Seems like a good time to remind everyone that if you were listening to any US health organization in February 2020 they were telling you not to wear a mask, while WHO and China never said that. Always look at what other countries are doing and what international organizations are saying, regardless if we’re a member.

Liberals are so gullible they keep believing propaganda long after it’s been discredited even by Western sources. Absolute rubes.

Why would you sort the ones you’re uninterested in?

I sort mine by genre, plus a couple categories that overlap with others like “Space” or “No Killing” because sometimes I get in the mood for a particular quality. I don’t have an active category, instead I uninstall games that I don’t see myself playing in the near future and then use the “Ready to Play” button to see the active ones. Installing games encourages me to do something else, and the limit on how long it’ll be helps, “Do chores for an hour while your game installs” is a lot easier for me than just “Do chores.” Ideally, I try to limit my installed games to 10 so that I think more about what I actually want to play, I’m not always disciplined about it.

How does “the majority of history” prove that this specific story is correct?

Or do you just mean, the majority of history proves your ideology correct, which means you now get to make all kinds of unsubstantiated claims without evidence and everyone’s just supposed to believe it?

Not pictured: a single source lmao. Your words mean nothing if you can’t back them up.

Nope, not all of them. Not because they didn’t happen. Because there’s too many to list in a week of non stop writing, which is about a week more than your bad faith requests deserve.

Awfully convenient how everyone always draws this arbitrary, bizarre moral line in the sand about how they can’t provide any evidence for any of their claims about China.

What did I say that’s whataboutism? You claimed that Cuba was authoritarian and the US is free, therefore it’s perfectly valid for me to compare the two against each other. It would only not be valid if you had placed them both in the same category.

Freedom House is literally funded by the US State department lmao. Nice objective and unbiased source you’ve got there!

The only “freedom” that Freedom House cares about is how free the bourgeoisie are to infiltrate the government and capture regulatory agencies. By that metric, Cuba is much less “free” than the US, sure.

Mhm. I wonder, which objective metrics led you to list the US as more free than Cuba?

Cuba’s family code is one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in the world concerning LGBT rights and gender equality, meanwhile, there are parts of the US where you can get arrested for using the bathroom, or for merely failing to rat out trans kids to the cops. The US performs mass surveillance on all citizens and has the most sophisticated spy network in the world, it has used extrajudicial, indefinite detention without trial (in addition to having the highest incarceration rate in the world), along with torture (ironically, on illegally occupied Cuban soil). The US has kangaroo courts where children as young as six have to represent themselves in court with no right to an attorney, against threat of deportation. The police are equipped with military-grade equipment designed to fight insurgents, with the police budgets of individual cities exceeding that of the militaries of many countries: Cuba’s military spending is several times less than the police budget of Phoenix, AZ.

Does any of that factor into your analysis?

Non sequitor. Where did I say anything was black and white?

It’s not saying that both sides are bad? You sure about that one, chief?

What’s it saying about US imperialism? Good or bad?

What’s it saying about countries the US opposes? Good or bad?

Right, and what I’m saying is that by that very same logic, Trump supporting the Palestinian genocide doesn’t justify the democrats supporting the Palestinian genocide - they should not be considered immune to criticism either, and when people criticize them, they should not be assumed to be supporting the other side.

I couldn’t ask for clearer evidence than not accepting Saudi Arabia as authoritarian to demonstrate that “free vs authoritarian” are just propaganda terms and that how “free” a country allegedly is is really just a function of how aligned it is with the US.

In what universe is Saudi Arabia more free than Cuba?

Correct, whether it’s about countries or parties.

No u.

if you’re a global power, you’ve got a body count in the millions.

Very true. But is this an inherent trait of the world, or is there some path forward that would change or mitigate this fact?

Wait, are you saying “both sides bad?” “Both sides are the same?” Am I hearing this right?

Look, if either Xi Jinping or Donald Trump is going to emerge as leader of a global hegemon, then any and all criticism of Xi Jinping is the exact same as being a Trump supporter. When are we going to do something about all these secret Trump supporters pretending to be leftists?

At least, that’s what I’d say if I accepted the absurd logic of lesser evilism the liberals were constantly berating everyone with.

This is woefully ignorant of reality. People are not immune to propaganda. It’s noble that you think most people are rational and politically informed, but that’s very clearly not the case. Rhetoric has been extensively studied and developed for literally millennia, there’s a reason.

