BanMeFromPosting

Why are you types so hell-bent on making conversation as difficult as possible? You write as though you are trying to convince people to vote for democrats, yet you consistently flee at any chance of having an actual discussion, resulting in only being able to preach to your genocidal choir. Typically in forums such as these a person does not write in order to convince the one they are responding to, but to influence the people just reading the sidelines. In order to influence those people you have to make your position appear cogent and reasonable. If you continually fail to engage with anything the other argues, then all you do is make yourself look stupid and uneducated, reflexively defending a position you in no way understand.

Alright guess we gotta give up and vote for genociders and pay out taxes and send our kids off to die in imperialist wars like good little piggies then. Nothing to be done we are defeated lets just commit ourselves to phone banking for Hillary Clinton

The only time the people in power even pretend to consider to abolish ICE and lower police budgets were during the riots of 2020

Then why don’t we have this as our current form of government? How to you propose to get everyone to buy in to this in the US? If you can’t reduce it to practice, this is just impractical Internet bullshit talk. Finish your argument before you start a new one sweetie. For us to be able to go deeper into discussion we need to first agree on the facts that form the basis of the discussion, which we do not at the moment. You have to either accept that your point was wrong and integrate that acceptance into your line of argument or argue for your point being correct - This is done by either supplying sufficient empirical data that helps create some synthesis with the rest of the data or you go through the given data and explain why it is faulty or insufficient as a basis for a rebuttal. As the rest of the comment you are responding to explains, you have still yet to do this.

I’m sorry I might have slept in class but at what point after having acquiring nukes were either China or Russia assaulted by a full-scale US military invasion?

You pretty clearly do not read me. You talk over me and make up positions I do not hold. You write statements on subjects that I have already addressed, yet you do not acknowledge this, making this interaction far more difficult than it has to be. Also, you may try to believe that Tony Blair is just a copy of Mussolini, I see clear differences in how they man aged their respective country. Quote the part where I write anything that justifies this statement. Explain why the part you are quoting justifies such a reductive statement. Go through the reasoning and provide your counterargument, as a civil person does when engaged in discussion. Since it is in your interest to oppose these ideologies, then it is likewise in your interest to understand them. That you cannot hold more than a reductive view of ideologies boiled down to “liberalism is when finance, fascism is when force” is sadly not an issue I can do anything about. I would appreciate it that you do not put your lacking understanding upon me.

I appropriate them from this account: www.instagram.com/idontthinkthatsphilosophy Good on climate and covid conscious. Sometimes they have some weird thing they care about, but generally good.

Liberalism is right wing you oaf. If you’re going to speak on a subject then make sure you have basic understanding of it.

Thanks for admitting you’re arguing in bad faith. You would have saved us both a bunch of time if you just admitted you were too prideful to go back on a position when you have no salient arguments, instead of doing this weird thing of making up some wild strawman and then acting weird when I asked you to point to any piece of text I had written that substantiated said strawman. I would urge you to look inwards and reflect upon why you take requests for civil conversation as “orders” and why you pride yourself on being incapable of conversation.

You’re doing an incredible bit, it’s a shame more people dont get it. Upvoted for the laughs

Schrödingers progressive

Since you knew Harris would not win without our votes last election, and you knew we wouldnt vote for her, then why did you? Thats basically the same as voting for Trump.

this is condescending Correct, you are behaving poorly so I am treating you in kind Distracting from the main point The only one distracting from anything is you. You are the one who seeks discussion and then flees at challenge, I am holding you to it. You are now attempting to give yourself a plausible exit where you can save face, which is very funny since the only audience is you and me, yet your ego can still not handle it. Sadly the exit-strategy you’ve sought is ill-fitting, since both you and I are aware that you are the one who has been avoiding discussion, instead seeking to change the subject at every turn. It is no surprise that you would do something like this, you seem to be a fucking idiot. I still hold out hope you will be able to do the bare minimum, but I cannot be disappointed by you anymore.

A vote for Harris was basically a vote for Trump, since she was destined to lose.

In what world is the coup that brought Ukraine under US control not relevant to the discussion you’re having?

No worries, I understand the worry. I think some words are, generally, free of previously regressive burdens, but I do not count the one you used as one of them. I struggle to think of any disparaging word about women that does not still carry an inherent core of sexism, but there is probably one out there. I do not need to find it.

Dont vote for democrats or republicans though

I have actually made 0 ad hominem so far. You are confusing “insults” with “attacking the argument through the character”. Of course you wouldn’t know that, halfwit that you are. The rebuttal has been presented, you have failed to engage with it, you are the one halting discussion.

I don’t really get what you’re saying, but alright

I do not understand your question

Hexbear has a lot of vegans. Vegans like beans. “Beans” sounds sort of like “beanis” which sounds like “penis”. Hexbear has a comm committed to making bad posts and a general fondness for stupid humor (I guess most everyone does, just depends on what they consider humor). These four conditions combined created a hurricane of beans.

“the wrong thing” and its genocide denial and strawmanning

Sorry youre wrong, liberalism is when finance apparently

It’s a reference to a specific thing

I’d don’t intend to be mean, but do you live under a bridge? I mean the story of how he got ram-rodded by the helicopter pilots kid that he was abusing caused him to wear a diaper. With all the leaks, do you think that didn’t happen? So that isn’t actually an answer to my question. Why do you think Trump being gay is a bad thing? Why homophobia Mocking someone for being gay is homophobic. Pretty straightforward. Languages Okay? Then you should understand how dumb your argument is, and you should understand speaking more than one is more than enough to understand your argument and see the flaws in it. You’re getting upset Since we can apparently determine the others emotional state from a brief text: You’re defensive, reactive and malding How is telling someone to fuck off different from using slurs? How is not using slurs different from using slurs? Pretty simple: Im not using them. You should really try to read what it is I am writing.

