Wow, I just want to say you're operating so clearly in good faith that I don't know which of your good faith behaviors to praise first.

As I already pointed out, you spewed out a bunch of low effort bullshit that would take much more effort to refute, which is again, a textbook example of a gish gallop. You then demanded to control the terms of the debate by subjecting me to some sort of test of knowledge which I obviously refused to engage in, since that's a ridiculous thing to do. Then, you took a word from the definition of gish gallop and completely removed it of context, and accused me of saying I was "overwhelmed" by your test of knowledge, which I never said. You then interpreted my refusal to engage with your terms as an admission of ignorance. So that's at least four points of bad faith, just right off the bat.

You don't get to randomly subject me to tests any more than I get to randomly subject you to tests. That's not how conversation or debate works. If you're afraid of engaging me on even terms and want to pull a bunch of bullshit, you do you, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation, which are the things I pointed out.

I understand how American policy is formed well enough to know that policy statements on the campaign trail rarely actually manifest into anything. But here's her statement from the campaign website, just for you:

Yes, congratulations, that is what the term means. And that's exactly what you're doing. You post a whole bunch of one line comments and expect anyone who challenges them to write up a whole effortpost on each. The amount of effort it takes to just spew a bunch of bullshit is much less than the amount of effort required to refute each point of bullshit.

I've rarely seen such a textbook example of a gish gallop.

Do I really need to? Because increasing gas production is not a good thing for the climate, and bragging about doing something that's damaging the climate seems like a pretty clear indication that you're not really committed to addressing climate change. The fact that she says whatever nice words about it doesn't matter, talk is cheap.

But her whole statement is here

"Alleviating" doing a lot of work here. They forgave PPP loans (which went mostly to the wealthy) but didn't forgive student loans like they said they would. Biden also helped create the problem in the first place by arbitrarily making making such loans ineligible for bankruptcy forgiveness

Kamala literally bragged about increasing gas production to an all time high, yes.

🎵If only it were true🎵

I only brought up Jim Crow in response to the claim that the the state will protect people and that there are ways to appeal the state of it doesn't. The point being that having legal protections on paper is not always enough to keep people safe.

The "fascist enablers" don't have consciences you can appeal to, because what drives them is money, and they are specifically selected for their willingness to serve capital and cause harm to innocent people. The system selects for sociopaths.

You analysis takes absolutely zero account of the systems or material conditions that exist which compel people to act in certain ways. Germany had an unemployment rate of 30% in 1932, but in your mind, it seems like the communists were only fighting because they wanted to and the capitalists were just reacting to that.

Had everyone on the left coordinated on mass nonviolent actions, like mass strikes for example, the capitalists would still have turned to the fascists in order to preserve their money and power. Violence or nonviolence doesn't matter, what matters is whether their positions are threatened. You either never do anything to gain power in hopes of being able to beg your enemies for mercy, or you do whatever it takes to win so you don't have to rely on that. The in between stuff where you pull your punches and try to disrupt things without defending yourself is the surest way to get yourself killed.

Because he's rich and powerful and laws are just threats made by the ruling class, which he's a part of. The law is primarily a tool of class warfare and as such is only enforced consistently and in full force against the working class. Very occasionally, one rich person pisses off enough other rich people to be subject to it, but you have to be extremely bad at the game for that to happen. The more rich people are subjected to the law, the easier it is to be subjected to the law yourself if you're rich, so generally you're better off looking the other way while they do illegal shit so that you can get away with your own illegal shit. Plus they have the resources to fight you, so it means picking a costly battle.

Maybe if we just don't fight the Nazis, they won't be able to justify violence against us 🤡

Yeah let's just allow roving gangs of brownshirts to run around attacking and terrorizing minorities because if we don't they might stage an attack and the "atmosphere of violence" we've created by trying to keep people safe will allow them to blame it on us and seize power. The solution is to just allow them to seize power directly through force, without resistance.

This is nonsense. Nazis don't need a justification to use force against you, they can literally just lie and make shit up, like they did with the Reichstag Fire. It doesn't matter if it's true because it's directed at the weakest and most vulnerable and stigmatized populations, who have the least capacity to fight back and the fewest platforms to counter their narratives, and once they're done with them they work their way up. They will create terror on the streets and then use the fact that the streets are full of terror to seize power. People are going to try to defend themselves when attacked whether you think they should or not, so the only question is whether that resistance is strong enough to actually work.

I've seen too many examples throughout history of people trying to use nonviolence and do things the right way and just getting slaughtered because the other side simply does not care to be a pacifist. The world is clearly a better place because people employed violence in WWII to stop the Nazis. And street fighting in the 30's was one of the ways that the Nazis secured their power in the first place.

Nonviolent methods are tools that are useful to have in your toolbox, and in many situations, they are more practical in achieving your ends. But there are cases were violence is more practical, even necessary, and one shouldn't shy away from it when it's needed. You gotta have your head in the game, the stakes are too high. A diversity of tactics is best.

The logic that violence is oppressive so it should be renounced in all cases in order to reduce oppression is idealist. You have to look at the actual evidence and material situation to evaluate what effects violence will have in a given situation.

Punching Nazis is cool and good. Just try not to get arrested for it because it'll take you out of the action longer than it will them.