~$|>>> Onlyfans! <<<|$~

<3 u too, buddy. It’s getting exhausting out there, I hope you’re doing okay.

You’re right to say that we’re not enemies and that we ideologically and generally want the same things in the end.

Thank you. It gets seriously exhausting trying to explain that sometimes.

I disagree.

“We should identify the problem and propose the solution” is not at all in conflict with getting the 40-hours-a-week concept passed. It’s the idea that we can’t do two things at once, that we can’t both advocate for the ultimate goals while passing what can be passed currently, that I’m taking issue with. Why is that being presented as the liberal position? I honestly can’t understand where it comes from - nobody I know of thinks that way, but it’s constantly what I’m accused of believing when I’ve been identified as being the wrong sort of liberal. It’s deeply insulting to have your positions dictated to you based solely off the use of a term with multiple potential interpretations like this, and it’s just flat-out wrong.

We can’t do everything we should in society, because half of society opposes us rhetorically and ideologically. Some people get too entrenched in that mindset, the democrats are an especially good example, but there’s nothing inherent about political realism that prevents political idealism from co-existing with it.

Why are we even fighting over this, I’ll happily support you while you strive for the big grand goals, are you wiling to support me while I trying to get the little things done along the way? I’m not going to not support the big grand goals either way, to be clear. This isn’t quid-pro-quo, just curiosity.

exactly!

Here, I’ll demonstrate:

And a humiliating one at that :(

It’s at best a stalemate, though.

Sigh. Braincell attrition? You’re really going this route?

I mean I’m bored as hell at this point, but you’ve got that whole “must get last word” thing going on so look: there’s no point in this for you. I can keep responding with anything and that will quash your whole ‘victory’ here. Maybe try an alternative tact, give up on these baby tier trolling attempts, don’t try to win, do the mature thing and try to explain. Win on merit.

I still don’t understand buddy, nothing’s changed except you’re now trying to do the whole “assert your position as truth and your opponent as agreeing in order to present your argument as having Merit Thru Victory”. It’s just the bullying tactic again, and we’ve already been over how that isn’t going to work. Come on, you’re stuck in this mindset where you have to “WIN” and that’s just never ever going to work out for you. You could seriously just like, explain your initial point instead of getting so wrapped up staving off the inevitable slight to your ego that admitting fault, or failure to best me in whatever this is (verbal sparring?), would bring.

[Edit: to anyone reading along with this (god, why do that to yourself): it gets real stupid past this point. You’re not missing anything by not expanding the comments. Save some braincells, spare yourself.]

undiluted liberalism

You’re acknowledging there’s a distinction right there, though. You’re openly having to distinguish between the term as a concept and the term as you’re using it, a description for a specific group. That’s my point, that you’re using it to describe a specific group instead of as a label applied to social concepts. You literally are doing this in the sentence explaining how you’re not doing this. Like. I don’t know what I could possibly say that would be a better example than this right here. This is all I have been saying about this point.

If the only thing liberals think is currently reasonable or realistic is to provide only those that work 40 hours a week with a decent standard of living, that is gatekeeping progress.

Sure, but my overall point is that they’re not doing that, you’re claiming that they are. The ‘liberal’ position being expressed in this thread, and the one I’ve seen expressed everywhere else, is that we should get to where nobody should live in poverty. But, because the big “turn off poverty” switch doesn’t actually exist, and because (to extend the metaphor) there’s an entire army of chuds standing under that switch making damn sure we don’t flip it, we should take what we can get now to reduce the suffering in the world by just a little while we continue to fight for the big goals.

It’s the classic “win the battle first, then you can win the war” concept but extended to political movements.

Again, misunderstanding my arguments and positions.

Paraphrasing them to highlight how they could be easily extrapolated, there’s no misunderstanding here.

… I never claimed I didn’t understand the words, I didn’t understand their meaning in the context of that discussion. Looking up the rules of speech in a grammar dictionary and the meaning of words in a regular one are crucial to the act of communicating information, yes, but they are not the whole of the act itself. Even the isolated meaning of a sentence is worthless without an understanding of the conceptual framework on which it is hung.

You failed to communicate your point, and then have apparently been railing against me for lacking the linguistic understanding of your meaning while refusing to elaborate conceptually, which has been my explicit question. I mean, seriously, are you starting to see why I’ve spent half this time reiterating the same question (and the other half keeping myself entertained?)

I’m sorry do you not know there is a difference between linguistic and conceptual uninterpretability? Is that why you’re harping on about my semantic processing of your initial comment?

… Maybe go back and ask Chat GPT to explain it to you, since it appears to be able to operate closer to your level than I’m willing to stoop.

