Why the fuck did you expect me to defend capitalism? I answered the best I can.

I’ll take that’s a slip of the tongue and I’ll answer the question whether democracy leads to fascism, given that I’ve clearly stated I’m a socialist.

I think it’s kinda bullshit to say that democracy hasn’t done amazing things for the human condition. In any given region, democracy will come and go, nothing lasts forever. But where and when it exists, science, human rights, new ideas, and new culture, will always follow. The fact that things might get worse if we give people agency, as in, they might choose ‘wrongly’ and give up their democracy, that is not a reason to stop trying, or to try to take that agency away from everyone, yourself included.

I very much dislike people who don’t realize that agency and democracy are the foundational human right, the one from which all other rights stem. Without the ability to play the “opinions game”, as you call it, whether or not you go hungry is up to the leadership, not you. If you don’t have a right to your own opinion, you do not have any control. It’s pretty fucking simple. You can’t make things better without agency. Nothing will ever get better by just passing the buck to totalitarian leaders and hoping they fix everything for you.

It all comes down to, do you believe that it’s possible to mislead people? And relatedly, can you deceive a whole population? I have seen so much evidence that propaganda works, living in our shared capitalist hellscape. I cannot see a >90% agreement, on pretty much any question ever formulated, without a loooot of programming. Nothing is ever that popular naturally. These are not populations that are routinely exposed to differing opinions. Totalitarianism, in all it’s forms, has these same indicators: screwy election numbers, cults of personality, government enforced and socially enforced orthopraxis and orthodoxy, etc. It is not a system where you have anything resembling agency.

So, just “you’re wrong” again. Great discourse we’re having.

You’re right, it’s not like Russia, except they are both totalitarian.

I didn’t say they lied. I implied it’s illegal for citizens to disagree. Putin also wins with similar percentages, and maybe there’s some fuckery, but our best evidence is that Putin is similarly extremely popular in capitalist totalitarian Russia.

Great argument, once again. By the virtue of simply disagreeing with me, you’ve proven yourself smarter. Wonderful job.

That’s a great statistic, >90%. Shows up all over the place in communist literature. I’m sure it’s a sign of a well functioning democracy with diverse opinions represented.

Do you think that you specifically, as a worker, would have more power under totalitarian communism? Your voice and your opinions would be taken into account by the unaccountable leaders? Do you really think you would even be allowed to critique party policy?

Lots of things can be argued in academics. The largest communist experiments have been totalitarian. The idea that democracy is a core component to a communist society is now more commonly referred to as democratic socialism.

You are acknowledging total control in both systems, but are arguing against the word totalitarian to describe them. What is your actual argument?

I was wrong, just remembered incorrectly.

Signal is not open source.

It is fair game to consider non answers as incriminating even if those comments occurred in a criminal proceeding. It is OK for an employer to look at court documents and come to a different conclusion than the jury because they are allowed to consider more context. In other words, avoiding criminal liability does not protect you from all forms of justice or consequences for your actions. Citizens absolutely should consider as much context as they can when trying to decide whether to act against their leaders.

This is not true!!! unless in the very specific context of a criminal court proceeding. In every other context, refusal to answer a question can be used as evidence against you. For a government job application, divorce/civil proceedings, and any other conversation happening outside of a court, it is fair game to consider non answers as incriminating. In some cases you can even force a defendant to answer questions if they enjoy some kind of immunity, and hold them in contempt otherwise.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

You literally just had to put a mark on a piece of paper. There’s zero obligation afterwards. You could have voted for Harris and denounced her stance on Israel at the exact same time. So many people did just that. Nobody was asking you to sell your humanity.

A large portion of Republicans, including the GHF, believe that war in Israel will bring about the end of days and they will be raptured. There was a clear choice to be made. There were lives on the line. You yourself acknowledged Trump offered a ‘bit faster genocide’. Now religious extremists are actively engaged, on the ground, in genocide while carrying an American flag. Because of the election. Because of your choice.