That nonviolent shit will get you killed.

Ah, but some of us enjoy being rude to carnists, and as humans, we do what makes us feel better no matter what.

Seriously, where do you get off? Acting all holier-than-thou and calling us “evil” while simultaneously coming from a place of pure self-interest and saying that you were only doing it to “look like a good person.” Pick a lane. Either you’re a heartless, amoral sociopath, or you’re trying to claim the moral high ground, you can’t do both at once.

I’d rather not have people in it purely for the image. If anything, that’s far more damaging than anything I or any other vegan on here is doing. A rude true believer is a hell of a lot more respectable than someone who’s only in it to show off and congratulate themselves.

But go ahead, scratched liberal, go torture and kill animals because a person was rude to you on the internet. Some of us have a conception of right and wrong that goes beyond putting on a front, and if you don’t, then you were only ever pretending to care anyway. That is, assuming anything you said is true and you’re not just a concern-trolling carnist who’s never had anything to do with veganism in the first place.

If I say “god doesn’t exist,” then what does “god” mean in that sentence if not “your god” or “somebody else’s god?” Is there some sort of “objective” god that I have to accept before I can voice my disbelief in it? It’s all just people’s interpretations.

You need numbers and you need those numbers to have guns. They are not stopping, they do not care about right or wrong, and there is no telling how far they’re going to go. Without the threat of armed resistance, what is stopping them from open massacres?

Guns will not keep you safe, granted. But not having a gun obviously won’t keep you safe either. Think about what you’re saying, you’re relying on the fascists to act in good faith, out of the kindness of their hearts. That’s nonsense.

Nonviolence is a tactic, it can be an effective tactic, but it is only a tactic. If conditions reach a point where that tactic is not applicable or effective, then it will be time to change tactics. What’s the plan if they start firing up the gas chambers?

I voted and encouraged others to do so.

Harris and Clinton bent over backwards to win over the mythical “moderate republicans” and ate shit. Only reason Biden won was because of COVID.

If the democrats can’t be pressured or reasoned with, that’s all the more reason to give up on them.

In 1970, the National Guard opened fire on a crowd of peaceful, unarmed students, killing four and wounding nine more. A Gallup poll conducted a week after the shooting found that 58% of Americans blamed the students for the massacre, with only 11% blaming the guardsmen. Many students who were present at the massacre were shunned by their own families, some were even disowned, and some were told that even more students should have been killed to teach them a lesson.

The students, for their part, couldn’t even comprehend what was happening at first. Many of them thought the soldiers’ weapons were loaded with blanks, that they were just trying to intimidate them. After the massacre, many of the students wanted to reassemble and continue peacefully demonstrating, in defiance of the guard. One of the professors convinced them to disperse, by shouting at them that all of them would be killed.

How was it possible for the public to see it that way? Because of how the media spun it. Even before the massacre, they were saying that the protests were full of “outside agitators” and claiming that they had been doing things like lacing the water supply with LSD. Of course, it eventually “came out” that these claims were complete bullshit based on nothing. So, once the moment had passed, they quietly printed retractions.

All that shit still happens today. It happens every single time a cop murders someone, whether it’s Renee Good or George Floyd. The right wingers immediately start digging for any possible way to spin it and if they can’t then they simply lie, and if the lie falls apart it doesn’t matter, by that point people will have forgotten and moved on.

Yes they will kill you. They’ll put people down like dogs and worry about how to justify it later. People want to believe the world is just, and that often means blaming the victim. They’ll do it and they’ll get away with it too.

Buy a gun.

Say that it’s valid to place conditions on voting democrat. Then explain what possible condition could be more valid than “no genocide.”

Literally nothing else you can say matters at all. Because if you can’t answer this, then when you say your position is not unconditionally voting democrat, you are simply lying.

If you want to argue for unconditionally supporting them, and admit that that is your position, then it might be worth considering any of your other arguments, because then at least you’re being honest and consistent. But unless you can either do that or answer my challenge, you are obviously engaging in bad faith and dishonesty.

Either you’re ok with placing conditions on them or you support them unconditionally. That’s what “unconditionally” means. You don’t get to have it both ways.

And, if you can answer that challenge, then you’ll have already refuted all the arguments you just made for me.

That’s not true at all. If “god” is defined to contain mutually exclusive qualities or assumptions then you can say, positively and with confidence, that such a god does not exist.

You haven’t seen the bajillion thinkpieces about how Trump is actually Maoist, somehow? 1 2 3

I never said to unconditionally vote for the Democratic candidates to begin with so the rest of your response to this imagined position is moot.

