Red line makes zero strategic sense, it’s childish and simple minded.
I explain the logic here. But like most things that are true, there are many different ways to demonstrate it’s true, so here’s another:
Notice how the Republicans don’t do that shit and keep winning? How decades of unconditional “lesser evilism” has resulted in more and more rightward shift, until we’ve arrived at the point where doing literally any good thing is “woke?”
Democratic voters are so fucking stupid in terms of strategy. It’s the only thing Republicans have figured out. It turns out, pushing for the things you actually want and throwing a fit whenever you don’t get your way makes them more likely to happen. Somehow, the libs have convinced themselves that the way to get what they want is to support things they don’t want and then have the people who don’t listen to them compromise away any semblance of progressivism in the name of cooperating with people who hate them. And the repeated, obvious failure of this strategy does absolutely nothing to persuade them, because they believe so strongly that it’s just an inherent absolute truth to them. No amount of failure, no amount of time, no matter how bad it gets, they just fundamentally refuse to learn any lesson - even when it reaches the point of supporting literal genocide!
The Republican party falls in line behind their voters because they know that they’re “unreasonable,” that if they get pissed off and don’t get their way, they’ll vote third party. But the left has virtually no power over the democratic party, because they’re all so fucking “reasonable” that they know that at the end of the day, they’ll just fall in line. It’s so idiotic it’s difficult to understand how anyone could genuinely think this unconditional, indefinite support of a shit party that isn’t in line with what we want is somehow an effective strategy - let alone such and effective strategy that nobody reasonable could ever question it and that anyone who does is “just trying to make the left lose.”
You are fully cooked, way too deep into the ruling class’s ideology to be reasoned with.
Correct. The fact that you can identify one fascist does not validate all your label assignments. Your conclusions are not valid.
Yes, and it is deeply flawed logic because it rests on an analogy which is fundamentally unrelated to electoral strategy. There is no “refuse and both parties get nothing” mechanism in elections. You have a choice between a 99-1 split and a 100-0 split, and rejecting the 99-1 split guarantees you the 100-0. They don’t start the election over with new candidates and policies because you didn’t like the options. One party wins despite your efforts. The election is the worst possible time to try to negotiate, when greater evil has so much support.
Notice how the Republicans don’t do that shit and keep winning?
Are you high? They absolutely constantly do exactly that which is exactly why they win. I can’t even count the number of people I know personally who hated Trump, but voted for him anyway because they viewed the Democrats as the greater evil. Republicans don’t fool around with red lines, they dutifully act in lockstep to secure wins. Your claims to the contrary betray a terminally online isolation from reality.
The left has been shouting about red lines for decades, and I don’t see a single positive outcome. You should definitely align with Democrats, you share an obsession with avoiding hard choices so strong that it prevents you from actually accomplishing anything you claim to want to do.
Yes, and it is deeply flawed logic because it rests on an analogy which is fundamentally unrelated to electoral strategy. There is no “refuse and both parties get nothing” mechanism in elections. You have a choice between a 99-1 split and a 100-0 split, and rejecting the 99-1 split guarantees you the 100-0.
Lmao! That’s literally exactly how my example works. You chose between $1 and $0.
Are you high? They absolutely constantly do exactly that which is exactly why they win.
Really? The libertarian party generally gets triple the votes of the greens, the biggest third party candidate in history, Ross Perot, primarily siphoned votes from the right, Trump in 2016, despite being the last candidate the establishment wanted, got the nomination after making a credible threat to run third party, and if you spend any time around actual Republicans, you’ll hear them complaining about “RINOs” who don’t meet their standards, and nobody goes around in Republican circles being like, “Yeah this guy doesn’t support our views on guns or abortion, but you have to vote for him or the democrats will win!” That whiny nerd shit would get you bullied.
They absolutely, constantly use red lines and purity tests, and they’ve red lined and purity tested all the way to overturning Roe V Wade. That would never have happened if they were constantly compromising.
I can’t even count the number of people I know personally who hated Trump, but voted for him anyway because they viewed the Democrats as the greater evil.
The “moderates” might fall in line, sure. The problem is that the left is full of those kinds of “moderates,” while on the right they’re only a fraction of the base. They “fell in line” behind what the radicals of their party pushed for, just like how liberals like you would fall in line if we ever got a significantly strong radical left to push for left wing candidates. That is very different from the radicals falling in line behind the moderates.
Republicans don’t fool around with red lines, they dutifully act in lockstep to secure wins
This is completely delusional and reflects your own “terminally online isolation.” There are far more Republicans who won’t fall in line behind “RINOs” than the equivalent on the left - and there are vastly fewer people on the right who would waggle their finger at anyone making demands of the Republican party and insist that anyone who doesn’t immediately fall in line unconditionally is “just trying to make the right lose,” that anyone who sticks to their guns on abortion or, uh, guns, “isn’t a real right-winger.”
