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

You don’t believe me?

Of course I know what one is. That’s kinda the problem here. A rhetorical question, among other things, is intended to make a point. The obvious point concluded from answering this question in the morally correct way is that it is always wrong to support genocide or vote for genocidal candidates, in a sort of Kantian categorical imperative.

I’m not lying. I’m telling you my honest impression that arises from your insistence on this question, in this context.

When I see you asking if it’s okay to support genocide or vote for genocidal candidates, I’m not seeing that in a vacuum, am I? Are you asking me to see that question in a vacuum? Because you asked it in a thread about the US election. It seems obvious to conclude that this question is connected to the US election, not some other hypothetical election where it might be possible to successfully vote away genocide.

So, like you begged me to, I ask - are you actually trying to ask that question in a vacuum, disconnected from current events? That’s the only way it makes sense to me, but if that’s the case it seems a pointless question in my opinion.

I want you to understand what I’m saying.

why did you fight so hard against answering a simple yes or no?

Already told you that in my very first response to you. Because this election isn’t as simple as voting for or against genocide.

And then I quite quickly actually answered, but it wasn’t in the precise format you expected, so you ignored it (and even admitted ignoring it).

It is in exactly this context that they cannot imagine doing anything other than voting for their team. They already think of themselves as acting against genocide by voting for a genocidal candidate, in fact. Have you not seen this?

It is exactly this attitude I criticise - in you, as well.

There is no voting that will stop this genocide.

O master, that lies in your hands!

Genocide is, of course, wrong. Supporting those that perpetuate it is also wrong.

Not a yes or no, but it still equates to the same thing.

Right?

I do not support genocide or genocidal candidates.

Can we move on to the next step yet?

At no point have I beat around the bush. Given your behavior this must be projection.

I have made my opinion on the subject quite clear from the outset. Please don’t gaslight me into thinking I’ve somehow been hiding anything. I have not. The entire time, I’ve told you what my position is. You’re simply refused to acknowledge it because you wanted a simple “yes” or “no” answer regarding a subject that is anything but binary.

Feel free to tell me what your answer “actually means” since apparently understanding it as a “yes” to my yes or no question I asked 4-5 times remains insufficient.

Okay I’m starting to wonder if maybe you have an overly literal way of thinking. It seems clear that what I was talking about was not you interpretation of my answer, but your opinion on it. As in - do you agree? Disagree? Do you think my answer is insufficient? Do you think I’m lying? What is your actual follow up to “learning” (even though you already knew) that I am against genocide, and against voting for genocidal candidates? What happens next? Are you going to ask me something else, are you going to make a statement regarding this position?

Days ago you said the answer was an “emphatic no” and now it is a yes lmao.

So you are overly literal. My answer was an emphatic no regarding supporting genocide and genocide deniers. When asked if I support them, I denied this emphatically. Here’s a question - are you honestly unable to take anything other than the singular word “no” as a negative? Does “absolutely not” count? How about an explanation why, such as “I would never, because that is wrong!”? Now, before you say “but you never said these things”, these are what’s known as examples. When I said “I do not support genocide of genocide deniers”, that is me emphatically denying support for genocide and genocide deniers. An emphatic “no”. When asked “do you” and I say “I do not”, that is a “no” in other words; a negative response; a denial.

Do some self-crit, you are just lying at this point.

Here’s some honesty for you - it actually boils my blood to be told I’m lying when I know I’m actually speaking my mind. It angers me a great deal to be misinterpreted to such a degree. I am not lying.

I see little evidence that you cared at any point.

Oh, please. Obviously I cared at least a little bit what you thought or else I never would have said anything. Don’t be so facetious.

You seem to be far more interested in self-indulgence than taking any form of criticism, which is a liberal trait.

That is a mere insult disguised as political analysis. “Liberal” is not a personality trait, and you are showing little evidence you know anything about what a liberal is other than “someone I don’t like”. As a reminder, liberalism is a political philosophy that arose out of the enlightenment and is characterised by individualism, a devotion to private property, etc etc.

I already pointed you to my response at the end of my comment two comments ago.

Really? You mean this:

Anyways, apparently your answer to my question is actually “yes”. You announce, for suresies, that you are against genocide and against voting for genocidal candidates. I am glad we are in agreement!

That’s not a response. That’s an acknowledgement. Which, oddly enough, was, in the words of someone, was “like pulling teeth” to get.

Like I said earlier in this comment, what I’m looking for is an actual response. It’s nice to know “we agree”, but it’s clear to me there’s something else you want to say but are waiting for me to say the right words or something, but I’m not playing that game.

And don’t think I don’t notice which parts of my responses you skip over.

What part of “I don’t care” didn’t you get? I wasn’t trying to hide anything.

I am giving you many opportunities to stop digging holes. You should take those opportunities.

Nope, not taking that bait.

Do you need me to repeat it? You could just ask instead of throwing this tantrum and lying.

I did ask: “Are you ready yet to actually respond to my answer?”

It is funny how you would like tk think I have been the barrier, here. Just do the self-crit and stop accusing me of your bad behavior.

Your “criticisms” are just your hurt feelings that I wouldn’t play your game. No, I will not apologise for not following your script.

I will repeat my response, actually, because apparently you need this help but are too proud and liberal to accept it:

The fact you keep using “liberal” as a mere insult instead of an actual estimation of someone’s political beliefs says multitudes more than anything else you’ve said, here. For one, it tells me that you’re viewing this as some kind of team sport with a good side and a bad side, which are defined not by morality but by their philosophical proximity to your current beliefs. And combined with the fact that you have yet to say anything even remotely politically relevant to the subject we’re discussing, and are instead focusing on pedantic semantic minutiae, completely ignoring the existence of equivalent statements (such as “I do not” equating to “no”) and nuance (acknowledging that binary morality does not apply here), tells me you’re either just a stubborn troll or are deluded about your own beliefs. Of the two of us here, the one who seems most philosophically liberal is you. You are the only one out of the two of us that actually has faith in liberal democracy.

And if I’m wrong on that, you’ve given me no reason to believe otherwise - your dogged insistence on this question, and the weight you’ve put on it, tells me you think “voting correctly” to be a very powerful act, capable of actually stopping the genocide.

Anyways, apparently your answer to my question is actually “yes”. You announce, for suresies, that you are against genocide and against voting for genocidal candidates. I am glad we are in agreement!

Like I already said - that is not a response. That is an acknowledgement. What comes next?

So tell me, why was that so hard for you to ssay?

I already answered this - it wasn’t hard to say. I already said it ages ago. Look:

“I do not support genocide, or support genocide deniers.”