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.
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.