed
Either argument smacks of Christian fundamentalism, and I grew up in that religious tradition, so I can recog-fucking-nize it. It’s a soul-based approach to politics, not a results-based approach.