You really just gotta get out of the private space of who people vote for and do actual work that matters. Wasting your energy trying to get polite genocidaires elected is costing lives every day. You only have so much time. Vote the way you understand the system works, assume everyone else is as smart or smarter than you and they can figure out how to vote. And then spend the other 364 days of the year putting all this effort you want to put into vote mongering and put it into dismantling the orphan crushing machine.
Because the way this works is that there’s an orphan crushing machine and there are two parties who take turns operating the orphan crushing machine and we need all the help we can get dismantling the orphan crushing machine.
And when you spend all your effort screaming at the people who want to dismantle the orphan crushing machine that they should ALSO be sure they vote for the correct people to operate the orphan crushing machine, wait let me put it in your terms:
If you help us dismantle the orphan crushing machine, that’s -1 for the orphan crushers and +1 for the people fighting the orphan crushers
If you don’t help us dismantle the machine, that’s 0 for the orphan crushers
If you consume time and energy from other people who would otherwise be convinced to help us dismantle the orphan crushing machine, that -1 or more for the people fighting the orphan crushers and +1 or more for the orphan crushers.
It’s just the way game theory works out. Trust me. I’m a doctor of game theory.
Because the way this works is that there’s an orphan crushing machine and there are two parties who take turns operating the orphan crushing machine and we need all the help we can get dismantling the orphan crushing machine.
It’s a little wild to tell someone they should spend this energy doing something about it instead of writing when you wrote more than them just to say it. It rings pretty hollow. Not saying this to tell you you’re right or wrong, just some constructive criticism. Stick to the substantial arguments if you really want to change minds.
Ugh. This whole argument again. No friendo, what I did is not equivalent to what they did. What I did was spend the time to spread the information that helps my case that electoralism is a failure and that we must move beyond it. I provided evidence that most electoralists need to see so that they too can abandon the electoral path and join the rest of us in tearing it down.
What my opponent is doing is moralizing to try to get people to vote correctly and every character they write is in the service of this. I never said writing is bad. I said spending energy on convincing people of the electoral path is bad. Spending energy on convincing people against the electoral path is good.
You are repeating the same hollow rhetoric that if I disagree with the US fighting wars then I should disagree with Iran fighting wars, or that if I disagree with the master beating slaves then I should disagree with slaves beating the master.
I wasn’t even denouncing the core of your argument, it was purely the characterization you made of them. Everyone views their own opinions as the right ones, so “spend[ing] your effort screaming at the ones who want to dismantle the orphan crushing machine”(your exact words) is about as fair of a characterization as “beg the accellerationists to help reduce the amount of murder happening in general” for instance. I’m not saying that either one is the truth. I’m not saying you are wrong or adding my own view on the issue itself. I’m saying that I think you could make it more convincing by leaving that characterization out.
Did you mean to respond to somone else? I’ve been trying to go out of my way to say this isn’t a rebuttal to the argument. No one’s rhetoric is perfect, and even if someone’s advice doesn’t resonate with you there might be a kernel of something you can use to improve it in other ways.
It’s a little wild to tell someone they should spend this energy doing something about it instead of writing
That’s not what freagle said though. The argument wasn’t that jjj shouldn’t write or that they shouldn’t try to influence people, the argument was that they shouldn’t be wasting their time and energy trying to influence people to vote because voting is ultimately useless. Freagle never said that trying to influence people period is a waste. So no, what they said did not ring hollow and there was no hypocrisy in writing a long a comment explaining why it is a waste to try to get people to vote or to vote a certain way.
You either didn’t understand or deliberately mischaracterized what freagle was actually saying so you can’t claim it was just constructive criticism.
On a more charitable reading I can see that meaning, and I probably came off with a tone I didn’t mean over text. I don’t think its an effective approach for convincing opposition though and would ask folks tempted to to consider why what seems like simple math isn’t so simple for people focusing on a different variables.
But no, not deliberately misunderstanding and I appreciate your input.
