OBJECTION!

I’ve certainly had my mind changed.

One of my earliest memories of the internet was when I was like 12 and I went to nuklearpower.com (home of the 8-bit Theater webcomic), and I saw a thread in the forums debating religion. I knew atheists existed, but had never met one and never really considered why I believed the things I did, or why they believed something different. I posted a comment defending what I’d been taught but then started really thinking about it. It wound up reshaping my entire belief system. I realized that if everyone just believed what we were taught, then there’d be no way for us to really know which of us is right, and even if I was right it would be through pure luck and there are countless people following the same approach to wrong conclusions. This led me towards science, and towards grounding my beliefs in reason and evidence.

That was the first time I had my mind changed, and yes I was very young but it wasn’t the only time. Some years ago, I not only had my mind changed but changed a big part of my lifestyle, in a large part because talking about it with people on the internet convinced me to go vegan. I don’t believe I’d met another vegan irl (unless they didn’t tell me, ang what are the odds of that?) and if I did I certainly didn’t debate the nitty gritty with them.

There are countless smaller examples I could point to. But in virtually all of those cases, the conversation didn’t end with, “Huh, I guess you’re right.” It ended with me arguing my position as best as I could, but being dissatisfied with the things I was saying and thinking it over over the course of days, months, even years. Changing your perspective or worldview usually doesn’t happen over the course of a single conversation, but it can cause a seed to be planted.

State Capitalist, Feudalist, Plutocratic, Authoritarian, Nationalist, Fascist.

Not a bad start, but y’all can get more creative with it, I’m sure. Throw in a Kleptocracy, an Oligarchy, or maybe spice it up with some Mercantalism. If you wanna get crazy with it, how about Gerentocracy? Anything goes in this space! And don’t be afraid to mix and match!

stratified ethno-centric state capitalism more akin to theoretical fascism. . . something like the state capitalism of Rhodesia

chef’s kiss See, look at that, perfect example. That’s a description that’s pure creativity. Think of it like an expressionist painting, it’s just about whatever you feel, whatever you want to put out on a canvas. It doesn’t have to make sense, it doesn’t have to have any resemblance to reality, just write whatever you feel. And sometimes it’ll look like you just vomited on a page, but that’s just art for you.

Remember, kids, there’s one rule when talking about China, and one rule only: it has to be negative. Beyond that, anything goes!

I had no idea The Sims Medieval was a thing lol

People are dissatisfied with the economy and the far-right says, “This is happening because of immigrants,” the left says, correctly, “This is happening because of billionaires,” while liberals just say, “This isn’t happening, everything is fine.” The far right’s narrative beats the liberal one because it at least acknowledges that people are struggling, even if the reasons and solutions it offers are totally wrong. Unless the economic conditions can be reversed, and the far-right are the only ones people see offering an alternative, the growth of the far-right is inevitable.

As for the left’s (correct) narrative that the billionaires are the problem, it has the advantage of actually being true and making sense, but it has the disadvantage of threatening monied interests, which are going to try their best to subvert and silence it. Billionaires will generally prefer to promote the far-right because it doesn’t threaten their interests.

However, the left’s narrative is the only thing that can really counter the right’s narrative. You can’t keep insisting there’s no problem as things get worse and worse and expect it to work. The left is weak right now and faces an uphill battle, but it’s a battle where there’s a possibility of winning, while the liberals are ultimately doomed.

Pretty sure we still have the third

Cool.

Anyway, blocking you now, because why would I ever want to see anything written by an admitted liar and hack?

That too! It’s like you’re trying to make voting for him as odious as possible.

I said it as a jape before, but now I’m wondering if you really are a right-wing op.

Yeah, that’s consistent with what I’d do if I were trying to discredit him while pretending to be a supporter too.

Oh no, I’m so owned.

If I were actually trying to discredit El-Sayed, and I didn’t believe in intellectual honesty, I’d probably go around telling blatant lies on his behalf and then doubling down on “lying is good” when called out.

Can you honestly say you think this is a good look?

Of course I have things to defend. El-Sayed is not one of them.

What I’m confused about is, why defend anything if nothing is true?

I don’t have one, I’m not the one promoting him.

Might want to workshop it before you put that on the side of a bus.

What a fascinating campaign strategy. First admit to being a liar, then call people who say to vote for your candidate “swine.”

I can’t wait to see what, “Hey everybody, I’m a liar, and I think you should vote for this guy” accomplishes.

I’m “serving” Mike Rodgers? Keep this up and people will be able to start saying that reality has a conservative bias.

I even said that I think people should vote for El-Sayed. But I also acknowledged something that is objectively true. If telling the truth is “serving” his opponent, if his path to winning depends on spreading lies and misinformation, then perhaps I should reconsider my assessment.

Some of us are more concerned with building a movement than on your petty electoral shit, and betraying people’s trust with misinformation is not a basis for a movement. Doing so in such a way that you instantly get caught, and then doubling down and admitting all of this openly, is not even helpful to the goal of winning an election.

The facts remain the facts no matter how they are twisted.

Lol, very rich of you to say that.

The fact is the claim about El-Sayed being a Dubai landlord is objectively true. It remains a fact, even if you try to twist it by claiming that anyone who acknowledges it is “aligning with fools and charlatans.”

Either way vote El-Sayed is the end of your point and that’s fine with me.

It absolutely is not. Whether you vote for him or not is trivial, whether you are honest or not is much more important. The end of my point is that you’re a liar and a hack, and that you’re not even good at being a lying hack.

So you’re a partisan hack and a liar, understood.

And a bad liar, at that. If you’re gonna lie, don’t do so in a way that you can get caught out and exposed so easily lmao.

Oh so you’re just critisicing the cantidate you hope wins?

Yes? That’s called being intellectually honest and not a partisan hack.

Are you openly admitting that you won’t acknowledge criticism of people you support, even if that criticism is backed by hard evidence?

Lmao “my alt?”

Personally, I think you should probably vote for El-Sayed, because I’m not that person and don’t agree with all of her positions on everything. See, and I know this is a difficult concept to grasp, sometimes, a person is right about something, even if I disagree with them about something else. Kind of like Free Beacon, actually!

I’m just chiming in to point out how utterly ridiculous you’re being by writing off evidence just because the source presenting the evidence is biased.

“Get out of the road! There’s a car coming!”

“Who did you vote for? Who do you say I should vote for?”

“Turn around! Look, you can see it with your own eyes!”

“So, you’re too cowardly to answer my questions.”

“Dude, she’s right, there’s a car right there!”

“You must be her alt then. Who do you say I should vote for?”

“That’s some nice ‘evidence’ you’ve got there. Unfortunately, the person talking about it doesn’t agree with me politically so that means it’s not real.”