I’ll continue to say this question still isn’t being asked in good faith.
Of course the ballot isn’t literally, “do u want fascism or nah”
It’s between two politicians. You and I are agree that one side is almost inherently better than the other, but you have to remember that a. the other side also believes that they are inherently better than the other, and b. not everyone believes that either side is inherently better than the other.
Judging by your comments I’m assuming you’re pro-choice; if someone asked you, “when presented with the choice of outlawing the murder babies, what makes that choice difficult for you?”, you’d rightfully say they aren’t posing the question in a fair way to you. It’s the same thing here, if you’re trying to communicate with someone who doesn’t outright agree with you you can’t just outright attack their position or frame it in a negative light or you just make them defensive and not receptive to an alternative view.
If you’re speaking hyperbolically, sure. But when you’re trying to have a genuine conversation with someone regarding a serious topic, using hyperbolic speech to belittle someone’s position is pretty lame
Ok, but LITERALLY, the ballot says Donald Trump or Joe Biden. HYPERBOLICALLY it says fascism or not. Words don’t just mean whatever we want them to mean, and if someone isn’t already on board with Trump = fascism (which, don’t get me wrong, I’m 100% on that boat), phrasing things in pointed, biased ways isn’t going to convince them that we’re the side of reason.
phrasing things in pointed, biased ways isn’t going to convince them that we’re the side of reason.
There is literally no way to reason these people out of the position they didn’t reason themselves into. I’m of the firm belief that we need to be heckling, calling out, and generally being as rude and mean as possible to Nazis. Make the fuckers squirm back into their hole.
I’ve voted in every election since Bush senior in 1988 and I do not believe the other guy is speaking hyperbolically at all. It’s so different this time. It truly is.
I feel like everyone that is arguing with what I’ve said thinks that I don’t agree that a Trump presidency will result in a huge increase in fascist ideology. It will be absolutely terrible if the man gets elected again and it absolutely will have drastic consequences to the US government.
This does not change the fact that LITERALLY, the ballot is between Biden and Trump, not between Fascism and Not-Fascism.
If someone is on the fence about something and you talk to them like there’s only one logical option (even if there is only one logical option), the immediate reaction will almost be a defensive one, and rarely will they be persuaded to your way of thinking. Like the abortion example I gave above; if you were on the fence about abortion, and someone asked you if you thought murder was wrong, that would be a fair sign that they aren’t presenting a good-faith discussion, and just want to brow-beat you in to their opinion. If you ask someone who (somehow) hasn’t paid attention to politics in the last decade if they want to let [presidential candidate] turn the country into [bad thing], you’re not opening a fair discussion, even if it’s most likely true that the outcome you describe is the one we will see.
I’ll continue to say this question still isn’t being asked in good faith.
Of course the ballot isn’t literally, “do u want fascism or nah”
It’s between two politicians. You and I are agree that one side is almost inherently better than the other, but you have to remember that a. the other side also believes that they are inherently better than the other, and b. not everyone believes that either side is inherently better than the other.
Judging by your comments I’m assuming you’re pro-choice; if someone asked you, “when presented with the choice of outlawing the murder babies, what makes that choice difficult for you?”, you’d rightfully say they aren’t posing the question in a fair way to you. It’s the same thing here, if you’re trying to communicate with someone who doesn’t outright agree with you you can’t just outright attack their position or frame it in a negative light or you just make them defensive and not receptive to an alternative view.
This specific election is literally just this
If you’re speaking hyperbolically, sure. But when you’re trying to have a genuine conversation with someone regarding a serious topic, using hyperbolic speech to belittle someone’s position is pretty lame
You are as pathetic as your weak defense of abandoning your most important civic duty. Your weakness hurts us all. Shame on you.
They are not. If trump wins many people will die. And he will be the new forever king of America.
Ok, but LITERALLY, the ballot says Donald Trump or Joe Biden. HYPERBOLICALLY it says fascism or not. Words don’t just mean whatever we want them to mean, and if someone isn’t already on board with Trump = fascism (which, don’t get me wrong, I’m 100% on that boat), phrasing things in pointed, biased ways isn’t going to convince them that we’re the side of reason.
There is literally no way to reason these people out of the position they didn’t reason themselves into. I’m of the firm belief that we need to be heckling, calling out, and generally being as rude and mean as possible to Nazis. Make the fuckers squirm back into their hole.
I’ve voted in every election since Bush senior in 1988 and I do not believe the other guy is speaking hyperbolically at all. It’s so different this time. It truly is.
I feel like everyone that is arguing with what I’ve said thinks that I don’t agree that a Trump presidency will result in a huge increase in fascist ideology. It will be absolutely terrible if the man gets elected again and it absolutely will have drastic consequences to the US government.
This does not change the fact that LITERALLY, the ballot is between Biden and Trump, not between Fascism and Not-Fascism.
If someone is on the fence about something and you talk to them like there’s only one logical option (even if there is only one logical option), the immediate reaction will almost be a defensive one, and rarely will they be persuaded to your way of thinking. Like the abortion example I gave above; if you were on the fence about abortion, and someone asked you if you thought murder was wrong, that would be a fair sign that they aren’t presenting a good-faith discussion, and just want to brow-beat you in to their opinion. If you ask someone who (somehow) hasn’t paid attention to politics in the last decade if they want to let [presidential candidate] turn the country into [bad thing], you’re not opening a fair discussion, even if it’s most likely true that the outcome you describe is the one we will see.