Y’all always play this little game. “I didn’t say that, don’t put words in my mouth.” OK then, say unequivocally that that is not your position. Say that it’s valid to place conditions on voting democrat. Then explain what possible condition could be more valid than “no genocide.”

You just don’t like me rephrasing your position bluntly.

I’m advocating for maximizing the power of your vote in the system we currently have. If you’re living in a district in a state with any kind of ranked choice voting, absolutely vote third party if that’s where your alignment falls.

No, you have it completely backwards. I am going to vote according to my values and beliefs. If they give me ranked choice voting, then I will happily put them above the Republicans. Otherwise, they will acquiesce to my minimum demands or they will not get my vote.

Third parties just aren’t viable in districts without ranked choice, so to get ranked choice we the voters need to put candidates who support election reform in power thru the major party primaries. Which is exactly what I’m advocating for

Oh, you’re one of those. “My car broke down.” “Well then, just drive it to the mechanic!”

The problem that ranked choice is meant to address is that the current system does not provide a viable means for us to get policy enacted. Your “solution” is to keep using ineffective, broken means in the hopes that it will somehow be effective at fixing itself. If we could achieve RCV through the existing system, then we could just achieve whatever end policy we want through the existing system. The logic is incredibly backwards, putting the cart before the horse.

If you had an ounce of spine, then you would demand RCV, then you would say that you should only vote for those candidates who support it. And if enough people did that, perhaps it could be achievable. And I’d certainly have more respect for your position.

As it is, your position is simply complete, unconditional support for the democrats, and then you say some irrelevant shit about voting reform to distract from that fact. Like, “It would sure be nice if the king decided to institute democracy out of the kindness of his heart, I’ll keep supporting him either way though.” If that is false, then address my first paragraph.

I don’t think Trump being president is better than Kamala, which is why I didn’t vote for him.

If Kamala had won, then she would still be black bagging people to concentration camps. ICE existed before and both Biden and Kamala explicitly support it. The silver lining is that, because Trump is doing it blatantly, as you say, at least more people are aware of it and upset about it. Doing fascism while following the rules and keeping everything out of sight and out of mind is arguably worse, but it’s kind of a toss up.

Of course, the strategies I mentioned were and are longshots, which may take a while to work if they will at all. But they have a nonzero chance of working, which is more than “vote blue no matter who” does. That is, if the goal is actually stopping fascism and not just easing into it more comfortably.

Primaries aren’t even required to be fair elections. The party can pull whatever shenanigans it wants, and there’s nothing any of us can do about it so long as third parties are ruled out.

If the democrats decided to straight up go back to the days of deciding nominees in smoke-filled rooms with no primary process at all, then would you still say we need to vote for them unconditionally as the lesser evil? Is there any breaking point at all where you’ll reject that approach?

Because if so, then I am simply already past that point. And if not, then you seem utterly hopeless to me. They can keep moving further and further right, removing any possibility for you to do anything about it, and you’ll keep supporting them unconditionally. I consider that a ridiculous position and it’s even more ridiculous to think the general public would accept that.

Then either the democrats change to appease the third party voters, or the third party keeps growing until it no longer matters what the democrats do.

If those scenarios seem unrealistic, they are much more realistic than democrats spontaneously deciding to do a 180 and actually fix things.

How exactly do you think food works?

Should we Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments? - V. I. Lenin

Even if only a fairly large minority of the industrial workers, and not “millions” and “legions”, follow the lead of the Catholic clergy—and a similar minority of rural workers follow the landowners and kulaks (Grossbauern)—it undoubtedly signifies that parliamentarianism in Germany has not yet politically outlived itself, that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.

Lenin’s argument was that even if an electoral system is deeply flawed, participation is necessary in order to reach people who are invested in the system. In addition to spreading the message, it also provides a way to assess the strength and popularity of a platform, and it can serve as a means of testing and weeding out prospective leaders who might be opportunists.

“I have animals slaughtered for me on a weekly basis and lie about it, but I’m deeply concerned about unsubstantiated rumors about a leftist streamer using a shock collar.”

Least bad faith carnist.

Pretty rich to say that when this whole digression is just going “what-about-hasan’s-dog” to an unrelated incident.

Oh please. It would just be something else. If you want an excuse to avoid changing your habits you’ll find it.

Why should the attitude of vegans even matter? “Somebody who supports your rights was rude to me once so now I won’t support yours.” Is that your principle?

OK have a nice day. Obviously no point in talking to you.