Chomsky can't even get linguistics right, — StreetlightX

:rofl:

Says some guy on the internet about the founder of modern linguistics. (Because of the Piraha of course! lol)

"Same action." lol

Two tracks. One goes off a cliff. The other goes through a dilapidated bridge that's likely to crumble. You're on a moving train.

Directing the train to the bridge means you're in support of that choice -- not against going off a cliff.

Incredible.

Lmao "Vote for Biden vote for Biden" is about the entire content of your posting history. — StreetlightX

Me and Noam Chomsky. I'm happy to be in such company. Apparently that's all he's done fro the last 60 years as well. :rofl:

You stick with Zizek.

It's also true that the idea that 'voting for Biden' is a survival tactic - rather than moving us further in the direction of planetary death - is a crock. — StreetlightX

Voting against Trump is certainly a survival tactic, yes. I'm very glad to have taken the five minutes to do so.

Look, you're a Biden supporter. It's OK to say so. You support capitalism. — StreetlightX

I do? News to me -- and contrary to everything I've written for the last two years on this very forum. But if you say so! Who am I to argue about my own beliefs?

You also support destroyers of the environment. — StreetlightX

:broken:

That hurts right here. And this works. This works.

I wouldn't say I'm a big supporter or anything like I said I just didn't like Trump. But I think I see what you're getting at. — John McMannis

Yes, what I'm getting at is the silly, childish, black-and-white "logic" of @StreetlightX. According to him, we're both perpetuators of an evil system and supporters of Joe Biden.

I guess voting against Hitler would have meant one was a great supporter of Ernst Thälmann.

Likewise, the political reality of the United States -- a two-party system -- is equally a reality.
— Xtrix

You know the function of politics right? To change reality? — StreetlightX

Indeed. Perhaps Marx shouldn't have studied at the British Museum...

And no, not voting for Biden - or whatever phony corporate shill they put in his place - will not leave people homeless and starving. — StreetlightX

:rofl:

True -- and voting for Biden (or getting a job) doesn't necessarily make one a supporter (or a capitalist or, to shift to the above example, a supporter of British imperialism).

I'm sorry you struggle with this.

this lowest-common-denominator hostage-taking crap is exactly the problem. — StreetlightX

Yes, capitalism does force people to make terrible choices. Unfortunately, living in a purist fantasy doesn't change the reality of needing money to eat and live.

Also, @John McMannis, what do you think of being a supporter of a person who ruins lives? Considering you voted against Trump, as you said, this is the only possible conclusion. :roll:

"Voting for Biden is not supporting Biden". — StreetlightX

Exactly right. "Getting a job is not supporting capitalism." It's being against poverty. At least in the economic reality in the United States. Likewise, the political reality of the United States -- a two-party system -- is equally a reality. But we can live in fantasies if we like -- easy to do from thousands of miles away.

to support people who ruin lies and ensure they get to do so. — StreetlightX

By voting against Trump. Voting against Trump is not supporting Biden. But when there are two choices, it just so happens that to vote against Trump means pushing a blue button. Being against homelessness and destitution means getting a job, in this system. That's not supporting wage slavery and capitalism.

I'll repeat this many times if you need it.

I'm not offering easy solutions. But I do think that what needs to not be done is to continue letting these parties put people in crappy positions. — StreetlightX

Not easy solutions -- zero solutions.

I think capitalism should be dismantled. Participating in it is perpetuating it. There, I feel better now.

Your point here is that voting does not necessarily mean you support the two party political system in the US, right? I think this is a good point and that maybe Street agrees in some way? — John McMannis

It's an absolutely trivial point that a 10 year old can understand. Provided they haven't spent years reading Zizek and other intellectual frauds, living in an idealist fantasy world.

You're against the two-party system
— Xtrix

Nope. I'm against supporting people who ruin lives, and more than that, ensuring they get to do so. — StreetlightX

Me too, which is why I voted against Trump. Who was far worse than Biden -- a point I realize you can't understand.