You really just gotta get out of the private space of who people vote for and do actual work that matters. Wasting your energy trying to get polite genocidaires elected is costing lives every day. You only have so much time. Vote the way you understand the system works, assume everyone else is as smart or smarter than you and they can figure out how to vote. And then spend the other 364 days of the year putting all this effort you want to put into vote mongering and put it into dismantling the orphan crushing machine.
Because the way this works is that there’s an orphan crushing machine and there are two parties who take turns operating the orphan crushing machine and we need all the help we can get dismantling the orphan crushing machine.
And when you spend all your effort screaming at the people who want to dismantle the orphan crushing machine that they should ALSO be sure they vote for the correct people to operate the orphan crushing machine, wait let me put it in your terms:
If you help us dismantle the orphan crushing machine, that’s -1 for the orphan crushers and +1 for the people fighting the orphan crushers
If you don’t help us dismantle the machine, that’s 0 for the orphan crushers
If you consume time and energy from other people who would otherwise be convinced to help us dismantle the orphan crushing machine, that -1 or more for the people fighting the orphan crushers and +1 or more for the orphan crushers.
It’s just the way game theory works out. Trust me. I’m a doctor of game theory.
Damn that’s 🔥
It’s a little wild to tell someone they should spend this energy doing something about it instead of writing when you wrote more than them just to say it. It rings pretty hollow. Not saying this to tell you you’re right or wrong, just some constructive criticism. Stick to the substantial arguments if you really want to change minds.
Ugh. This whole argument again. No friendo, what I did is not equivalent to what they did. What I did was spend the time to spread the information that helps my case that electoralism is a failure and that we must move beyond it. I provided evidence that most electoralists need to see so that they too can abandon the electoral path and join the rest of us in tearing it down.
What my opponent is doing is moralizing to try to get people to vote correctly and every character they write is in the service of this. I never said writing is bad. I said spending energy on convincing people of the electoral path is bad. Spending energy on convincing people against the electoral path is good.
You are repeating the same hollow rhetoric that if I disagree with the US fighting wars then I should disagree with Iran fighting wars, or that if I disagree with the master beating slaves then I should disagree with slaves beating the master.
I wasn’t even denouncing the core of your argument, it was purely the characterization you made of them. Everyone views their own opinions as the right ones, so “spend[ing] your effort screaming at the ones who want to dismantle the orphan crushing machine”(your exact words) is about as fair of a characterization as “beg the accellerationists to help reduce the amount of murder happening in general” for instance. I’m not saying that either one is the truth. I’m not saying you are wrong or adding my own view on the issue itself. I’m saying that I think you could make it more convincing by leaving that characterization out.
I’ll consider it. Thanks for the feedback
You’re welcome, and thanks for taking my words in good faith. Even if what I said doesn’t resonate with you, I hope you manage to have a good day.
“Heh, you claim my praxis is useless at best yet you use words to do it. Hypocrite much?”
Okay, you’re getting defensive in a way that’s kind of silly here
Did you mean to respond to somone else? I’ve been trying to go out of my way to say this isn’t a rebuttal to the argument. No one’s rhetoric is perfect, and even if someone’s advice doesn’t resonate with you there might be a kernel of something you can use to improve it in other ways.
That’s not what freagle said though. The argument wasn’t that jjj shouldn’t write or that they shouldn’t try to influence people, the argument was that they shouldn’t be wasting their time and energy trying to influence people to vote because voting is ultimately useless. Freagle never said that trying to influence people period is a waste. So no, what they said did not ring hollow and there was no hypocrisy in writing a long a comment explaining why it is a waste to try to get people to vote or to vote a certain way.
You either didn’t understand or deliberately mischaracterized what freagle was actually saying so you can’t claim it was just constructive criticism.
On a more charitable reading I can see that meaning, and I probably came off with a tone I didn’t mean over text. I don’t think its an effective approach for convincing opposition though and would ask folks tempted to to consider why what seems like simple math isn’t so simple for people focusing on a different variables.
But no, not deliberately misunderstanding and I appreciate your input.