erin

As a trans person, that absolutely isn't how I or other leftists in the spaces I'm in use this phrase. It means to avoid letting disagreement over method or end goal distract from a common cause. Just because a candidate doesn't run for my specific brand of leftism doesn't mean I won't support them over a neoliberal opponent.

I suppose you're talking about the part about your post history, which seems flimsy. Just because some of your posts agree with the other poster doesn't mean the ones specifically referred to don't exist. A strawman is putting your ideas up framed such that you do not support them, but arguing that you do in order to make a simpler argument. That doesn't appear to be happening, as lacking nuance isn't the same thing as a strawman. You do seem to be making the argument referred to, and having a nuanced position from other posts doesn't make that untrue. It also seems irresponsible to use that one point to discredit the entire argument, which broadly doesn't care about said point.

That's a fair point, but the question still stands. In a stateless society, who decides when violence is appropriate and which ideas deserve violence? What differentiates such individuals from the state, seeing as they are acting in lieu of one, enforcing certain ideals and rules via violence? My questions still stand.

Isn't that exactly what the post is doing?

I don't see it, as it seems like you are in fact arguing that tools are neutral. Giving counter examples isn't the same thing as a strawman, it's challenging your argument. Did you mean a different part of their argument?

Who decides what ideas are and aren't okay? Who decides which ideas are bad enough to use force against? What's to stop those in charge of making those decisions from being compromised, or plants, or changing their minds, or having morals counter to the morals of their society, seeing as the voting clearly cannot be trusted. All it takes is fascism and conservatism to quietly seep into government and now we've created the perfect framework for them to shift the targets to those they oppose.

This week, trans people have been declared anti-party. Next week it's disabled people. Tune in the week after for nationalism.

This is like building a big gun to protect ourselves from fascists but not putting any checks to make sure it's wielded in the best interests of the people.

I understand that you disagree with their points, but I'm more interested in where the strawman arguments are. I don't see any, and I'd like to understand if I'm missing a clear fallacy due to my own biases or not.

Can you point out and explain each strawman in detail? It sounds more like someone made good analogies that counter your point and you buzzword vomited in response.

I like the term "cultural voyeurism."

There is something to be said for having friends that refuse to make choices because "I really don't care." I hang out with a person like this, and it means I have to always take more of an emotional load in our friendship making the decisions. It kinda sucks to always be the one that has to make the executive decisions. It's nice sometimes to do what someone else wants to do.

"What's up, what do we want to do?"

"I'm easy."

"Nah, I picked last time, your turn. What are we up to?" (And the last several times)

"I'm down for whatever really."

"Come on, pick something!"

"I really don't care, I'm good with whatever."

What I want to say: "JESUS FUCKING CHRIST PLEASE JUST MAKE A DECISION FOR ONCE PLEASE I AM TIRED OF THE BURDEN"

What I actually say: "Aight whatever let's just [insert activity]" or, optionally "I'm pretty tired of picking. Do either of these options sound good?"

Don't push off your executive functions in relationships onto others all the time! It's a give and take, and everyone has different limits. It's nearly as bad, in my opinion, as dictating the relationship to force someone else to do it. Now, I wouldn't yell at someone, no matter how frustrated they make me, but I do communicate when I'm running out of executive function battery for the group, and ask someone else to step up. I just wish they'd take it up on their own initiative sometimes.

You're multiplying the amount of CO2 dramatically. That is the amount of CO2 for the entire plane, not calculated per passenger. Emissions are always calculated per passenger for different methods of transportation, otherwise you're multiplying the output by potentially hundreds.

Edit: I think I'm wrong. I'm getting different results saying those numbers are actually closer to the per passenger number. I'd have to do the math but it's definitely more than a burger by a long shot, just from a logical calorie conversion.

I feel like you've redefined tourist. You can visit another culture and still participate in it respectfully with an intent to learn and be part of the cultural exchange. That's still tourism. Why does tourism mean specifically commodifying another culture?