Cowbee is incredibly patient and doing marvelous educational work in threads like this. You confuse it for a debate, but you’d need to be on even footing for that. It’s more like they are a teacher who calmly tries to make some common sense stick with western people who behave like spoiled children and are to privileged and racist to see the simple and plain truths that literally most people in the (non-western) world see clearly.
Cowbee has some good points and his heart is in the right place, but always seems to show up to imply people shouldn’t vote, which I think is foolish and dangerous.
Nah, I directly state that organizing is more important than voting, and treating them like it’s the opposite is dangerous. I don’t argue against voting, I argue for organizing, and stress it as more important than voting.
Yeah, when you argue like a weasel it’s easy to say your stance is different. If that wasn’t your stance, you wouldn’t have looked for evidence. You would’ve said right then it wasn’t your stance. Now that you don’t have evidence you’re trying to say your point was different.
Weird how your goalposts always seem to grow legs under scrutiny.
I’m not arguing like a weasel, I have a very specific point and you seem to despise that I have that point and not the strawman point you want me to have. The evidence I found supports my actual point, that those who believe in the legitimacy of change via a system do not feel pressured to organize against it. You keep trying to invent a point for me, and I have to bring you back to reality each time you do.
That’s not what that study was about, like I said.
You say that what I’m saying isn’t your point when I’m quoting you.
Here, I’ll even quote what you just said:
my actual point, that those who believe in the legitimacy of change via a system do not feel pressured to organize against it.
Which, to boil this down a bit, you believe organizing is good, as this leads to a communist revolution.
You believe voting causes people to organize less, because they will feel like they can change things within the system instead of organize, and then have a communist revolution.
Which means voting leads to less organizing.
Which to put into simple terms, as far as you’re concerned, voting bad. Hurts the revolution effort.
This assumes that dictatorships which don’t let people vote are somehow easier to have communists overthrow, and that it’s better to have an authoritarian government for the sake of the revolution. Because that’ll rile people up and make them more motivated to organize. It’s also assuming that, taking this high minded theory into the current situation, that all the trans people and brown skinned immigrants are acceptable losses while an authoritarian dictator takes over, so people will be more motivated to organize.
This also assumes that people who vote and participate within the system become less motivated for organizing, rather than more. People can start voting, then become more active locally, especially if they start seeing some of the problems within the system first-hand. People who don’t vote, who start voting, I would argue are much more likely to become informed about what’s happening politically, if even by the merit of looking at the ballot they would otherwise ignore.
That study does not prove otherwise, and states that people who are against the system will butt heads with people who want to maintain the system. That’s kinda it. It doesn’t say anything about voting, and certainly doesn’t say anything about people not feeling pressured to organize against a system.
So, again, your whole assumption that I’ll shorthand as “voting bad” is baseless, accelerationist, willing to throw minorites under the bus in the short term and probably long term, and disenfranchises people from what power they have over their government.
And hey, that was all from your quote right there, too.
Cowbee is a bad faith propagandist that can’t reconcile their understanding of theory with literally all of recorded history. Cowbee is full of shit and as bad faith as it comes here on Lemmy.
No? I study theory and history, it’s pointless to only study one aspect. I’m 100% genuine, and making a dozen comments complaining about me in a row without actually adding anything is a bit ridiculous.
That’s odd, you kept making a strawman of my argument and kept berating me for not sourcing the strawman. After I sourced the actual point I made, I only got crickets.
Pretty simple to see how drawing a comparison between Kirk and myself, and then directly referencing myself in a manner that references how Kirk died, would be taken as an implication that I should be shot to death publicly. It’s a dogwhistle, vague enough to deny but clear enough that those who want to see it that way will.
Maybe you didn’t mean to do it, but I am certain others do want me killed. Communists being killed isn’t exactly anything new, if I told the wrong person that I’m a communist and I was alone, I could be dead today.
“Not a debate” is 100% accurate. They just copy paste some tangential and paper thin propaganda and tweak the verbiage. Basically LLM slop with some extra steps. If you punch a hole in that topic (after a bunch of equivocation and nit picking) they retreat to some other copy-paste talking point.
