Cowbee is incredibly patient and doing marvelous educational work in threads like this. You confuse it for a debate, but you’d need to be on even footing for that. It’s more like they are a teacher who calmly tries to make some common sense stick with western people who behave like spoiled children and are to privileged and racist to see the simple and plain truths that literally most people in the (non-western) world see clearly.
Cowbee is a bad faith propagandist that can’t reconcile their understanding of theory with literally all of recorded history. Cowbee is full of shit and as bad faith as it comes here on Lemmy.
No? I study theory and history, it’s pointless to only study one aspect. I’m 100% genuine, and making a dozen comments complaining about me in a row without actually adding anything is a bit ridiculous.
Cowbee has some good points and his heart is in the right place, but always seems to show up to imply people shouldn’t vote, which I think is foolish and dangerous.
Nah, I directly state that organizing is more important than voting, and treating them like it’s the opposite is dangerous. I don’t argue against voting, I argue for organizing, and stress it as more important than voting.
Yeah, when you argue like a weasel it’s easy to say your stance is different. If that wasn’t your stance, you wouldn’t have looked for evidence. You would’ve said right then it wasn’t your stance. Now that you don’t have evidence you’re trying to say your point was different.
Weird how your goalposts always seem to grow legs under scrutiny.
I’m not arguing like a weasel, I have a very specific point and you seem to despise that I have that point and not the strawman point you want me to have. The evidence I found supports my actual point, that those who believe in the legitimacy of change via a system do not feel pressured to organize against it. You keep trying to invent a point for me, and I have to bring you back to reality each time you do.
That’s not what that study was about, like I said.
You say that what I’m saying isn’t your point when I’m quoting you.
Here, I’ll even quote what you just said:
my actual point, that those who believe in the legitimacy of change via a system do not feel pressured to organize against it.
Which, to boil this down a bit, you believe organizing is good, as this leads to a communist revolution.
You believe voting causes people to organize less, because they will feel like they can change things within the system instead of organize, and then have a communist revolution.
Which means voting leads to less organizing.
Which to put into simple terms, as far as you’re concerned, voting bad. Hurts the revolution effort.
This assumes that dictatorships which don’t let people vote are somehow easier to have communists overthrow, and that it’s better to have an authoritarian government for the sake of the revolution. Because that’ll rile people up and make them more motivated to organize. It’s also assuming that, taking this high minded theory into the current situation, that all the trans people and brown skinned immigrants are acceptable losses while an authoritarian dictator takes over, so people will be more motivated to organize.
This also assumes that people who vote and participate within the system become less motivated for organizing, rather than more. People can start voting, then become more active locally, especially if they start seeing some of the problems within the system first-hand. People who don’t vote, who start voting, I would argue are much more likely to become informed about what’s happening politically, if even by the merit of looking at the ballot they would otherwise ignore.
That study does not prove otherwise, and states that people who are against the system will butt heads with people who want to maintain the system. That’s kinda it. It doesn’t say anything about voting, and certainly doesn’t say anything about people not feeling pressured to organize against a system.
So, again, your whole assumption that I’ll shorthand as “voting bad” is baseless, accelerationist, willing to throw minorites under the bus in the short term and probably long term, and disenfranchises people from what power they have over their government.
And hey, that was all from your quote right there, too.
You’re still lying about my point. I did not say voting hurts organizing. I said funneling people into voting as their primary mechanism for change hurts organizing. The act of voting does not harm, the funneling people into that as a primary means of engaging pollitically does. The study affirms this, by stating that legitimizing the system has a negative correlation with organizing against it.
my actual point, that those who believe in the legitimacy of change via a system do not feel pressured to organize against it.
Not one bit did I say “voting hurts organizing.” This is a lie.
Cowbee is incredibly patient and doing marvelous educational work in threads like this. You confuse it for a debate, but you’d need to be on even footing for that. It’s more like they are a teacher who calmly tries to make some common sense stick with western people who behave like spoiled children and are to privileged and racist to see the simple and plain truths that literally most people in the (non-western) world see clearly.
Cowbee is a bad faith propagandist that can’t reconcile their understanding of theory with literally all of recorded history. Cowbee is full of shit and as bad faith as it comes here on Lemmy.
No? I study theory and history, it’s pointless to only study one aspect. I’m 100% genuine, and making a dozen comments complaining about me in a row without actually adding anything is a bit ridiculous.
🤮
I have never read a comment with such a superiority complex
Cowbee has some good points and his heart is in the right place, but always seems to show up to imply people shouldn’t vote, which I think is foolish and dangerous.
Nah, I directly state that organizing is more important than voting, and treating them like it’s the opposite is dangerous. I don’t argue against voting, I argue for organizing, and stress it as more important than voting.
I’ve quoted you enough where you’ve implied otherwise I’m not going to do another thread where we day the same thing.
Even when you do quote me, you seem to have a habit of arguing against an entirely different point than the one you quoted.
Yeah, when you argue like a weasel it’s easy to say your stance is different. If that wasn’t your stance, you wouldn’t have looked for evidence. You would’ve said right then it wasn’t your stance. Now that you don’t have evidence you’re trying to say your point was different.
Weird how your goalposts always seem to grow legs under scrutiny.
I’m not arguing like a weasel, I have a very specific point and you seem to despise that I have that point and not the strawman point you want me to have. The evidence I found supports my actual point, that those who believe in the legitimacy of change via a system do not feel pressured to organize against it. You keep trying to invent a point for me, and I have to bring you back to reality each time you do.
That’s not what that study was about, like I said.
You say that what I’m saying isn’t your point when I’m quoting you.
Here, I’ll even quote what you just said:
Which, to boil this down a bit, you believe organizing is good, as this leads to a communist revolution.
You believe voting causes people to organize less, because they will feel like they can change things within the system instead of organize, and then have a communist revolution.
Which means voting leads to less organizing.
Which to put into simple terms, as far as you’re concerned, voting bad. Hurts the revolution effort.
This assumes that dictatorships which don’t let people vote are somehow easier to have communists overthrow, and that it’s better to have an authoritarian government for the sake of the revolution. Because that’ll rile people up and make them more motivated to organize. It’s also assuming that, taking this high minded theory into the current situation, that all the trans people and brown skinned immigrants are acceptable losses while an authoritarian dictator takes over, so people will be more motivated to organize.
This also assumes that people who vote and participate within the system become less motivated for organizing, rather than more. People can start voting, then become more active locally, especially if they start seeing some of the problems within the system first-hand. People who don’t vote, who start voting, I would argue are much more likely to become informed about what’s happening politically, if even by the merit of looking at the ballot they would otherwise ignore.
That study does not prove otherwise, and states that people who are against the system will butt heads with people who want to maintain the system. That’s kinda it. It doesn’t say anything about voting, and certainly doesn’t say anything about people not feeling pressured to organize against a system.
So, again, your whole assumption that I’ll shorthand as “voting bad” is baseless, accelerationist, willing to throw minorites under the bus in the short term and probably long term, and disenfranchises people from what power they have over their government.
And hey, that was all from your quote right there, too.
You’re still lying about my point. I did not say voting hurts organizing. I said funneling people into voting as their primary mechanism for change hurts organizing. The act of voting does not harm, the funneling people into that as a primary means of engaging pollitically does. The study affirms this, by stating that legitimizing the system has a negative correlation with organizing against it.
Not one bit did I say “voting hurts organizing.” This is a lie.