There is definitely worse - which is perpetuating a by-now 60 or so year cycle. — StreetlightX

Yes yes, we all get it. You're against the two-party system. Good, now sit on the sidelines and stop supporting it. This way you can feel good about yourself.

It seems to me that the real difference is just whether we should vote at all, right? Street says no because both parties are corrupt and that is supporting the system, and Xrix says we should vote for the party that will be less in the way of our goals. Am I right about this or way off? — John McMannis

Yes, you're correct. The different being that he feels both parties are two sides of the same coin, and I think that's silly and based on a very, very shallow understanding of reality -- which is why I mentioned courts, which is one significant example of how one party's rise to power has very damaging effects to progress indeed -- for decades.

So now it's back to both parties being an equal impediment.
— Xtrix

The democratic party functions as one-half of a two-part cycle whose overall effect is to ruin lives for everyone.
— StreetlightX

I'll keep quoting this so long as you need dude. — StreetlightX

Right, so an equal impediment, as I said. There is no better or worse in this case, thus no reason to vote for or against either party.

Brilliant analysis.

I think both parties ought to be actively opposed and called out at every point. — StreetlightX

How heroic. You forgot to mention: "Called out and equated."

I'm about dispelling illusions that people like to tell themselves. — StreetlightX

Wonderful. What about the illusion of "both parties are the same"?

If we're too ignorant to understand which party is a greater impediment to the values we claim to hold
— Xtrix

Both parties, in cahoots with one another. — StreetlightX

So now it's back to both parties being an equal impediment. The solution being...? Not to vote, I presume.

I'm sorry you can't make simple distinctions -- I realize this would be too difficult. Given you don't live here, I guess it's not worth putting any thought into.

As distinct from literally supporting the two-party system. — StreetlightX

I guess those who hold jobs support capitalism, as well. Oh if only I could live in idealistic fantasy.

If we're too ignorant to understand which party is a greater impediment to the values we claim to hold, then it's worth sitting out and watching. 3 Supreme Court justices later -- which will indisputably make it HARDER for progressive programs to get through for decades to come -- and still "no difference."

Imagine being this confused.

Ensure the worst happens
— Xtrix

Nah, I would rather not support the democratic party. — StreetlightX

So now the democrats are the worst party. Got it. If you believe that, then you're right: vote Republican.

Right, so, working against the democratic party. Got it. — StreetlightX

And thus helping the worst party get into office. I guess that'll change the two-party system!

Same same. I just choose not to suppport the party that staves off all efforts to stop this from happening. — StreetlightX

Which in a two-party system, means working against efforts to stop it from happening.

"Red button leads to disaster. But I won't push the blue button."

Incredible logic. I wonder what most union organizers, environmentalists, and civil rights groups think about this.

Solution: do nothing. Don't vote. Ensure the worst happens -- so this way you feel better.

Maybe not. Maybe not vote for Joe "we need a strong Republican party" Biden. — StreetlightX

And ensure the Republican party gets into office. Like in '16, which led to 3 Supreme Court appointments which will determine American life for the next 40 years. Thankfully more people didn't follow that "logic" in '20.

"But Biden is even worse and ensures the cycle of Republican blah blah blah."

What? What buddy? — John McMannis

@StreetlightX - but that was tongue-in-cheek. I would also take offense.

I agree -- the Democratic party should be much more progressive. That's why it's important to support Bernie and other progressive candidates. Now compare this to the Republican party -- who among them is like a Bernie or AOC? Ted Cruz? Taylor-Green? I wonder if you could name one.

Ah, never mind.

I voted for Biden in 2020, and yeah it was more because I really disliked what Trump was saying and quite frankly a lot of his supporters. But I'm an independent. Biden seems like a nice guy and everything and was talking about healing the country and stuff, but I never really bought it. I just didn't like trump haha. — John McMannis

Fair enough. But it's good to decide based on policies as well.

