JustAnIdiotPlsIgnore

First off, you are using many strawman fallacies and this is where this conversation always breaks down. I never claimed any of this shit you are claiming.

Secondly, the US could end Israel's genocide with a single phone call, just like has been done EVERY OTHER SINGLE FUCKING TIME BEFORE!

I would like for you to elaborate on this, I have not heard the argument we can actually stop the war, I would love for you to back that up. I was under the impression we have been and are still trying to get a ceasefire. That has been the written goal for the state department for a while now.

That argument "but we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"

Strawman, never made this claim.

or made in bad faith to argue for continuing the genocide.

Oooh strawman within a strawman. When did I advocate for genocide? When did I say I even support the Democrats ffs? You're making a lot of assumptions here.

If you had half a braincell you would realize that being argumentive and condescending will only drive people away from the Palestinian plight. Bringing up shit you cannot prove also really does not help your cause either.

Again I've made a point you have, yet again, failed to address, so like most lemmy users you find the opportunity to grandstand about your cause instead of having a discussion.

I mean look at your comments man, if the conversation gets even remotely close to that, you drive the conversation toward your own personal issues. I know you're hurting but you aren't helping your cause at all.

Again I want to point out, the points I made have no been addressed.

Well you just gave me three, dumbass.

I'm sorry did I misunderstand a strawman? In the past it meant using an argument a person never stated. I never said half of the shit you claimed, but sure I guess "I'M nOt WORth tHrEe SEnTences"

Moron.

What's wrong with these statements?

Genuinely don't know what you're talking about.

This is exactly what happened, how it happened. The idiot I was arguing with kept going back and forth in his arguing, in some comments he would say there is a state in communism, then two comments later he said communism has no state. So yes, the person I was talking to was an idiot, not uncommon (hello my username.)

If this blurb offends you, maybe I was wrong about the conservatives calling us snowflakes.

Sigh...... You are just a magnet to strawman fallacies and cannot reject any opportunity to grandstand about your feelings. Answer my question or fuck off lol. You keep taking the opportunity to slam on the Dems but you refuse to address the claims you made. Idk why people cannot answer questions and pretty consistently drive the conversation toward what they want to talk about, all the fucking time. So lame lol.

Nice try, yeah let me just prove a negative. Moron. You were the one that made the claim, you fucking idiot,you need to back it up or you're simply just full of shit. Glad I could assist you.

I'm not who you responded to, but they have a good point. The difference being who is favored and who is not. In fascism there are in groups and out groups. The real life forms we have today of communism follow that same rule. I think the distinction is who is being targeted. Try to speak out against the Russian government in Russia, it won't go well. The same thing would certainly happen in a fascist state. Pointing out the small differences between the two is akin to making the distinction between a pedophile and a hebephile. They are both authoritarian in nature.

We're using text as a medium, it generally requires elaboration. If you were actually interested in making a cognizant point, you would have done that by now.

This doesn't really answer any of my questions, only raises more. Unless of course he is making the point that an authoritarian government is the "saving up for the house" but it's clear with his next statements in the interview, that's not the case.

Well this was kinda my opinion going in, so I wanted a different perspective lol.

I see. So there is supposed to be an authoritarian state in the transitionary period, is what you are saying?

Interesting, I was under the impression the real life forms had just failed; one group got into power and just said "naw" and then stayed in that authoritarian 'state.'

That doesn't answer my question unfortunately. In fact kinda muddies the water. Wikipedia says that it strives to be stateless, but how does that contend with the real life versions of communism that most certainly have a state?