The left has been shouting about red lines for decades,
No it fucking hasn’t! When? Who? The left always falls in line. Every time. It’s just that every time anyone anywhere makes even the smallest demand, everyone loses their mind over it because liberals (like you) are so preoccupied about how everyone always needs to fall in line unconditionally forever. Meanwhile, the right does that shit all the time and nobody considers it anywhere near as big of a deal because it’s just accepted.
That’s literally exactly how my example works. You chose between $1 and $0.
No, it isn’t. Your example falls apart without the “refuse and no one gets anything” part. Unsurprisingly, when you change a major component of a scenario, the strategy best suited to the scenario often changes. Your solution to the scenario is to refuse, because the scenario you devised specifically assigns a significant outcome to refusal. Elections lack that outcome, refusal has no significant outcome.
It’s like test taking strategies. Some tests penalize incorrect answers, some do not. Guessing is a logical strategy on tests that do not penalize incorrect answers, and an illogical one on tests that do. You are suggesting a strategy which is useful in the contrived scenario you suggested, but that scenario you suggested is so fundamentally different from the actual real life scenario of elections that the strategy is not only useless, but counter productive.
if you spend any time around actual Republicans, you’ll hear them complaining about “RINOs” who don’t meet their standards
So? Come election day they vote for them anyway. That’s exactly my point. They got their representatives in, and pushed farther right.
But I don’t feel like wasting any more time with a hypocrite who doesn’t know the difference between effective praxis and liberalism. As you keep saying, it is valid to brand someone with a label when they meet the requirements, even if they disagree. You are, thus, definitively an accessory to left-fracturing propaganda. Assuming you aren’t a deliberate bad actor, I hope you eventually come to your senses. Otherwise we’re doomed to the fascism you insist on helping to cement.
Republicans winning is the “no one gets anything” outcome of a breakdown of negotiations between the democratic party and their voters. So the example holds.
I like how you completely ignored all my actual examples and focused on the one thing I said that wasn’t hard evidence, and just baselessly asserted the nonsense that “Republicans fall in line” without a single shred of evidence to back it up. It is unfalsifiable orthodoxy, assumed with no regard for how reality actually works, just like the unfalsifiable orthodoxy of lesser-evilism. Nothing you say is ever actually backed up by the facts, you’re just regurgitating the “conventional wisdom” that the ruling class told you to get you to fall in line and not cause any trouble by doing things that are actually effective.
Again, completely useless pawn seeped in bourgeois ideology, a pure liberal through and through, completely and totally cooked. Your utter uselessness and fecklessness is the reason we’re unable to change the conditions that are giving rise to fascism.
Republicans winning is the “no one gets anything” outcome of a breakdown of negotiations between the democratic party and their voters.
Ah yes, the very serious and rational leftist belief that fascists are better than liberals. Why oh why would anyone think that “leftists” who are helping accelerate fascism might be bots or trolls? Truly an indecipherable mystery.
Nothing you say is ever actually backed up by the facts, you’re just regurgitating the “conventional wisdom” that the ruling classyour tankie friends online told you to get you to fall in line and not cause any trouble by doing things that are actually effective.
Ah yes, the very serious and rational leftist belief that fascists are better than liberals
Literally never said anything remotely like this and you know it. In fact I said the exact opposite, in my analogy, liberals offer us $1 while fascists offer us $0. Proving my point again that you reject everything we actually say in favor of the shit you make up about us whole cloth.
in my analogy, liberals offer us $1 while fascists offer us $0
Yes, and by rejecting the $99-1 offer in favor of the $100-0 offer, you have expressed your belief that the $0 was better than $1. By rejecting the liberal candidate, you admit that the fascist is preferable.
“No U,” truly the height of liberal discourse.
A perfectly valid response to willful hypocrisy. A little more valid v in my case than the several times you’ve thrown it out so far.
Yes, and by rejecting the $99-1 offer in favor of the $100-0 offer, you have expressed your belief that the $0 was better than $1. By rejecting the liberal candidate, you admit that the fascist is preferable.
Completely missing the point, as always.
Of course $1 is preferable to $0. That’s why I assigned them those values. However, being “preferable” is not the same thing as “being worth sacrificing every ounce of bargaining power over.” I don’t want the Republicans to win, but if disciplining the Democratic party or building an alternative to it causes that outcome, it is an acceptable risk.