But I’ve… repeatedly explained how I didn’t understand your comment. Short of painting that sentence on a banner and paying a troupe of the carnival’s clowns to parade it through your kitchen, I’m not sure how else to articulate that concept in a way you’ll understand. I can’t explain your comment to you, I don’t know what your comment meant. There is no second step I’m trying to get to, I’m still at the bottom wondering where this rickety staircase is even supposed to go.

Look imitation being the sincerest form of flattery is one thing, but this is maybe overdoing it a little. I get it, you’ve established you’re in awe of my brilliance, but when you’re reducing yourself to playground tactics to cover for your own inability to keep up with the basic questions you were initially asked, it starts to become clear how pointless this little slapfight really is for me.

But heck, lets see what my star lil’ pupil has learned from this: What do you think my goal here was? Yours clearly wasn’t to explain what you meant since you keep refusing to do that, and it’s questions about your claim that were the impetus here, so what do you suppose I gain from interacting with you?

Did… you really just pull a “No u” and storm off when bullying didn’t work out? Man, way to reinforce your position with an air of civil decorum. How many times can I ask for you to explain your position before it’s reasonable to conclude you just didn’t have one and were only here to pick a fight?

It’s dead in the same way as libertarianism is. Libertarianism, originally coined to describe communists/socialists and used by anarchists, was co-opted by capitalists and its meaning adjusted (completely flipped) to serve their interests.

OKAY, thank you. The issue here is indeed that, while you interpret “Liberal”/“Liberalism” to be specifically speaking towards the major liberal political parties (like the Dems), that’s not the common usage (neither is your interpretation of ‘libertarianism’ being dead - look at the popularity of PCM and the traditional use of ‘libertarianism’ there as an example of how the term has retained it’s original meaning across broad society)

I don’t disagree that the democrats are deeply lacking in progressive… everything… but to come and present your interpretation that “liberals” are all part of a dead ideology because you’ve let conservatives co-opt the term as a negative group pronoun and that this is justification to decry how all ‘liberals’ are gatekeeping progress is ridiculous. You’re as much a liberal as I am, not as part of the “liberals in gubment” but as part of a liberal social movement, and a person that agrees with liberal ideas. Good grief, we’re on the same side. The only reason you think there’s an ideological divide between us is that you keep asserting that there is one.

The uncorrupted liberal position would be to work towards equality for all now

(Side note, but do you realize you’re lowkey advocating against improving society here? Why even try for a small improvement, that’s corrupted thinking, if you can’t do everything there’s no point in doing anything!)

Oh just give it a rest, I’m clearly not going to let you bully me into doing this on your terms (or to lend your position implicit credibility/authority by assenting to your demands). You’re asking me to interpret what you said, when I’ve already clarified that:

Your comment’s uninterpretability was the whole reason for my initial comment!

I don’t know how else to phrase that. What did you mean?

Are you really asking me to explain your own comment to you? If you don’t even know what your point was, how in heck am I supposed to get any meaning from it? Your comment’s uninterpretability was the whole reason for my initial comment!

With liberals advocating for those that work 40 hours a week to not live in poverty, and leftists advocating for everyone to be given the ingredients to live a dignified life.

Why are you trying to reframe this? It presents the liberal argument as being “No one working 40 hours a week should live in poverty” and the leftist ideology as “No one should live in poverty at all”. The two are in no way inherently in conflict, and even the title “leftism is bestism” isn’t in this case particularly wrong since the goal of pretty much every liberal movement is at very least broad social protections (a concept so non-controversial that even the democrats give it legislative support).

But why then is liberalism dead? Why is a leftist striking out against a liberal for not supporting their position somehow acceptable in the face of an entire comment section of liberals advocating incremental progress and the 40-hour-week-no-poverty idea as a step in a progressive change? Why are you behaving like there’s people advocating it to stop at 40-hour-week-no-poverty, when nobody is doing that?

Sorry but that’s… not what I said. The implication was that my overpoweringly bright linguistic radiance, that personality trait so widely beloved it’s been immortalized for all time in both song and storied stage, doesn’t particularly matter when what I’ve been presented with doesn’t make linguistic sense.

I’m not sure I disagree with you even (no, yes I am) but I’m just not sure where the conclusions you’re drawing have themselves been drawn from. They seem wild enough that concluding you’re intentionally misinterpreting what they’re saying to provoke a response isn’t unreasonable, and since your behavior thus far seems to continue to reflect that, I’m seeing very little to sway me from that explanation.

Please, if I’m wrong, can you enlighten us without the id-driven rhetorical defensiveness?