Rather than arguing that Stein’s goals were unrealistic, or that she’s a mere spoiler, or that she’s an unwitting tool of Russia, Ocasio-Cortez made a different charge: That the Green Party candidate is simply bad at politics.

Sets aside all the obvious criticisms that everyone is aware of by now and simply goes for the jugular. Attagirl AOC 😍

Your parents didn’t just stuff you in the back window?

So now you presume to know what people say. Easier to answer the hypothetical imo. Weird choice. Your tap-dancing to avoid answering yes or no tells me my point is starting to sink in so I’ll leave it there.

We’re off topic and I’m done relitigating this. It’s really not that difficult a concept to understand. Read that wiki article I linked you about the Principle of Charity. It will really help you in the future.

Answer the ‘if’.

If Maya Angelou said ‘she became black’ would you still say it was racist?

Your seeming inability to comprehend the tenets of basic rational argumentation and outright refusal to accept what anyone says to you that you disagree with, supported or not, are glaring flaws in someone whose job it is to evaluate what people are saying in their forums and arbitrate fairly.

Did I not expressly agree that Trump is racist? Show me where I “excuse racism”. All I have done is simply (to some) state that “racism accusations are an unnecessary complication to successfully counter Trumps core argument”. As I’ve said already: if someone like MLK jr, or Al Sharpton, or Maya Angelou said “Kamala was pandering to her heritage” your ‘that person is racist!’ counter would be laughed at. It is besides the point. Nobody disagrees that Trump is racist. Let it go as it doesn’t matter for the best counter-argument.

Are you trying to argue that in the forums you actually moderate you suddenly smarten up and start thinking rationally? What changes in you from one link to another that performs this miraculous change?

Again, you’re a mod. Do better. Nowhere did I even imply ‘when I feel like it’.

You argue against the best version of the opponent’s argument. My argument transcends any accusations of racism, but does not preclude them which makes it the better form. You refusing to get that is sea-lioning at this point. Figureidout or let it go.

Based on your whole ‘principle of charity’ idea, isn’t it your duty to believe him?

No. The duty is to argue against the best version of his argument. For example: “Uttering the N-word in a racist manner is evidence I am a racist, I didn’t say the N-word, so this is not evidence I am a racist” fairly (side note: this may not be the best version of the argument so if someone concocts a better one I would attack that instead).

In this example I would (and already did elsewhere) say “I listened to the tape and heard a hard-N so the premise ‘I didn’t say the N-word’ is false” so the rest of the argument collapses and the argument concludes “he said the N-word, so this IS evidence he is racist”.

Declaring it an accident actually makes the argument ‘dude is racist’ stronger. If the N-word is used so often in your speech you utter it on camera by accident… yeah, that’s racist. I cannot see a charitable version implying the argument ‘dude is not racist for uttering the N-word, accidentally or not’, but I would entertain attempts in the interest of rational argumentation.

let the actual offenders roam free

One of them got 5 years for fraud so not everyone got off with a warning.

Yeah I have Threads in my uBlock filters. Watched the clip and, yeah, that’s a hard N if I’ve ever heard one.

Having it clearly explained to you but still not letting it go. Clearly the example Lemmy mods should be aspiring to.

Edit: The point is that a resurrected MLK jr. could have said the same thing Trump said about Kamala and still had it refuted. Racism is besides the point and requires a whole bunch of supporting evidence regarding past statements, policies, and associations for any undecideds that haven’t already made up their mind.

I don’t see it. Is it the Threads link I have blocked?

F Polls. Vote.

‘Pro-life’ my ass

Is there an audio clip?

So Hamas still haven’t released the hostages. Got it. Tune in tomorrow for another exciting episode of As The Stomach Churns.

Ssssshhhh… You’re interrupting my socratic argument to shut this f’ing guy up.

It’s also important for EU security. Defense spending where the 3rd party demands compliance with usage restrictions limits EU’s ability to forward its agenda. Case in point the Ukraine-russia war. Several EU nations long ago approved long range strikes into ru but the US said ‘no’ and they had to comply due to previous usage restriction agreements between the US and EU.