Likewise, in the experiment I presented, obviously anyone would prefer $1 over nothing, but people still reject $1 offers. It’s not really a difficult concept to grasp. You don’t show up to a car lot saying, “I NEED this car, no matter what, I must have it today!” Hell, even if it’s true at the very least you should try to bluff and feign that you might walk away (though do that repeatedly and they’ll catch on).
People like you are either the worst negotiators on the entire planet, or, you don’t actually have as much of a problem with the Democrats as you claim, and that’s why you lay down your hand before the betting’s even started.
I would love to get the chance to play that $100 game with one of you to find out which it is - I would absolutely offer you only $1, and if you refuse, I would know that you understand how stupid lesser-evilism is which would prove that you’re fine with everything the democratic party stands for, and if you take it, then I would know that you genuinely are that bad at game theory.
I truly don’t think any other culture on earth has ever produced so many people this bad at negotiating. We need to bring back haggling or something for you to learn.
I explain the logic here. But like most things that are true, there are many different ways to demonstrate it’s true, so here’s another:
Notice how the Republicans don’t do that shit and keep winning? How decades of unconditional “lesser evilism” has resulted in more and more rightward shift, until we’ve arrived at the point where doing literally any good thing is “woke?”
Democratic voters are so fucking stupid in terms of strategy. It’s the only thing Republicans have figured out. It turns out, pushing for the things you actually want and throwing a fit whenever you don’t get your way makes them more likely to happen. Somehow, the libs have convinced themselves that the way to get what they want is to support things they don’t want and then have the people who don’t listen to them compromise away any semblance of progressivism in the name of cooperating with people who hate them. And the repeated, obvious failure of this strategy does absolutely nothing to persuade them, because they believe so strongly that it’s just an inherent absolute truth to them. No amount of failure, no amount of time, no matter how bad it gets, they just fundamentally refuse to learn any lesson - even when it reaches the point of supporting literal genocide!
The Republican party falls in line behind their voters because they know that they’re “unreasonable,” that if they get pissed off and don’t get their way, they’ll vote third party. But the left has virtually no power over the democratic party, because they’re all so fucking “reasonable” that they know that at the end of the day, they’ll just fall in line. It’s so idiotic it’s difficult to understand how anyone could genuinely think this unconditional, indefinite support of a shit party that isn’t in line with what we want is somehow an effective strategy - let alone such and effective strategy that nobody reasonable could ever question it and that anyone who does is “just trying to make the left lose.”
You are fully cooked, way too deep into the ruling class’s ideology to be reasoned with.
As I said repeatedly, not the point.
Yes, and it is deeply flawed logic because it rests on an analogy which is fundamentally unrelated to electoral strategy. There is no “refuse and both parties get nothing” mechanism in elections. You have a choice between a 99-1 split and a 100-0 split, and rejecting the 99-1 split guarantees you the 100-0. They don’t start the election over with new candidates and policies because you didn’t like the options. One party wins despite your efforts. The election is the worst possible time to try to negotiate, when greater evil has so much support.
Are you high? They absolutely constantly do exactly that which is exactly why they win. I can’t even count the number of people I know personally who hated Trump, but voted for him anyway because they viewed the Democrats as the greater evil. Republicans don’t fool around with red lines, they dutifully act in lockstep to secure wins. Your claims to the contrary betray a terminally online isolation from reality.
The left has been shouting about red lines for decades, and I don’t see a single positive outcome. You should definitely align with Democrats, you share an obsession with avoiding hard choices so strong that it prevents you from actually accomplishing anything you claim to want to do.
Lmao! That’s literally exactly how my example works. You chose between $1 and $0.
Really? The libertarian party generally gets triple the votes of the greens, the biggest third party candidate in history, Ross Perot, primarily siphoned votes from the right, Trump in 2016, despite being the last candidate the establishment wanted, got the nomination after making a credible threat to run third party, and if you spend any time around actual Republicans, you’ll hear them complaining about “RINOs” who don’t meet their standards, and nobody goes around in Republican circles being like, “Yeah this guy doesn’t support our views on guns or abortion, but you have to vote for him or the democrats will win!” That whiny nerd shit would get you bullied.
They absolutely, constantly use red lines and purity tests, and they’ve red lined and purity tested all the way to overturning Roe V Wade. That would never have happened if they were constantly compromising.
The “moderates” might fall in line, sure. The problem is that the left is full of those kinds of “moderates,” while on the right they’re only a fraction of the base. They “fell in line” behind what the radicals of their party pushed for, just like how liberals like you would fall in line if we ever got a significantly strong radical left to push for left wing candidates. That is very different from the radicals falling in line behind the moderates.
