▲ 343 ▼ VoTe BluE (lemmy.ml) submitted 1 year ago by jankforlife@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml 195 comments fedilink hide all child comments BlueMAGA
[+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -6 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) The point is I'm not going to lend you any legitimacy by picking up the shit and eating it myself, then turning at the people around me and asking why they aren't eating it yet. I'm going to make it impossible for the shit peddler to hide their willingness and ability to abuse their power. If I'm eating shit either way, why would I do it in a way that makes it apparent to outsiders that I'm choosing to eat shit? And no, when you scold people for not participating in a system, you are not just not "refusing to acknowledge its legitimacy". You are promoting it, whether you care to or not. You are promoting the idea that everyone is choosing these options out of complete and true support of complete and unbiased information. This is especially true when people like you misrepresent and refuse to understand the arguments of those who choose to abstain or vote third party. You are saying, "if you participate in this system, you could change the way things are going; and if you don't, then you implicitly consent to it", which is simply not true. Interestingly enough, you know how little power a person has when acting as an individual, which is why you minimize the reach of individuals when it comes to forms of political action other than voting, but you never apply it to the situation of voting where the ruling class has vast numbers of ways to influence people's behaviors in whatever direction they want. The change can only come when we have built the ability to move cohesively as a class, or a voting bloc if you will, that can either take power for itself or force our leaders to come to our table if they want our compliance. We can only build this by overcoming the resentment we hold for other members of our class, and putting one foot in front of the other; turning one person at a time towards the inner workings of the machine that the ruling class works so hard to hide. Not by stoking resentment and wasting our energy trying to manipulate an illegitimate system while we wait around for the movement to build itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) You keep saying that, but what does that even mean? You don't know what legitimacy is? Our political system rests on the consent of the people, because the people have the power of collective action when they are organized and/or believe en masse that the pathways by which the system claims to represent them are illegitimate (re: not actually representing them). The ruling class wouldn't work so hard to obscure their undemocratic nature if that wasn't the case. People don't just accept those kinds of things, they resist and build power that does represent them. That is demonstrable throughout history. Voting is not only going out to vote on the day of, its all the time you and I are spending now debating it, it's workers canvassing for bourgeois candidates and 24/7 campaign ads planting establishment narratives into the public, its people participating in democratic offices when they could be doing grassroots organizing, it's minimizing anything that doesn't help your candidate like the economic conditions of the working class or the fact the candidate is massively aiding a genocide, it's throwing your hands up when your team doesn't win and callously telling your class members "FAFO" when you could be rallying on a shared struggle. It's fucking toxic, and don't you dare pretend you don't know what I'm talking about with your "no u" ass arguments. I don't refuse to understand anything. lmfao... You know what, I was pretty clear and concise with my language. I said what I wanted to say. I'm not going to play point-for-point semantics with you because it would take me writing a several-pages-long essay to fully get my meaning across to someone who is clearly digging in their heels and not willing to take me in good faith. There's also theorists out there who have already done a far better job than I would at that but I doubt you would care to read them. In short; try putting your ego aside, re-reading what I said, and thinking super hard about it. I've already answered all of your questions, you're just blocking them out at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] causepix@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) The point is I'm not going to lend you any legitimacy by picking up the shit and eating it myself, then turning at the people around me and asking why they aren't eating it yet. I'm going to make it impossible for the shit peddler to hide their willingness and ability to abuse their power. If I'm eating shit either way, why would I do it in a way that makes it apparent to outsiders that I'm choosing to eat shit? And no, when you scold people for not participating in a system, you are not just not "refusing to acknowledge its legitimacy". You are promoting it, whether you care to or not. You are promoting the idea that everyone is choosing these options out of complete and true support of complete and unbiased information. This is especially true when people like you misrepresent and refuse to understand the arguments of those who choose to abstain or vote third party. You are saying, "if you participate in this system, you could change the way things are going; and if you don't, then you implicitly consent to it", which is simply not true. Interestingly enough, you know how little power a person has when acting as an individual, which is why you minimize the reach of individuals when it comes to forms of political action other than voting, but you never apply it to the situation of voting where the ruling class has vast numbers of ways to influence people's behaviors in whatever direction they want. The change can only come when we have built the ability to move cohesively as a class, or a voting bloc if you will, that can either take power for itself or force our leaders to come to our table if they want our compliance. We can only build this by overcoming the resentment we hold for other members of our class, and putting one foot in front of the other; turning one person at a time towards the inner workings of the machine that the ruling class works so hard to hide. Not by stoking resentment and wasting