I can only lead a horse to water, I can’t make you think.

Don’t try to explain things you neither understand nor care about then.

But you’re explaining it with such a bad example that it undermines the whole point, it’s like if you said, “Some things are just objective facts, like which poems are good.” That to me indicates that it’s not really a simple concept at all, you just don’t see the depth because you haven’t examined it. Being unwilling to examine it, framing that examination as “the bottomless argument of philosophical truth,” only reinforces that. If you’re not willing to examine the question, then don’t assert that you know the answer in the first place.

Yes.

Not trying to say that everything is subjective, but that in particular is kind of a bad example.

I just think you’re being dismissive, while setting your own ideas as being apart from philosophy.

Apparently? You keep making philosophical assertions.

You don’t get to assert your philosophical views and then say, “I’m not interested is discussing philosophy” to avoid examination and criticism of those views.

I see, so you’re only interested in asserting your own philosophical positions, not examining or defending them in any way.

people created the ideas of countries, then made a list of them. USA is on that list.

People? Which people? If I get a bunch of people and declare a micronation within what the US considers it’s borders, is that objectively a country or not? Or suppose I convince a bunch of Americans that Germany isn’t really a country, does it then cease to be a country despite what the Germans themselves believe?

In any case, I would think that if something falls under the standard of, “This is true because a bunch of people say it is, even though there’s nothing physical you can point to to prove it” then it seems somewhat absurd to call that an “objective fact” What do “objective” and “subjective” even mean, then?

truth=facts. facts are objective. it’s a fact that the USA is a country in north America. there is no disputing that.

Not trying to say that everything is subjective, but that in particular is kind of a bad example.

Countries are socially constructed. The US is something that only exists so long as people agree that it does. There is no objective, material way of determining where one country ends and another begins.

In fact, there was quite a bit of disputing that historically. Prior to the American Civil War, lots of people said that the US was not a country but a union between countries, they were called “states” after all, and it was common to say “The United States are” rather than “The United States is.” There are still successionists today who argue for that interpretation. To say that the US is objectively a country means that there must be something in material reality that we can point to to prove that one interpretation is correct and the other is incorrect. What is that thing?

Whatever that thing is would have significant implications for how we see the world and look at other disputes, whether we’re talking about Spain and Barcelona, the UK and Scotland, China and Tibet, or Israel and Palestine. For example, if you say that historically, most US secessionists supported slavery and therefore they lacked moral character and the position is illegitimate, then it follows that what states exist is a function of the moral character of their supporters, and that seems to be adding lots of assumptions and moving away from any sense of objectivity.

“The US exists” is much more subjective than something like “This chair exists.” With the latter, you could argue that grouping a collection of atoms into the category of “chair” is arbitrary and there’s no way of determining when an atom stops being a part of “chair,” but that’s much more pedantic than socially constructed concepts that don’t really have a physical essence.

It’s wild how ideas like this continue to exist despite being so contrary to evidence and reason, just because it shifts blame away from systemic issues and the ruling class.

As things stand, unfortunately, the far-right is significantly better armed and better prepared for a breakdown in government.

While I would prefer to peacefully reform the system, it’s increasingly clear that there’s validity to the saying, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” The fact that the right is better positioned for a breakdown in order allows them to push further and further without fear. Civil war or revolution isn’t going to be something the left chooses, rather, if current trends continue (and it seems like they will) we may end up in a situation where it’s forced upon us and we are left but no choice to defend ourselves.

It’s not necessarily an all-or-nothing deal. There are methods of fighting back that are more effective than relying on the Democrats but don’t constitute full-on revolution, such as strikes. While strikes are non-violent, history has shown that they have potential to become violent, for example, if a boss hires mercenaries to force people back to work at gunpoint.

Likewise, if masked gunmen started showing up to people’s workplaces, demanding some of the workers to be handed over to be taken as hostages, workers need to be prepared to deal with that emergency.

Practically speaking, even if you wanted a revolution, there’s now way that would even be viable while practical steps for community defense have not been made. I’m not sure it’s rhetorically necessary to go further than that, particularly on a public forum.

I believe that V. I. Lenin communed with Satan and received his unholy word, and so everything he wrote was pure lies.

Lies are actually good, according to my twisted, warped morality.

Whenever I encounter a question about anything, I just consult my unholy texts and blindly accept whatever I read.

If the answer’s not in there, I declare the person who asked it to be a treasonous heretic.

I actually love treason and heresy so sometimes we end up making out. But only if it’s gay.

I’m genderfluid so whether it’s gay or not depends on which gender I am atm, which is an open question. And whenever I encounter a question, I read Lenin about it.

I can’t find the answer and now I’m trapped in an endless loop where all I do is read Lenin and question my gender. And that loop’s name?

Samsara.

Thank you for coming to my poetry reading.

It’s only off by roughly 20,000,000

I feel the need to “defend” every single state that has ever existed. Because I’m operating on a different paradigm than you.

I care about whether claims made are true or false. “Defending” doesn’t enter into the equation for me. If you say Hitler was an evil space alien, I will push back on that, simply because it’s not true, with absolutely zero regard for whether by refuting misinformation, I’m “defending Hitler.”

Liberals seem to operate differently. They see things in terms of good countries and bad countries (and people), and they see everything in those terms. So, if a claim is complete bullshit, but it makes a “bad country” look bad, then you should accept it, or at least let it stand. And if someone tries to refute misinformation about a “bad country,” the only way they can understand that behavior is if the person saying it thinks the “bad country” is actually “good.”

To me, that’s just intellectual dishonesty. You don’t just make shit up about whoever you don’t like, and I don’t see how anyone who sees things that way could ever be trustworthy.

I play chess exactly the way you play chess. I told you this repeatedly.

Do you really not understand what’s happening here? How much more blatant do I have to be?

You used a shit ton of bad faith tactics in this conversation. I could have, and to some extent did call them out. But then you can just ignore, deny, or otherwise dismiss that.

Which is why I’m simply throwing them straight back in your face. I’ve said several times that I’m using bad faith tactics, but I’m doing that for a purpose. Because now you have to be the one to label these tactics as bad faith. And every single bad faith tactic I employed is something you did first.

Demonstration by example. Is it frustrating the way I keep asking you pointless, irrelevant questions, making it impossible to have a conversation? Maybe you’ll think about that the next time you do that, the way you did from the start. Does it piss you off the way I twist your words around, the way you do with mine? You don’t like how I pretended you didn’t answer the same way you did? Boo fucking hoo. You wanna go low, I will be right there with you. I am not afraid to get dirty wrestling a pig.

So yes, I am in fact playing chess like a pigeon, because I am playing chess with a pigeon, and I’m just following your lead. I’d be perfectly happy to have a real conversation otherwise.

By linking to a clip by System of a Down, are you saying you think my parents have down syndrome?

Sure, just as soon as you answer what I asked about what a question is. That’s not an answer.

Did you miss the part where I said I’d throw your bad faith tactics straight back in your face? You don’t like my tactics, then you don’t like your tactics, because all I’m doing is holding up a mirror.

What’s a “question?” Can you define it?

INB4 you critique “my” phrasing again