Of course. Which is why effective propaganda and rhetoric is generally more sophisticated than just “our side good.”

80 million people voted for that.

More like 158 million.

No one has suggested that. Shifting a few degrees to the right isn’t supposed to win over Trump voters, it’s supposed to win over moderate conservatives that don’t care for Trump.

So… Trump voters.

What happened to caring about The Truth over all?

What happened to pragmatism over truth?

I don’t consider it true that everyone who votes for Trump is a fascist. There are plenty of reluctant Trump voters who are primarily motivated by negative partisanship, which is to say, voting against the Democrats.

When one side says their candidate is the Messiah, and the other side says their own candidate is deeply flawed, where does that push someone on the fence?

Probably the one that admits to their candidate’s flaws. The side claiming that their side is the Messiah can only reach people who are willing to believe that narrative. It tends to be very alienating to the average voter.

What’s baffling to me is that there seem to be a lot of people on the democratic side who simultaneously believe all kinds of contradictory things. Trump voters are all blindly devoted to their cult leader, but if we just shift a few more degrees to the right, that will win them over, somehow. Or, the key to winning elections is by winning over moderate swing voters who don’t feel attached to either party, and the way to do that is to demand blind devotion to our candidate while screaming that the other side is Hitler and anyone who even considers them is a fascist. It’s absurdity. And yet, no matter how many times these strategies fail, people refuse to learn from them.

I happen to come from a conservative family, and that made it immediately obvious that even the best attempts by someone like Biden or Harris to win over the right were doomed to fail, and the Dick Cheney strategy was absolutely not even close to “the best attempt.” The reason is that Biden and Harris look and sound like typical, mainstream democrats, who their entire political identity is built on opposing. Of course, my parents are always going to vote Republican, but the one person on the Democratic side I’ve ever heard them say they respect is Bernie Sanders. DNC strategists and their loyalists cannot comprehend this.

So many people adhere to this overly simplistic ideological model as if it’s just a truism - that the things people support are more or less innate characteristics randomly developing from birth and the combination of those things makes everyone fall someone on a one dimensional spectrum from left to right, and everyone votes according to who’s closest to them ideologically. And so the only way to win is to assume the far left votes will fall in line behind you while you move right to appeal to the centrist swing voters. But that whole model is bullshit, and it has been proven to be bullshit time and time again.

A large part of Trump’s appeal is that he’s able to present himself as an outsider. Moving right and shaking hands with Cheney, trying to be like, “See, the whole political establishment hates Trump,” merely reinforces Trump’s credibility as an outsider while also tying Harris to the disastrous policies including the War on Terror. The failure of the Bush administration is a part of why conservatives turned to Trump in the first place! It’s insanity.

If you wanna win by peeling off Trump voters, the best way to do that is by targeting people with libertarian values and running on isolationism and staying out of foreign entanglements. But that would require actually doing that, or at the very least, it would require not painting everyone who disagrees with your interventionist policies with the same brush of being a “Russian bot.” Alternatively, you can say, “screw Trump voters, we’ll win by mobilizing the base,” but that would require adopting popular leftist policies that would hurt their donors’ profits.

So, being unwilling to actually play the game, all that’s left is to put forward the same platform of interventionism and neoliberalism that has simply outlived it’s moment and does not have enough adherents to win.

I happen to believe in a little something called “The Truth.” I don’t believe that everything I say should have to serve an immediate strategic purpose. In fact, I don’t think it’s at all sensible to even set a strategic purpose until you have first clearly identified and laid out the truth. Even if the truth is inconvenient or counterproductive, I’m not really interested in a political project that’s based on ignorance or deception.

If the truth isn’t enough to get people to back your political project, then perhaps your political project isn’t worth backing. Regardless, it’s likely the truth will come out eventually, at which point you will lose credibility to the opposition. And if the left doesn’t speak out for fear of hurting the democrats’ chances, then the only opposition will be from the right.

Furthermore, people having correct political ideas and a clear understanding of the world is more important than any election, which is of secondary concern. A person’s political actions (or lack thereof) do not end at the ballot box, and when a person has correct ideas they are more likely to participate in productive actions and avoid harmful ones. Collective action, boycotts, protests, etc have more capacity to effect change than a political system designed by slaveowners explicitly to subvert the popular will.