• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’m not interested in a sidebar. I’m only interested in discussing the main point of this conversation.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      You aren’t interested in discussing something you brought up? That sounds like you know the answer is inconvenient.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        You sound like a genocidal apologist whose arguments are weakening Biden’s chances of winning the general election, who also has no conception of leadership or responsibility, stuck in a boot-loop unable to understand why they keep voting correctly but the world continues to fall apart around them, unable to understand how their apologetic’s are actually an argument in favor of the other guy.

        I think you can do better, and I hope you choose to.

          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            inconvenient question

            There is no inconvenient question. Just an apologist spinning in circles wondering why their candidate is losing the general election.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              This is the second time you have insulted me. I don’t think I should have to remind you of the civility rule in the sidebar. I do moderate discussions I am involved in, but I would remind you to be civil.

              • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                If you consider being an apologist insulting, you should maybe reconsider your approach to rhetoric, since this is the rhetorical approach you are using. Its a rhetorical approach that goes back to Socrates. I’m sorry for your ignorance but I can’t help that beyond providing you with resources, as I’ve tried to do in this conversation. Only you can help your own ignorance. Since you don’t understand apologetics or what it means to be an apologist, here is a primer. You should read it. It can help you improve your approach to rhetoric.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  Please do describe a scenario where being called a genocide apologist is not an insult.

                  I also sincerely doubt you would say that so someone you were in the same room with.

                  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    The entire structure of your argument(s) around why we have to support Biden in-spite of his flaws is series of apologist arguments. The principal of supporting something in-spite of its flaws is the fundamental basis of apologetics. Its the basis of your entire argument, that Biden is a flawed candidate, but in-spite of this we need to support him, because the alternative is far worse. And in principal I agree with the sentiment, however, the actual act of engaging in apologetic has the opposite effect. The apologetics being used to argue in favor of Biden have made him a weaker candidate, not a stronger one. Defending the indefensible just makes you look like a cheerleader for something deeply wrong, which is what I’m calling you out for. Continuing to engage in apologetics on behalf of Biden is weakening him as a candidate, and I don’t want him to lose this election. Biden is accountable for his shoddy record over the previous four years. The buck stops with him.

                    Holding him accountable in media and conversation forces him to respond and thereby makes him a stronger candidate, because instead of obscuring your weakness, you have to address them. Hiding weakness doesn’t stop it from existing. Blaming congress or the SC while Biden sits at the helm just makes him look less qualified to do the job. Alternatively, we can be critical of Biden and force him to move on policy positions, to stronger, more defensible positions. In this way we can force him to be a better candidate going into the general election.

                    I also sincerely doubt you would say that so someone you were in the same room with.

                    Oh I have, and I assure you, its insufferable (if you couldn’t figure that out). I’ll call you out as coward, or a apologist, or racist, whatever I need to say. I have little interest in the polities of society if they are used to defend the indefensible. The buck stops with me, and I am accountable for the way I conduct myself, for better or for worse. There are tables I’m not invited back to because of this, and I do not mind. Its a badge of honor to not be invited back (imo) to a polite table with fascists and their apologists. I do not give apologists a pass, be them racist, bigots, fascists, or otherwise.