our energy trying to manipulate an illegitimate system while we wait around for the movement to build itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) You keep saying that, but what does that even mean? You don't know what legitimacy is? Our political system rests on the consent of the people, because the people have the power of collective action when they are organized and/or believe en masse that the pathways by which the system claims to represent them are illegitimate (re: not actually representing them). The ruling class wouldn't work so hard to obscure their undemocratic nature if that wasn't the case. People don't just accept those kinds of things, they resist and build power that does represent them. That is demonstrable throughout history. Voting is not only going out to vote on the day of, its all the time you and I are spending now debating it, it's workers canvassing for bourgeois candidates and 24/7 campaign ads planting establishment narratives into the public, its people participating in democratic offices when they could be doing grassroots organizing, it's minimizing anything that doesn't help your candidate like the economic conditions of the working class or the fact the candidate is massively aiding a genocide, it's throwing your hands up when your team doesn't win and callously telling your class members "FAFO" when you could be rallying on a shared struggle. It's fucking toxic, and don't you dare pretend you don't know what I'm talking about with your "no u" ass arguments. I don't refuse to understand anything. lmfao... You know what, I was pretty clear and concise with my language. I said what I wanted to say. I'm not going to play point-for-point semantics with you because it would take me writing a several-pages-long essay to fully get my meaning across to someone who is clearly digging in their heels and not willing to take me in good faith. There's also theorists out there who have already done a far better job than I would at that but I doubt you would care to read them. In short; try putting your ego aside, re-reading what I said, and thinking super hard about it. I've already answered all of your questions, you're just blocking them out at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) You keep saying that, but what does that even mean? You don't know what legitimacy is? Our political system rests on the consent of the people, because the people have the power of collective action when they are organized and/or believe en masse that the pathways by which the system claims to represent them are illegitimate (re: not actually representing them). The ruling class wouldn't work so hard to obscure their undemocratic nature if that wasn't the case. People don't just accept those kinds of things, they resist and build power that does represent them. That is demonstrable throughout history. Voting is not only going out to vote on the day of, its all the time you and I are spending now debating it, it's workers canvassing for bourgeois candidates and 24/7 campaign ads planting establishment narratives into the public, its people participating in democratic offices when they could be doing grassroots organizing, it's minimizing anything that doesn't help your candidate like the economic conditions of the working class or the fact the candidate is massively aiding a genocide, it's throwing your hands up when your team doesn't win and callously telling your class members "FAFO" when you could be rallying on a shared struggle. It's fucking toxic, and don't you dare pretend you don't know what I'm talking about with your "no u" ass arguments. I don't refuse to understand anything. lmfao... You know what, I was pretty clear and concise with my language. I said what I wanted to say. I'm not going to play point-for-point semantics with you because it would take me writing a several-pages-long essay to fully get my meaning across to someone who is clearly digging in their heels and not willing to take me in good faith. There's also theorists out there who have already done a far better job than I would at that but I doubt you would care to read them. In short; try putting your ego aside, re-reading what I said, and thinking super hard about it. I've already answered all of your questions, you're just blocking them out at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) You keep saying that, but what does that even mean? You don't know what legitimacy is? Our political system rests on the consent of the people, because the people have the power of collective action when they are organized and/or believe en masse that the pathways by which the system claims to represent them are illegitimate (re: not actually representing them). The ruling class wouldn't work so hard to obscure their undemocratic nature if that wasn't the case. People don't just accept those kinds of things, they resist and build power that does represent them. That is demonstrable throughout history. Voting is not only going out to vote on the day of, its all the time you and I are spending now debating it, it's workers canvassing for bourgeois candidates and 24/7 campaign ads planting establishment narratives into the public, its people participating in democratic offices when they could be doing grassroots organizing, it's minimizing anything that doesn't help your candidate like the economic conditions of the working class or the fact the candidate is massively aiding a genocide, it's throwing your hands up when your team doesn't win and callously telling your class members "FAFO" when you could be rallying on a shared struggle. It's fucking toxic, and don't you dare pretend you don't know what I'm talking about with your "no u" ass arguments. I don't refuse to understand anything. lmfao... You know what, I was pretty clear and concise with my language. I said what I wanted to say. I'm not going to play point-for-point semantics with you because it would take me writing a several-pages-long essay to fully get my meaning across to someone who is clearly digging in their heels and not willing to take me in good faith. There's also theorists out there who have already done a far better job than I would at that but I doubt you would care to read them. In short; try putting your ego aside, re-reading what I said, and thinking super hard about it. I've already answered all of your questions, you're just blocking them out at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent
