Nothing you’ve said has in any way justified your absurd stance that opposing intervention isn’t isolationist. Not one single thing! And you just keep doubling down on it over and over while vaguely gesturing about how you’ve somehow explained it in some previous comment you refuse to point to, or now how you totally have a valid line of logic, but you won’t tell me what it is and expect me to just psychically read your mind to find that out.

Look, obviously, you backed yourself into a corner with this. At first, maybe you made an honest mistake making such an obviously indefensible claim. But if that’s what happened, then why double down so much?

What’s going on here is exactly what I described at the start. Because I took an out-group position, you act like you can just say whatever nonsense you like without defending any of it at all. And you know that anyone from your in-group will agree with your side of things because they also won’t care about logic or reason and are operating on the same kind of tribal loyalty. And that’s why you’re going around making absurd claims like this in the first place, because you know you can get away with it because the only people who will call you out on it are people in the out-group, who you can write off. And in the same way that you can adopt absurd positions, you can also just casually lie about people as well. When you see someone say, “I saw a tankie say [blah blah blah]” you’re not going to stop and ask, “Is there any evidence that they ever said that?” you’ll just instantly accept it, or say that it “sounds reasonable” even with zero basis, because you recognize the person saying it being part of your tribe and me being outside of it. It’s just jerking each other off.

And that’s why it’s impossible to have any sort of logical discussion on .world or for discussions here to involve any sort of critical thought. Because you can make ridiculous claims like, “Opposing intervention isn’t isolationist” and none of your tribemates will ever call you out on it.

You know it’s true, just like you know it’s true that opposing interventions is isolationist. Obviously you’ll never concede either point to me, because regardless of facts or reason, I’m in the outgroup. But maybe you can admit it to yourself.

And that’s all I have to say to you. Bye.

I see we’re back to the “no it isn’t” level of discourse straight from the argument clinic. Not that you ever left.

Yes, you’d have to be either incredibly dumb or a troll to say that opposing intervention isn’t isolationist, we’ve been over this.

Sorry, what part of the definition of isolationism you provided said anything about idealism? I don’t see any reference to idealism in the definition you provided or anything that could be construed as a reference to idealism. So even if your claims that my position was idealist and ignorant of reality were correct, you have still not explained in any way how it isn’t isolationist.

Other that that part, literally all you have is “no it isn’t,” straight from the argument clinic.

As for the rest, as I said, I refuse to engage with you on any point until you either justify your absurd claim or admit it was wrong, and I already explained why.

Right, that’s the original subject, then you said, in relation to that subject, that my stance wasn’t isolationist, and then you completely refused to defend that point while repeatedly lying and claiming that you had already defended it, you just won’t show where, for some reason. And now you’re trying to pretend that none of that even happened and return to the original subject to weasel your way out of admitting that you were wrong, because that’s the only thing you can do at this point.

You could have just allowed that my stance was isolationist and still disagreed with it. But instead you chose to dispute applying a completely neutral term to me, on no basis and for no real reason either. Literally just the guy in the argument clinic disagreeing with everything the other person says just to be contrarian and never supporting your points.

So long as you refuse to admit that you were wrong on that point and that you lied when you claimed you had explained your reasoning, you are blatantly arguing in bad faith. There’s no point in discussing anything else because even if I conclusively proved my position, you could just say, “Nuh uh” like you did there. If you’re unwilling to concede even the smallest point like that when you don’t have anything resembling a leg to stand on, then why on earth would I move on to anything else with you?

Stop trying to change the subject to evade the question. How did you get from a definition that says “Isolationism is when you oppose intervention in foreign countries” to, “Opposing intervention in Ukraine is only isolationist if you are Ukrainian?” What exactly is your reasoning that brought you from point A to point B, and, furthermore, where are the “five times” that you laid out this reasoning? Give me every single one of the five or admit that you’re wrong. I’m not going to continue the conversation and just allow you to weasel your way out of that, I will not engage on any other point until you answer that.

Lol I’m not going to continue this conversation as if you didn’t spend the last 15 comments evading a simple question and lying by saying you already answered it.

Trying to talk with you is literally like Monty Python’s argument clinic sketch.

“Is this the right room for an argument?”

“I already told you five times.”

“No you haven’t! Where?”

“Yes I did. I did it before.”

“No, you didn’t. When, where?”

“Yes I did. I said it before.”

Absolute clown.

I conclusively proved that everything I said is true 300 times. I will refuse to point to a specific comment or quote a single line where I did it once, but it definitely, 100% happened. So, that outweighs your 5 times easily. And before you try to say you explained it 301 times, I proved you wrong infinity+1 times.

Or we could not just say bullshit and actually back up our claims, with the expectation that if you claim to have done something, you can point to a specific line on a specific comment where you have done so. I’d prefer to do that, but if you wanna go with bullshit, then fine, I just don’t know why either of us is still here then.