But the reality is we live in a two-party system that won’t change in our lifetime. Unfortunately we have to vote against one or the other. Republicans want to drill more and deny climate change is real— that’s worth voting against. Very simple stuff, and says absolutely nothing about being in favor of the Democratic Party.
— Xtrix

Makes sense I think. — John McMannis

Yeah, pretty basic stuff. Now try explaining this to your buddy.

Yes this is my fault and not a fuck-up democratic party lmao. — StreetlightX

I mentioned logic.

Lmao now you've changed the subject entirely. — StreetlightX

No, the subject is which party, if any, one should vote against. You pushed against voting against Trump in '16 and '20. One result, among many, was what I mentioned: a transformed appellate court and Supreme Court, which will make it all the more harder to pass legislation even if we could -- for the next 30/40 years. Excellent logic, as always.

Have the courage to say so clearly,
— Xtrix

The democratic party functions as one-half of a two-part cycle whose overall effect is to ruin lives for everyone.
— StreetlightX — StreetlightX

or perhaps that both parties are an equal impediment. — Xtrix

3 Supreme Court picks and 54 appellate judgeships later -- the decisions of which all citizens have to live with for the next 30 years -- and still the choice to push a button against Trump is too difficult. Imagine.

No, plenty can be done, and one should take five minutes out of one's time and vote against the greater impediment to one's objectives. You apparently think that's the Democratic party, or perhaps that both parties are an equal impediment. Have the courage to say so clearly, so that everyone can see all the good reading countless books does.

Establishment propaganda sure works wonders.

Plenty can be done— party politics (and voting) is minor: vote against the leaders that make it harder to enact change. The rest is the hard work that’s done all the time— and which you continually ignore in favor of…criticizing party politics.

Let’s do a thought experiment. Both parties will do active harm to the environment. Take that as a given. In this context, what’s the strategy for those who actually care about climate change? Should they not bother voting? Does it truly not matter who’s in office? Will pressure do nothing either way? Is “pushing” either party towards action completely useless?

If this is the message, it’s pure nihilism. I’ve offered plenty of opportunities to present an alternative plan. All that’s been offered is “we need to break out of thinking democrats are better” or something to that effect. In other words: nothing whatever.

ignore deliberate democratic "failure" — StreetlightX

If you’re referring to drilling on public lands, I already acknowledged that— I also added to the list.

What I was demonstrating before about the interior department and the moratorium or national monuments (which you ignored) isn’t that it was wonderful, but that the Republicans wouldn’t have done either, and in fact transparently moved in the opposite direction.

Then you’re simply not paying attention. Ask any environmentalist if they’d prefer communicating with Bernie or James Inhofe about climate change.

Some of them. Not Bernie. Not Markey. Not Warren. Not on this issue, anyway.
— Xtrix

Distinctions without a difference at level of results. — StreetlightX

Sorry, but Bernie getting no results vs. “actively making things worse“ is indeed a clear distinction.

Democarts are not just "less responsive to their voters" - they actively go out of their way to make sure their voters are irrelevant — StreetlightX

So in your view they’re worse than Republicans on climate change. So I assume you would vote Republican— or help them get elected by not voting at all.

Ask environmentalists about the response they get from Republicans.

They don't 'drag their feet'. They actively make things worse — StreetlightX

Some of them. Not Bernie. Not Markey. Not Warren. Not on this issue, anyway.

Every member of the Republican Party wants to not only do “active harm,” but accelerate it to the extreme— because they’re owned by fossil fuel interests.

We have two parties, so that’s the choice.

If not democrats, then republicans. One of these parties is worse on climate change. So vote that way. But despite fantasies, the US is a two-party system, so that’s the choice.

I think to say Democrats are worse— or less responsive to demands of their voters, is just being blinded by hatred and frustration.

Ok. So not the democrats then? Got it. — StreetlightX

The democrats aren’t deniers, because their main financiers are not big oil, but Wall Street. But they don’t care about the environment; sometimes their voters do. So they drag their feet on any action, predictably. All this has been very well documented and is very well known.

You say this like it's a defense. — StreetlightX

A defense of what?