This is completely delusional and reflects your own “terminally online isolation.” There are far more Republicans who won’t fall in line behind “RINOs” than the equivalent on the left - and there are vastly fewer people on the right who would waggle their finger at anyone making demands of the Republican party and insist that anyone who doesn’t immediately fall in line unconditionally is “just trying to make the right lose,” that anyone who sticks to their guns on abortion or, uh, guns, “isn’t a real right-winger.”
No it fucking hasn’t! When? Who? The left always falls in line. Every time. It’s just that every time anyone anywhere makes even the smallest demand, everyone loses their mind over it because liberals (like you) are so preoccupied about how everyone always needs to fall in line unconditionally forever. Meanwhile, the right does that shit all the time and nobody considers it anywhere near as big of a deal because it’s just accepted.
No, it isn’t. Your example falls apart without the “refuse and no one gets anything” part. Unsurprisingly, when you change a major component of a scenario, the strategy best suited to the scenario often changes. Your solution to the scenario is to refuse, because the scenario you devised specifically assigns a significant outcome to refusal. Elections lack that outcome, refusal has no significant outcome.
It’s like test taking strategies. Some tests penalize incorrect answers, some do not. Guessing is a logical strategy on tests that do not penalize incorrect answers, and an illogical one on tests that do. You are suggesting a strategy which is useful in the contrived scenario you suggested, but that scenario you suggested is so fundamentally different from the actual real life scenario of elections that the strategy is not only useless, but counter productive.
So? Come election day they vote for them anyway. That’s exactly my point. They got their representatives in, and pushed farther right.
But I don’t feel like wasting any more time with a hypocrite who doesn’t know the difference between effective praxis and liberalism. As you keep saying, it is valid to brand someone with a label when they meet the requirements, even if they disagree. You are, thus, definitively an accessory to left-fracturing propaganda. Assuming you aren’t a deliberate bad actor, I hope you eventually come to your senses. Otherwise we’re doomed to the fascism you insist on helping to cement.
Republicans winning is the “no one gets anything” outcome of a breakdown of negotiations between the democratic party and their voters. So the example holds.
I like how you completely ignored all my actual examples and focused on the one thing I said that wasn’t hard evidence, and just baselessly asserted the nonsense that “Republicans fall in line” without a single shred of evidence to back it up. It is unfalsifiable orthodoxy, assumed with no regard for how reality actually works, just like the unfalsifiable orthodoxy of lesser-evilism. Nothing you say is ever actually backed up by the facts, you’re just regurgitating the “conventional wisdom” that the ruling class told you to get you to fall in line and not cause any trouble by doing things that are actually effective.
Again, completely useless pawn seeped in bourgeois ideology, a pure liberal through and through, completely and totally cooked. Your utter uselessness and fecklessness is the reason we’re unable to change the conditions that are giving rise to fascism.
Oh hey, proving my original point.
Ah yes, the very serious and rational leftist belief that fascists are better than liberals. Why oh why would anyone think that “leftists” who are helping accelerate fascism might be bots or trolls? Truly an indecipherable mystery.
Ftfy
Literally never said anything remotely like this and you know it. In fact I said the exact opposite, in my analogy, liberals offer us $1 while fascists offer us $0. Proving my point again that you reject everything we actually say in favor of the shit you make up about us whole cloth.
“No U,” truly the height of liberal discourse.
Yes, and by rejecting the $99-1 offer in favor of the $100-0 offer, you have expressed your belief that the $0 was better than $1. By rejecting the liberal candidate, you admit that the fascist is preferable.
A perfectly valid response to willful hypocrisy. A little more valid v in my case than the several times you’ve thrown it out so far.
Completely missing the point, as always.
Of course $1 is preferable to $0. That’s why I assigned them those values. However, being “preferable” is not the same thing as “being worth sacrificing every ounce of bargaining power over.” I don’t want the Republicans to win, but if disciplining the Democratic party or building an alternative to it causes that outcome, it is an acceptable risk.
Likewise, in the experiment I presented, obviously anyone would prefer $1 over nothing, but people still reject $1 offers. It’s not really a difficult concept to grasp. You don’t show up to a car lot saying, “I NEED this car, no matter what, I must have it today!” Hell, even if it’s true at the very least you should try to bluff and feign that you might walk away (though do that repeatedly and they’ll catch on).
People like you are either the worst negotiators on the entire planet, or, you don’t actually have as much of a problem with the Democrats as you claim, and that’s why you lay down your hand before the betting’s even started.
I would love to get the chance to play that $100 game with one of you to find out which it is - I would absolutely offer you only $1, and if you refuse, I would know that you understand how stupid lesser-evilism is which would prove that you’re fine with everything the democratic party stands for, and if you take it, then I would know that you genuinely are that bad at game theory.
I truly don’t think any other culture on earth has ever produced so many people this bad at negotiating. We need to bring back haggling or something for you to learn.