At this point, even if you could point to anywhere where you supposedly explained your reasoning, I would demand an explanation for why you’ve wasted so much time evading the question. This has been a completely unreasonable and unacceptable response to an extremely basic question. All you had to do was answer once and we wouldn’t be doing whatever this is.

Once again, trying to have a serious, substantive discussion with a .worlder proves impossible because y’all compulsively lie and do not give a rat’s ass about evidence, and when someone catches you doing it you just call them “crybaby” for calling it out.

You were slinging insults at me from the very beginning when you called me an accelerationist, stupid, etc. You still cannot point to even a single word in a single comment where you explained anything. What a ridiculous conversation, why would you prefer to argue so much over whether you’ve explained your position when, if you had, you could simply point to where you explained it? Because you didn’t explain it, so this is all you’ve got. Who are you even trying to fool at this point?

The point I don’t understand is how my stance doesn’t meet literally the exact definition of isolationism that you provided, in every single way, to a t. You have not explained a single link in your reasoning to arrive at that conclusion, all you’ve done is assert the conclusion over and over again with zero explanation, anywhere, whatsoever. Now you’re repeatedly claiming that you’ve explained it, without being able to point to any explanation anywhere. And now, following your complete inability to defend your absurd position, you’ve resorted to just calling me a troll.

What an absolute clown.

>Claims ridiculous nonsense

>Refuses to elaborate

>Claims to have elaborated

>Accuses the other person of being a troll

Good talk. You were always looking to laugh at me no matter what I said or didn’t say, that’s why you spent the whole conversation trolling and claiming ridiculous nonsense and pretending like you’d defended it when you didn’t explain a word of your reasoning the whole time. I don’t know whether I ever entertained “Isolationism isn’t isolationism” for a moment, you obviously only said it to troll from the start.

Cool, the last 7 of my comments contained conclusive proof that you were wrong.

I gave you my exact reasoning

Where?? Where did you even begin to explain this total and absolute nonsense? You can’t just claim to have explained it without explaining anything.

So, you can’t present any line of reasoning. Called it.

I’m not an idealist at all. You’ve said this several times now but it’s completely wrong. If anything, I’d think you’d call me too cynical. It isn’t realistic for Ukraine to reclaim all of it’s lost territory, and the war is about national interests moreso than helping the average person. How are either of those things idealist rather than cynical or realist? You’re the one who wants to keep fighting regardless of the conditions of the ground purely because you see your side as morally correct. That is idealist.

Start with proving a single lie ya crybaby.

You lied about me being an accelerationist. You lied about me not being an isolationist.

You still can’t explain any of your reasoning at all about how opposing intervention is somehow not isolationist, which, I mean, obviously you can’t, any more that you could prove that 1=2. It’s a completely absurd and unserious claim on its face.

So you’re saying you are Ukrainian?

No, I am not Ukrainian. I oppose my country’s involvement in the conflict. That is an isolationist position, by your definition.

Walk me through the chain of logic that leads you to say that I would have to be Ukrainian for my opposition to involvement in foreign conflicts to be isolationist. I know that you can’t do this, because you were just spouting off random bullshit when you asked that, but pretending that there’s some bizarre chain of reasoning behind it, what is it?

And when you can’t provide it, as you’ve been evading doing this whole time, I will be proven right that you’re just another liar.

a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

That’s literally what I’m arguing for. How could you possibly construe that definition as supporting your position as opposed to mine?

Putin isn’t doing the Holocaust. In the case of WWII, you can point very clearly to a reason why stopping Hitler was in the class interests of the people of Europe. I never claimed to be opposed to all war, just to wars that aren’t in the interests of the average person. It’s kind of telling that you have to jump to a completely different conflict from 70 years ago instead of just making the case for the current conflict, or at least comparing it to something from recent history.

That’s also true, but I was talking more about the .world culture where you can just casually lie and make up whatever you like about the out group and everyone just goes along with it, with zero sources needed. It’s very much an echo chamber where nobody cares about evidence or truth, not just in terms of politics and world affairs, but also with people and conversations. You can go full on Yeonmi Park with it so long as you’re in the in-group talking about the out-group. I think it’s brought over from toxic Reddit culture.

That’s a completely ridiculous take. That’s not isolationism, that’s political disengagement. How do you even manage to say something so wrong?

Isolationists do not disengage from matters of foreign intervention, we actively oppose it. That’s what isolationism means, and you obviously know that.

If you actually had any confidence in your position whatsoever, you would have no problem saying that my position is isolationist and that isolationism is wrong. But instead, you’re trying to use wordplay to shift definitions in an attempt to delegitimize my position, by adopting the completely insane stance that wanting non-intervention in a conflict is somehow inconsistent with isolationism.

This is very blatant bad faith.

A one state solution doesn’t mean that everyone in Israel would have to leave. It would just mean that everyone in the region gets an equal voice in governance. Many people would probably choose to leave, in the same way many people left South Africa when their system of apartheid ended.