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

After this conversation, I assume so.

What’s a viewpoint? Can you define it? What does it mean to refute something? Can you define it?

Why aren’t you answering me? You must know what these words mean if you’re using them. Are you a dumbass?

Say whatever you like. I’ve put up with your shit long enough and I’m just going to keep doing this.

Go ahead, say I’m acting in bad faith for doing exactly what you did.

We’ve already seen exactly how you respond when I do answer your bad faith questions, so expect that too.

Why didn’t you answer my question? What does it mean to put something in “my own words?” Are you a dumbass? Why can’t you answer that when you said it yourself? What’s a “world view” by the way? Can you define that, or are you too dumb to?

you are placing your world view

Which the author is placing in their worldview. I have been abundantly clear that I do not agree with their terminology. You’re just trying to attack me on complete and total bullshit because you know you can’t address my actual point.

I’m not playing your game.

What do you mean by, “your own words?” Can you define it? What does the word “what” mean? Can you define it?

You do this blatantly bad faith shit, I’m just gonna start throwing it back in your face. I don’t care whether you call me a dumbass, I care if you’re being intellectually dishonest, which you very clearly are.

Yet again, completely ignoring the actual point so you can do this pointless nickpicking and pedantry. Not one word that you’ve said has actually been relevant to anything. Extremely predictable, again, it’s because you know it’s true and you’re defensive about it.

Christ almighty you’ll

I already told you it’s not even my fucking term.

Now, WHAT’S A WESTERNER?

Seriously? You can fucking google it, dumbass. Everyone knows what a Westerner is.

Literally just did.

Is this how I find out I have psychic powers? Who could’ve predicted this?

What they mean is the proletariat of exploitative countries, those in the imperial core, who they see as having a distinct class character from the proletariat of exploited countries.

Does that satisfy your pointless pedantry? Of course not. Now you’ll find another pointless detail to quibble over, or you’ll nitpick my definition. Because the point being made seems to have struck a nerve with you, but you can’t actually find anything to counter it so you focus on this nonsense.

If the shoe fits, wear it. I’m guessing you know it’s true, at least on some level, and that’s why you’re doing this.

You deferred to authority with your reference to a blog

Jesus Christ, any time I cite any sort of theory about anything people immediately jump down my throat with this “appeal to authority” bullshit.

I referenced the blog not because it has any sort of “authority” but because it explains the concept quite well.

I’m sorry that, apparently unlike you, I’m capable of respecting insight regardless of whether it’s written in the most proper, ideologically correct phrasing.

So I am asking to define what those classes are, and which people are bound to that definition?

No. Message the author if you want a definition. I already told you I wouldn’t use the term personally.

The overall point is quite clear regardless of that terminology. And you haven’t said a single thing to contest that point, you’re just whining about phrasing for no apparent reason.