I’ve been led to understand that Trix are, exclusively, for children. Is that correct?

I read a theory that the shaken thing is to deliberately dilute the drink. Shaking melts more ice, which waters down the drink a bit, in order to stay relatively level-headed for any high stakes spying you might have to do later.

If you were actually a leftist like you say, you would understand the material conditions that gave rise to Trump and the fact that the democratic party is never going to address those conditions (at least without significant, genuine pressure).

Uh, yeah. Obviously. Never said that wasn’t the case.

It’s just guarantees fascism at a slightly slower pace.

Yeah. Exactly. I said this back at the beginning. A vote for Democrats is a vote for more time to prepare a functional progressive movement. The sole reason to vote for them is to keep fascism developing at the slower of the two inevitable rates, while building the material capability to apply significant political pressure.

The only ones advocating a strategy that has any possibility of averting fascism are us “tankies.”

According to you. It’s a baseless claim unsupported by history or theory.

rather than taking an approach that could potentially save them.

Did you take that approach? Did it save them? Did you get close? That “potentially” is straining the limits of logic. It could have “potentially” saved them the same way I could “potentially” win the lottery tomorrow, and I didn’t buy a ticket. It was a bad plan, it was never going to work, and now the bodies are stacking even faster.

As a “leftist,” you ought to understand how fucked we are regardless of who’s in charge at the moment, and that the capitalists aren’t going to come down from on high to save us.

Yup. And as a materialist, I know that ignoring the mechanics of elections doesn’t get you closer to a solution.

Not getting a dollar you could’ve gotten is no different from losing a dollar you could’ve avoided losing

Categorically false. Arithmetically, psychologically, just plain incorrect. Maybe if you’re a gambling addict, but in the general population we generally find losses are felt much more strongly than equivalent gains. You’re just making up poorly constructed psychological experiments, claiming what those hypothetical results would be, and extrapolating that to national politics.

You haven’t supported any of your divisive nonsense with anything more than your say-so.

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.

Exactly. Fascism was an acceptable bargaining chip. That’s the difference between you tankies and actual leftists: we care about people, and try to avoid subjecting our fellow people to fascism as a gambit.

people still reject $1 offers. It’s not really a difficult concept to grasp.

Yes. Game theory experiments have a different set of conditions and consequences than elections. They refuse because that doesn’t cost them anything. They leave the exchange neutral. There is no neutral electoral state, refusal does not fulfill the same function in the game as in elections. Refusing to vote doesn’t mean no one wins. The rules of the game do not functionally map to the rules of elections, the strategies of the one do not apply to the other.

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.

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 class your tankie friends online told you to get you to fall in line and not cause any trouble by doing things that are actually effective.

Ftfy

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.

I explain the logic here.

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.

If I could see any practice from my time working food service make it into the general population, it would be “Behind” and “Heard”.

Oh, she must hear the train coming

It’s strategically the only approach that makes any logical sense whatsoever.

Yeah no, you’ve got that 100% exactly wrong. Red line makes zero strategic sense, it’s childish and simple minded. It’s statements like that which make you look like you’re trying to make leftists look bad and ensure that they lose. You’re living in a bizarro world echo chamber.

“Unity” around ineffective tactics, I really think you should consider calling that “liberal tankie unity.”

Ftfy

Therefore, you cannot oppose the idea of assigning labels to people that they reject on principle, though you may argue that it’s only valid in certain situations.

Correct. The fact that you can identify one fascist does not validate all your label assignments. Your conclusions are not valid.

Saying, “As long as they’re the lesser evil” means that there is literally no limit on how evil the could be and still win your support.

With no alternative? Uh, yeah. Republicans are literal fascists now. Being less bad is better than nothing until a leftist is polling 70-80 million votes. This “red line” nonsense is strategically stupid and, in practice, identical to someone intentionally trying to fracture the left.

They don’t reach the point of being viable unless people support them even when they aren’t viable yet.

They reach the point of being viable by running for city council, using that experience to fuel a run for mayor, state senator, governor, congressperson, and then go for president. I vote the most progressive person on every ballot I get; until I get to close races between liberals and fascists, in which case I will ignore any third parties and vote lib over fasc

No, it has nothing to do with “my” ability to identify ideologues, it’s about the validity of assigning labels to people even if the person rejects the label.

If you and the person you’re assigning labels to disagree, and you determine your assignments to be more valid than theirs, that is definitively based on your ability to identify ideologues.

So you won’t put a single condition on your support and you won’t give a time or plan of action that will ever lead to you not supporting them.