In those countries the word is not used as a slur, but as a familiar way of referring to one another. You pretty clearly did not intend to signify familiarity, but instead to denigrate by use of the word. There are many ways to be denigrating without being chauvinistic

Completely unrelated, but I think I saw you share some articles about more kazakhs dying during the famine in the early USSR? Also, do you have any other articles about anything else to share? I am building out by library of bookmarks.

“ventguard for a Billionaire-bunker” does sound like some grimdark cyberpunk Metro 2066 type job

Yes? Sometimes the vibe of hexbear is similar to the vibe of the thing I referenced. I don’t really understand what the confusion is.

It’s Her Turn

I’m sure it would be much better if they had been invaded instead.

The faucet is capitalism. We need to put way more text on this leftist meme.

ok you win There is nothing to win, we are having a discussion and you are behaving like an angry toddler, so I am trying to teach you how to be normal, so you do not alienate people and you are able to have gainful conversation. That does not mean it is popular here Factually untrue, as the data shows. Furthermore if you think “I win” then that does mean it is popular there. Why do you lie? Until we all see that, we will generally bounce between unregulated capitalism and (what I favor) which is well regulated capitalism with worker and environmental protections. Completely vibes-based statement with nothing supporting it. Read Reform or Revolution.

Why are you writing as if we are actually the same user?

Downvoted for the sexist slur

Finish your argument before you start a new one sweetie. You made a claim that you could not back up, the available empirical data opposes your claim, and yet you declare your point still stands. It does not. In a proper civil dialogue we conclude disagreements before moving on to the next wall you’ve thrown shit at to see what sticks. So if you want to ask questions and get them answered, then you gotta show yourself to be acting in good faith as well. This requires behaving like a normal person and not some little weasely booger who cannot admit fault or themself answer any questions - In your case you gotta either admit you were wrong, provide reasonable critique for why the data is not applicable (this of course requires you read the texts you have been given, something I doubt you will ever do, you types rarely even make it past the headline and even then it is typically only a brief skim, feverishly hunting for some sentence you can misinterpret) or provide sufficient empirical data that can help create a working hypothesis alongside the other data.

Check out this meme I saw on instagram Mamdani my beloved, why must your wife be so much cooler than you?

Damn

I like the instance, I like the moderation, I like how its widely federated. I wish it did not have downvotes like hexbear does, but I find the .ml community to be much better in general, though a bit too sectarian at times. I prefer .ml to hexbear because hexbear has big time “midwestern covid conscious lesbian bar” vibes at times. My main issue with .ml is how other instances act. It’s pretty common to see ridiculous lies about .ml with a bunch of upvotes and the OP is never able to provide any proof when asked for it. But people still believe it because it’s .ml Same with how a lot of users’ brains will shut down when they see anything they disagree with posted by someone from this instance. All rationality goes out the window and they retreat to a frustrating ad hominem of “you’re using this instance, thus I dont have to take it seriously” - “ml detected, opinion disregarded” it’s so sad to see people be so scared. I also see users from other instances cry about .ml moderation. Personally I feel like it is pretty evenhanded and fair, but moderation will always skew against outsiders. I’ve been banned from some communities due to incivility while the equally uncivil person I was replying to was not. That’s just how it is everywhere, I dont go about pretending like thats some special feature of .world. So all in all I like it and my issue with it is mainly other instances.

Alright, I’m writing in Hillary

I cannot imagine speaking on a subject like you do, while knowing fuck all about it like you do. Every ideology makes use of force (like military and police) and every ideology relates somehow to the mode of production and the resulting economy. Both liberalism and fascism allows for “other ideas” to exist - every ideology allows for such a vague vibes-based statement, please shut the fuck up when you don’t know what you are talking about. And if you do insist on continuing this discussion then at least read what the person you are responding to wrote. Liberalism is about the right to private property and free markets, it uses force to uphold these things. It makes use of the same means as fascism, the actual thing that differs is the utopic end, but because the real material world does not care about why you do slavery, mass incarceration, bust unions, kill labor organisers, invade foreign countries in order to extract natural resources, create monopolies and all the other stuff that results from capitalism - which is the base of both ideologies - then that leads to the same end result. Next time you’re going to talk over me about something you don’t understand, quote the part you’re responding to - and make sure there isn’t already a part directly adressing the thing you’re saying - so I can know you have actually read what I wrote. That’s basic courtesy.

So far the only thing I have proposed is that you are wrong about your point still standing and I have supplied additional evidence to supply this. You keep trying to argue against something else because you have a weak and prideful mind, too fragile to handle being wrong.

Personally I think Starlink is bad because it fucks up the ozone layer, has massive emissions, permanently alters the night sky on behalf of one dude and the benefit is slightly faster internet for some very rare usecases and fascists having more precise bombs. Being mad that Starlink is now not helping some nazi fight a proxy war for the US seems like a silly reason to oppose it, but as long as all roads lead to Rome I cant be too mad about it.

What do you feel this link provides?

I didn’t take it as anything more. I am not the one who downvoted you

Why can’t you answer a single question?

Which countries are you thinking of? Be specific.

Financing some militias and doing random drone-strikes would fix this

“ventguard” does sound like some grimdark cyberpunk Metro 2066 type job

How can you be so allergic to basic questions? Its pretty simple. Read what I wrote. Quote the text. Explain how the quoted text fits your assertion. I assume you do not do this because you are aware you are being incredibly reductive and are essentially arguing against a fictitious position instead of the one I actually hold, because the actual position is one which no educated and reasonable person would disagree with. If that is t the case, then do the simple thing instead of continuing with this fallacious reductive presentation of my text.