Oh. I thought the "far left" alternative to "basic needs" would somehow lead to concentration camps.
Prunebutt
joined 1 year ago
Yeah, you're still talking no sense. What do you mean by "social group"?
Get your strawman out of here.
Ah, yes. The famous anarchist "concentration camps". /s
Nah I'm not bound by political "categories" because I'm actually capable of thinking about issues.
"I can think about issues" - continues to argue literal horseshoe theory.
What kind of democracy? Liberal democracy or the one where people have a proportional say in the matters that they're affected by?
At least some definition of "Far Left" would be more: "we're gonna get everyone's basic needs meet by exterminating entire social groups because they're impure".
What the hell are you talking about? "Exterminatidg entrire social groups because they're impure" sounds very right-wing to me.
Are you trying to peddle some weird horseshoe bullshit?
Hey! I happen to be more productive afterwards when I spend 6 hours perfecting my neovim config at work, thank you very much!
Yeah, but the real world usually revolves around more complicated questions than "do you die from lava?"
That still only covers a tiny fraction of what is reported. Objectivity in the real world is an illusion.
The joke is that not everything (or almost nothing) that gets reported can be viewed from a lens of "objective truth". Your examples wouldn't be able to give me information of a statement that someone did, or if something happened... anywhere.
Ok, let me rephrase the question, then:
Why do you engage in a conversation that you weren't a part of, if you're going to ignore the context of the conversation? That conversation contained the following, two comments before you entered:
No reason to get rude.