Did you not read what I wrote? I just did exactly that. As soon as there is a better viable alternative, I’m jumping ship immediately. The condition on my support is them being the least bad choice with enough support to win. When that condition is no longer satisfied, my support ends. The plan of action is promoting leftist candidates through local to state offices so they can generate the support to be a less bad choice that could actually win. I can’t personally make that happen by myself, so I can’t give you a timeframe.

while not giving them the support they would need to reach that point

You know nothing about me. I support them every single time their campaign is viable.

You again, have yet to respond to that example or acknowledge it’s obvious validity.

Because it’s pointless and inflammatory. You seem to keep bringing up the fact that you can identify one specific closeted fascist in an attempt to either 1) extrapolate that ability to identify ideologues to justify your ideological speculation of me or 2) equate me with a fascist because… what exactly? Some people disagree with other people’s interpretation of their beliefs, and one of those people is a fascist, so because I disagree with your interpretation of my beliefs I’m just like them? I didn’t respond because it’s rhetorically lazy and logically bankrupt.

This circular, dead end argumentation is, again, the reason the rest of us get annoyed with you all. You’re claiming not to do the exact prejudiced, echo chamber, stereotypical behavior that you go on to precisely exemplify. Why would anyone take this laziness seriously? The “Russian bot” thing is a charitable interpretation. Surely, our staunchest champions of pure leftism can’t possibly be this obtuse, this has to be some kind of psyop to plunge the West into authoritarianism by fracturing the left.

Just like Richard Spencer denies being a fascist, you may deny being an unwitting accessory to the deliberate disorganization of the left, but that is an arbitrary distinction. In practice, you are helping to undermine leftist unity with emotionally charged splintering. I’m not accusing you of not believing what you say, but what you believe fits the definition of “malicious psyop”.

What would it take for you to not support them? Say, for example, they were actively arming a genocide, would that do it?

If there was a party that didn’t want to arm that genocide poised to potentially get enough votes to win, I would vote for them. In reality, unfortunately there were only two parties poised to get enough votes to win, and both aimed to actively arm the same genocide. So, I voted for the one less likely to disappear critics of that genocide, or push to raze Gaza to put up a resort with their name on it. I wish that I had a better option, but we can only pay the hand we’re dealt, so I promoted lesser evil.

How long then, should we continue supporting them

Right up until the exact moment there’s a better alternative with enough support to win. I thought I made that clear.

You can play coy all you want but my assumptions are entirely reasonable based on what you’ve said.

Again, this is exactly what people are talking about. You misinterpreted exactly one political stance and now you’ve justified your prejudices to yourself, and I can be tossed into the “lib” bin to be discarded.

they completely reject that we hold our stated beliefs at all and assign us completely different beliefs based on whatever they make up

The irony is palpable.

someone who believes in unconditionally and indefinitely supporting the democratic party

I didn’t say that though. I said to support the Democratic party in 2024 because there was, at that time, no other viable electoral alternative to Trump, and Trump is worse for more people. You extrapolated that “unconditionally and indefinitely” from your own preconceptions. You do realize that that exactly is the problem we’re talking about right?

It’s not about whether you say the exact string of words “you’re acting in bad faith”, it’s the presupposition that the person you’re talking to doesn’t know the meaning of the words they’re using (or that your personal definition is fundamentally more valid), and the extrapolation of their own stated beliefs into the most uncharitable possible interpretation.

I know liberalism from leftism. You know nothing of my political beliefs, and yet you confidently say that they are liberalism. How would you know? Someone on .ml said I was so you assume they know my beliefs better than I do? You’re either calling me a liar or an idiot.

I am not a liberal and communicated that fact. I was called a liberal anyway. That is an accusation of acting in bad faith.

I got called a lib for saying that we don’t have the progressive foundation necessary to elect a third party candidate to President, and that while I don’t agree with the Democrats, Kamala was less bad than Trump.

That’s far from the only time I was called a liberal (derogatory) by an .ml user despite not being a liberal, and not promoting liberal policies.

I dunno. Obviously individual LLMs are basically sophisticated parrots and are unlikely to develop to AGI on their own. However, a lot of work is being done in combining multiple specialized LLMs. As unlikely as it is for direct LLM improvement to lead to true AI, I think it’s not terribly unlikely that some particular assemblage of many specialized LLMs could achieve the complexity necessary for AGI.

I’ve heard that it means pints and quarts, referring to beers. I feel like I’ve also heard it was a typesetter thing.