Jesus christ, that’s so many words for boring, circular logic.

Your argument is self-defeating. “We shouldn’t do anything, because people are animals that can’t understand and react to objective reality rationally” is borderline fatalism, and at the very least suggests that everything you are saying is a waste of breath. If you’re right, no one here will accept objective reality, will do whatever they want and you are therefore wasting your time and energy. If you’re wrong, well you’re digging in on an invalid argument, and also wasting your time and energy.

So, my rebuttal is this: fuck off. Rude, but no less so than a childish laughing fit. Your entire deconstruction of my argument is riddled with fallacies and built from the bias that you are correct to begin with. Taking the time to address it beyond this is to give it more credit than it is worth, and I have better things to do with my night than engage with terminally-online pseudo-intellectualism. Either people are better than you give them credit for, or they’re not, and I’d still rather waste my time trying to do the right thing than engage with pointless cynicism and smuggly jerk myself off about how superior I am for being smart while the world falls apart around me.

You are talking about taking a giant shit on everybody who’s been saying that 2020 was a free and fair election when you immediately fling the same accusations the very first time an election doesn’t go your way.

This is not what is happening, though. I address this in another post, but this is a false equivilency. Screaming fraud because of heresay from a demonstable liar, and then refusing to accept the results even after the audit without just cause is not the same as seeing these questionable and verifiable facts and performing an audit in response, particularly if the result is met with acceptance. To suggest that this response is occurring “the very first time an election doesn’t go your way” is dishonest, as there were no widespread claims of voter fraud nor calls for recounts and audits in the 2016 election. By and large, people accepted the results.

Your 2028 hypothesis is predicated on the idea that Democrat voters will deny objective reality the way Trump voters have been. I suspect that would not be the case.

But we’re not talking about verifying the results and then refusing to accept them anyway. That, would be chasing conspiracy theories. We’re not talking about denial and a refusal to believe in objective reality. We’re talking about easily (though slowly and expensively) verifiable facts. The false equivilency you’re drawing between the two is delusional.

And that’s really the issue here: false equivilency. The last election was challenged, and recounted, based on hot gas and whataboutisms. And we found that it was fair, so we should accept it. This time there is really strange data and openly accepted knowledge that the voting machines were compromised. We have more genuine reason to worry, so perhaps we should check instead of having completely irrational, and I’m starting to think maybe bad faith, arguments about it.

The argument of “oh, but if they DID cheat, it’ll damage trust in the whole thing” just doesn’t hold water. So what? If the system is broken we shouldn’t trust it until visible measures have been made to fix it. And that’s a good thing, civil war or no. We do not bend over to bullies when they threaten violence, because it just empowers them to take more and more. And look where it has gotten us.

So, stick your head in the sand? “People are going to lie, cheat and threaten violence, and questioning when it is happening is just going to stop us from ever trusting anyone in the future. We should just let them do whatever they want.” Insane take tbh. I get how you reach the outcomes you’re suggesting are possible, but I don’t think it’s as bleak as you’ve portrayed it, and simply rolling over as literal fascists rig the electoral process of the most powerful country in the world is straight up not a good idea.

Turns out the right was unified in their belief that they should be the ones with the power, but very divided on what they are going to do with it.

It’s going to be an exhausting four years.

Why is it not bigger news that MTG is openly stating that the only reason any of these people are in power is because they have paid off all their victims and buried all the bodies. This is a verbal admission that she knows the entire GOP is filled with sex offenders, and the only reason they aren’t in jail is that they all cover for each other.

Fucking do it. Release it all. Don’t just threaten me with a good time. The people deserve to know exactly how morally bankrupt their representatives are. Not that you even need to see the evidence to know, with these blatant admissions, that they are morally bankrupt.

My experience with GOG is that it is a fringe option, at least in the combined North American (USA+Canada) culture. Plus, the unfortunate reality is that in many cases GOG’s principles preclude it from being a genuine competitor to Steam. Insisting on being DRM free means half of released games never go to the platform, so it will always be the secondary “better if” option.

I worry about Steam’s functional monopoly on PC game access. It hasn’t been an issue so far, because it has remembered that it is, first and foremost, a service, providing consumer protection through a generous refund policy and supporting devs with easy access to simple matchmaking and anti-cheat systems. But without a healthy competitor, it would be easy for Steam to start milking it’s users and developers alike.

While I don’t approve of Epic’s stabs at exclusivity, Steam needs a competitor to keep it in check, and one that is making some efforts to support the preservation of art is a welcome choice.

Right. Cherry-picking kool-aid enthusiasts spreading their knee-jerk reaction on social media isn’t journalism. These people are likely not valid representatives of public MAGA opinion, to say the least.

The anti-mainstream media comment in particular turns this whole post so many levels of irony that it’s actually challenging to unpack it in a succinct way.

I hate that sentence, but you’re right, and I ultimately think it would be better for Canada than any of the other two options.

Man, I hate to say it out loud, but the current state of Canadian politics isn’t looking great. RIP CBC, at the very least.

Maybe if we’re really lucky Trump will do some absolutely insane shit and his connection to Pollievre will work against the CPC. Mind you, I can’t say I am looking forward to another Liberal government either, but such is the way of the two party system.

And importantly, isn’t that the point of proposing a global wealth tax? Unless they plan on taking their wealth to Mars, they’ll be stuck paying in, were everyone to play along.

Yes, I know, wishful thinking, but that is the proposal.

That this post was made in good faith. The way conversation between the left, the right, and the centrist voters is either dishonest, or shows a horrible misunderstanding of common opinion. If it is the latter, I am wrong about the good faith bit, hence the “I hope I am wrong,” though I am not happy about either outcome.

Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support acts of repression by such regimes or their allies.

From Wikipedia.

The comment I am responding to never denied that there is an influx of tankies here. Instead you said I shouldn’t be surprised to find leftists here, inferring that leftists are tankies. Being authoritarian and manipulating information to manipulate people is not a leftist value.

You can disagree with me all you want. I’ll respect that. I would appreciate if you had better respect than to treat me like I am insane and my statements make no sense just because you disagree.

That is not my experience. I hope I am the one who is wrong.

Authoritarian manipulation is not a leftist value.

Don’t conflate my concern in speaking out against discourse like as “seething and coping.” My goal is to call out attempts to divide and other people for what it is.

And here I thought statements of lemmy.ml being overrun with tankies were exaggurated. Boy your deconstruction of my post sure showed me!

This is a bad faith meme that represents anyone making any form of compromise as a rude, close-minded, genocide supporter, posted by an account that frequently posts pro-China, sometimes pro-Russia propaganda, and hops between Western country-focused lemmy’s pending election cycles.

Just making sure the context for this post is visible.

This is not how I have understood the criticisms being thrown around Lemmy lately, but I appreciate the perspective. Even so, I’m not sure I can agree that the best solution to dealing with the right is to fight the centrists first, but I can at least appreciate your point in the specific context of the current two-party system.