irmoz

Understood, easier to keep thinking you're 100% right that way.

I agree that it's wrong to support genocide or vote for genocidal candidates.

It is a simple description of your erratic behavior

You are actually incapable of admitting fault, aren't you?

Notice that I didn't actually deny acting manic? Just like I never denied the behaviour that made me appear like a liberal. I only deny being a liberal, because I have thoroughly rejected the ideology - quite some time ago, in fact. Many years.

No, what I take issue with here is your use of an ad hominem, unjustified, and not even batting an eye at the sheer audacity of it.

Oh, brother. Ffs. I'm talking about wielding psychiatric diagnoses. It's a blatant ad hominem. Your willingness to just whip out a mental health condition as a reason not to listen to someone makes me question your integrity.

Sure. I fucked up bad enough that you ended up thinking I'm a liberal. I can admit that.

Now what? What's the point? Because when I read back through the thread, you did indeed come in and say it's easy to just not vote for genocide. And sure, I guess you could just not vote, or third party. But you don't actually think that someone other than them will win, do you?

Something other than voting is needed for the genocide to stop. Real action needs to happen. People need to organise, agitate, demonstrate, prefigure - and that's just the start.

Surely we agree on this? If not, then what's the point?

And yet you continue...

You are describing your process of making a guess.

...yes? I guessed at your intention.

You are leaving out the part where you have been corrected

Because that's not the part of the dialogue I am presently describing. I am explaining my initial assumption, because you are trying to claim it is a new invention.

are now doubling down on the truth of your guess.

....no? I'm just explaining what it was. Why do you think I said "what looked like"??

It’s not overly literal to know that rhetorical questions are for making a point, not asking you a question.

Yes - and then?

Yet again the basixa taught to children are something you think is just doo dang literal.

Sticking to the basics is taking it too literal, yes.

Anyways, the purpose of my rhetorical quest3 is for you to take a little time, do some self-crit,

I admit I haven't communicated very well, but perhaps you also need to reflect on your own ability to listen. Communication is two-way, and I have not made it impossible for you, despite you gesturing in that direction.

the similarities between your behavior and those of genocide apologetic liberals

I think you're projecting that. I have not once ever provided genocide apologia and nor do I ever even remotely condone it. I think you're assuming intentions I don't have, and I would prefer for you to not do that. My only point I wanted to make is that the coming US election is very unlikely to result in anyone other than the two imperialist, genocidal parties winning. I interpreted your rhetorical question as shaming anyone who votes for either of the two obvious potential winners.

Maybe this appears to you as me "defending" the Democrat party. They don't deserve defending. The only positive I can offer is that their domestic policy is less dystopic than the Republicans - but that's not a high bar. It's still more capitalism. No, I do not actually condone them. I just think it's naive to think anyone other than the Ds or Rs would win.

I am not seeing any accounting of my blatant point in your responses.

What blatant point is that? That you think I'm a liberal? There's no need to "account for" that. It's just false. You might as well call be a Martian.

You have missed it all, apparently.

That's nice of you to say.

So I will wait for you to engage with it and I will be dismissing your attempts to steer this in your various confused directions.

I'm not "steering". I'm answering and trying to actually engage in a dialogue with you. "Dismissing" that just means you're dismissing understanding.

It doesn’t take a specialist to recognize manic behavior.

It's not your credentials I'm calling into question.

No, that is literally the "knee-jerk reaction" I had on reading your initial question which I responded to. I saw what looked like someone boiling the election down to a simple vote for or against genocide, or at least making it sound like it was possible to vote genocide away.

Why else do you think I called you naive for thinking it's so simple?

What, then, do you think I was saying, there, in my initial response to you?

And you're trying to wield a psychiatric diagnosis in this discussion... why?

Well, I guess I'll take that as a "no".

If you know what one is why did you answer it? lol

Damn you are literal-minded. The idea of "it doesn't need an answer" isn't like... a law. It's a poetic description of the fact it makes you think. The discussion isn't supposed to just, like... stop there, is it? After the question has prompted the thought you're supposed to re-engage, enlightened by the knowledge the rhetorical question gave you.

Also... you asked me to..?

I'm just trying to get on the same page man, you're not making it easy