It’s easy to look “smart” at a glance when your conversation technique is the exact same playbook as Charlie Kirk:
Pick someone random with minimal preparation (college student :: commenter)
in a poor environment for a debate (a desk under a tent :: deep thread in a random comment section)
and throw a nonstop stream of garbage at them (unexamined statistics on black crime :: unexamined stats on USSR beef production)
when cornered, appeal to a genetic fallacy and change the topic (“that’s a fake woke study” :: “that’s CIA propaganda”)
There’s no way to have a conversation unless you already start in agreement with their priors. I’ve watched them get backed into a corner on basic stuff that contradicts their own talking points in the same thread. Paraphrasing it went something like “Communism is a perfect rational science” => Why don’t we discard the pseudo-religious trappings and make decisions that optimize for quantifiable quality of life indicators à la the HDi? => “Well actually communism is required for the vibes”
Look ladies and gentlemen, no straw man needed! Already here in the flesh! Like a terminally online Candyman, say the name you’ll summon the keyboard praxis warrior.
Too hard to search your own comment history? I don’t blame you, 21.4k comments at an average of 668 per month is too much for me too. And of course that’s just your .ml account, lord knows what you’d have to sift through on your alts.
Having actual real life responsibilities prevents me from keeping up with your Kirk-esque pace of a reply every 43 waking minutes, so how about we compromise. You can just copy-paste the existing comments calling out your bullshit right underneath the drivel you regurgitate. It’s all the same conversation anyway, it will save us both time.
Cowbee never shuts up and doesn’t actually debate, just keeps repeating the same talking points and puts words into your mouth.
Cowbee is incredibly patient and doing marvelous educational work in threads like this. You confuse it for a debate, but you’d need to be on even footing for that. It’s more like they are a teacher who calmly tries to make some common sense stick with western people who behave like spoiled children and are to privileged and racist to see the simple and plain truths that literally most people in the (non-western) world see clearly.
I have never read a comment with such a superiority complex
Cowbee has some good points and his heart is in the right place, but always seems to show up to imply people shouldn’t vote, which I think is foolish and dangerous.
Nah, I directly state that organizing is more important than voting, and treating them like it’s the opposite is dangerous. I don’t argue against voting, I argue for organizing, and stress it as more important than voting.
I’ve quoted you enough where you’ve implied otherwise I’m not going to do another thread where we day the same thing.
Even when you do quote me, you seem to have a habit of arguing against an entirely different point than the one you quoted.
Yeah, when you argue like a weasel it’s easy to say your stance is different. If that wasn’t your stance, you wouldn’t have looked for evidence. You would’ve said right then it wasn’t your stance. Now that you don’t have evidence you’re trying to say your point was different.
Weird how your goalposts always seem to grow legs under scrutiny.
I’m not arguing like a weasel, I have a very specific point and you seem to despise that I have that point and not the strawman point you want me to have. The evidence I found supports my actual point, that those who believe in the legitimacy of change via a system do not feel pressured to organize against it. You keep trying to invent a point for me, and I have to bring you back to reality each time you do.
That’s not what that study was about, like I said.
You say that what I’m saying isn’t your point when I’m quoting you.
Here, I’ll even quote what you just said:
Which, to boil this down a bit, you believe organizing is good, as this leads to a communist revolution.
You believe voting causes people to organize less, because they will feel like they can change things within the system instead of organize, and then have a communist revolution.
Which means voting leads to less organizing.
Which to put into simple terms, as far as you’re concerned, voting bad. Hurts the revolution effort.
This assumes that dictatorships which don’t let people vote are somehow easier to have communists overthrow, and that it’s better to have an authoritarian government for the sake of the revolution. Because that’ll rile people up and make them more motivated to organize. It’s also assuming that, taking this high minded theory into the current situation, that all the trans people and brown skinned immigrants are acceptable losses while an authoritarian dictator takes over, so people will be more motivated to organize.
This also assumes that people who vote and participate within the system become less motivated for organizing, rather than more. People can start voting, then become more active locally, especially if they start seeing some of the problems within the system first-hand. People who don’t vote, who start voting, I would argue are much more likely to become informed about what’s happening politically, if even by the merit of looking at the ballot they would otherwise ignore.
That study does not prove otherwise, and states that people who are against the system will butt heads with people who want to maintain the system. That’s kinda it. It doesn’t say anything about voting, and certainly doesn’t say anything about people not feeling pressured to organize against a system.
So, again, your whole assumption that I’ll shorthand as “voting bad” is baseless, accelerationist, willing to throw minorites under the bus in the short term and probably long term, and disenfranchises people from what power they have over their government.
And hey, that was all from your quote right there, too.
Cowbee is a bad faith propagandist that can’t reconcile their understanding of theory with literally all of recorded history. Cowbee is full of shit and as bad faith as it comes here on Lemmy.
No? I study theory and history, it’s pointless to only study one aspect. I’m 100% genuine, and making a dozen comments complaining about me in a row without actually adding anything is a bit ridiculous.
🤮
That’s odd, you kept making a strawman of my argument and kept berating me for not sourcing the strawman. After I sourced the actual point I made, I only got crickets.
Bruv I’ve been doing stuff throughout my day other than telling at people online, give me a minute
Maybe don’t spend time implying I should be assassinated then?
Oh fuck off you sanctimonious prick, clutch your fuckin pearls elsewhere.
Again, are you okay? You’ve replied to ~6 of my comments in the last few minutes purely to insult me, surely you have something more productive to do.
When did I say that? Way to put words in my mouth, again.
Oh gee, why would I take you joking about me being like Charlie Kirk and being a “pain in the neck” any other way?
I’ll make this clear then: I do not think you should be assassinated, nor killed.
Thanks.
Yeah, I was joking about how Charlie died.
I didn’t get it, why would you think that means I think you should be shot?
Pretty simple to see how drawing a comparison between Kirk and myself, and then directly referencing myself in a manner that references how Kirk died, would be taken as an implication that I should be shot to death publicly. It’s a dogwhistle, vague enough to deny but clear enough that those who want to see it that way will.
Maybe you didn’t mean to do it, but I am certain others do want me killed. Communists being killed isn’t exactly anything new, if I told the wrong person that I’m a communist and I was alone, I could be dead today.
Ok, well, I don’t think you should be killed nor assassinated
deleted by creator
Are you okay?
you really weren’t subtle, nycto
Yeah I like making fun of Charlie Kirk dying
you were talking about cowbee
No I wasn’t, I was talking about Charlie
No he wasn’t, you fuckin tankies abuse the rules and play fuckin victims. You’re exactly like republicans.
“Not a debate” is 100% accurate. They just copy paste some tangential and paper thin propaganda and tweak the verbiage. Basically LLM slop with some extra steps. If you punch a hole in that topic (after a bunch of equivocation and nit picking) they retreat to some other copy-paste talking point.
It’s easy to look “smart” at a glance when your conversation technique is the exact same playbook as Charlie Kirk:
There’s no way to have a conversation unless you already start in agreement with their priors. I’ve watched them get backed into a corner on basic stuff that contradicts their own talking points in the same thread. Paraphrasing it went something like “Communism is a perfect rational science” => Why don’t we discard the pseudo-religious trappings and make decisions that optimize for quantifiable quality of life indicators à la the HDi? => “Well actually communism is required for the vibes”
It certainly is very easy to make shit up about people! No examples provided, no links, just pure unfiltered strawman.
Look ladies and gentlemen, no straw man needed! Already here in the flesh! Like a terminally online Candyman, say the name you’ll summon the keyboard praxis warrior.
Too hard to search your own comment history? I don’t blame you, 21.4k comments at an average of 668 per month is too much for me too. And of course that’s just your .ml account, lord knows what you’d have to sift through on your alts.
Having actual real life responsibilities prevents me from keeping up with your Kirk-esque pace of a reply every 43 waking minutes, so how about we compromise. You can just copy-paste the existing comments calling out your bullshit right underneath the drivel you regurgitate. It’s all the same conversation anyway, it will save us both time.
So you don’t have any actual examples, got it.
You’re literally doing it right now.
No?
I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees it
Odd considering it’s a strawman.
Cowbee uses the same ‘debate’ style as Charlie Kirk.
How so?
I don’t do that, though. Seems people would rather discredit me than directly respond.
Can you give some examples?
No, I was just answering the question.
What a pain in the neck