I feel like it’s not me, it’s the world that’s sick

We’re given everything we need and we commoditize it

We consume, we destroy, like we’re parasitic

Science tells us that it’s suicide, and still we commit - Sick Boi, Ren

WAF has consistently held me down to earth. “What will that enable you to acheive that you can’t do already?” With a couple mini pcs and a rpi I’m good. I’d love shiny things, but beyond LLMs there’s not much it would enable me to achieve that I can’t already.

That, and other hobbies. I don’t want to be an amateur system admin during the summer. So all winter long, while I’m tinkering, I’m adding up how much it adds to my maintenance schedule.

Honestly, I wouldn’t.

I only run it this way because a VPS had 0 WAF, and I’m terrified of opening ports. VPS is the well trodden ground, there’s tonnes of guides. Mine’s a hack job borne of necessity, it works though, and I am proud of what I cobbled together.

It was my first time solving my own problems. I had my meager skill set, a basic idea of what I wanted, some vague notion of how I was going to achieve it, and a thick forehead to smash against the problem till it gave way for me.

I am going to keep running it this way though. To access my server you need to HAVE a relay rPi, and you need to KNOW a password. That’s two authentication factors right there, just built in.

I use tailscale for my non-tech family.

I run a rPi with tailscale, pihole and nginx on it in their house. They connect to the their WiFi, get adblocking for free. They go to “http://homarr.sever/” pihole captures the request, sends it to nginx which reverse proxies to a homarr LXC on my server. From there they can click links to the services which are at “https://service/######.xyz”. Again, pihole captures the request, sends it to nginx which reverse proxies it over Tailscale to the appropriate LXC.

One poor soul runs a mini pc with 2 mirrored ssds attached, it runs everything above plus Syncthing. They have the privilege of running the remote back up for the server.

For apps on their phone, I intend to set their phone up with Tailscale and then just have the app go to “http://dockge:1337/”… Just as soon as I learn to write the access controls to allow admins to access everything, users to access services, and services to access nothing. I just looked and there’s a gui now so I could maybe do it this winter.

There should be both. Minimal config + gui options for people just getting into the hobby, or just want the thing. And a more open option for people who hit the limits of the first, or to do interesting shit, or to repeatably build a thing.

I go back and forth on my server. During summer I wish it was all Docker YAMLs so I can press “update” in Dockge and then enjoy the weather.

But, I also do non-typical things. Users have a rPi in their house that captures requests and routes them through Tailscale to my server for remote access without a VPS or opening ports.

I’m not too technical so I often struggle setting things up, and documentation can be less than helpful at times, sometimes I really wished there was a gui or wizard, but it’s doable.

Whenever I see it I link them to the The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States.

Then I tell them ctrl+f “slave” has 84 results. Then I ctrl+f whatever they asserted the slave war was about, and it always gets less (if any) results.

Omw, a replacement for Vikunja and Joplin? Sign me up!

Start with Pi-Hole. Use Linux (I started with Debian) to install Docker/Docker compose, Use Docker to install Portainer, and Portainer to install Pi-Hole, and literally everything else. Run it on any e-waste you have. There’s a thousand guides, it’s easy (comparatively), immediately useful and you’ll learn right quick about redundancy when you break it. Oh you’ll learn so much when you break your only instance of Pi-Hole. Watchtower messes up the updates while you’re at work and SO wants to use Facebook… You’ll learn. Also, don’t do automatic updates for a long time.

You should also learn how to read documentation and Docker’s is stellar, it’ll help you when you’re trying to implement some solo project with minimal documentation… You might hear RTFM which translates to “have you read the documentation?”.

Chatgpt is a fine rubber duck as long as you’re doing standard things on standard platforms. Explain your problem to ChatGPT as best you can and troubleshoot with it. Everything should be a place holder, give it zero details you don’t have to. Then follow the stupid steps it gives you. If it asks you if you made sure the port is what you told it you expect the port to be, go fucking check. It’s a robot, it doesn’t care how good you are just do the thing. If none of that works come here with all the checks you’ve already done so someone here doesn’t ask you if you made sure the port was 8096 in the compose file and you typed it as “8906:8096”. You will mess up simple stuff, it’s fine we all do/did, LLMs are great at covering the basics.

You’ll want to use Podman, Dockge, LXCs, what have you eventually. But Docker/Portainer are the standards. Everyone that can use Podman/Dockge/… can use Docker/Portainer, not the other way around. You’ll get more help doing standard things on standard platforms.

You learn what Docker is, how it works, what a compose file is, how they work, what maintenance is like. Then branch from there, after Pi-Hole what’s the most impactful to you, media? Jellyfin, plex & *arrs+gluetun, what’s your poison? All available through docker. Keep adding services until you cant stand the upkeep, you expand beyond your hardware, or you know you have all you want.

Docker is least effort to learn to do this stuff, you may want to out grow it eventually, but I don’t think you’ll ever not use docker/podman for something. Even when you have everything set up as a NixOS box, there’s likely gonna be a docker/podman host running something somewhere, probably a third redundant pihole.

Then tinker with what you have. Docker is good but has limitations, what is Proxmox, what’s an LXC? In summer I wish everything was on Docker so updates are painless (comparatively). In winter I’m glad I’m in proxmox and can tinker away.

My entire homelab used to live on a rPi4 running Debian, and docker doing almost everything on your list. My current pair of n100 minis can do everything on your list. I think (I’ve not tried game servers).

It doesn’t take much. Start with Debian, Docker, Portainer, Pi-Hole.

When something catastrophically breaks, it’s generally not worth chasing the solution. Good teaching moments later but by then you’ll have snapshots to revert back to. Anyway when things break catastrophically, and they will, give yourself an hour to fix it, and then just start again. It reinforces install procedures, you’ll have an idea on how you could have done it better anyways, and it’s just not worth the heart ache.

When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. -Franklin Leonard

Or, they want the genocide to stop.

Why are you still in my mentions. You can’t be trusted to say bye honestly, why should anyone trust you. Go away.

Meanwhile, I showed why your position was wrong continually, remember this:

You keep trying to frame it this way, this is wrong. The analogy doesn’t work with your substitutions. Third parties are smoking, Democrats are not smoking. Switching it around doesn’t work, the conditions are fundamentally different.

This is an assertion with nothing to back it up.

Axiom 1 Genocide is cancer, we agree genocide is bad.

Axiom 2. Voting for genocide is smoking

Axiom 3. Democrats support genocide.

For hours you couldn’t figure out why, in your own analogy, Dems were represented by chain smoking. You just kept asserting that they weren’t. Then I gave it to you step by step and you dropped it.

That’s the difference between you just asserting a postion, and me demonstrating one. That’s just one instance, remember this:

This is called a double standard. When judging others you judge them by the result of their actions and not their intentions. But you, you want to be judged by the intention of your actions and not the results.

People who oppose fascism at all costs inc genocide: well intentioned, it doesn’t matter their result.

People who oppose genocide at all costs inc Fascism: achieved nothing, it doesn’t matter their intention.

Double standards highlighted immediately. You never did see it, did you? Because your position never changed. It was still judging others’ for the results of the their actions, but demanding you be judged by your intention.

Real leftists™ (hello fellow leftists, jesus)will see your position for the obstructionary nonsense it is: demanding zero progress. Instead supporting a party, that by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so). Making the same demands the “white moderates” did for civil rights. Never accepting change until it’s forced upon them, and pretending they supported it all along.

History has lessons for you, read it, learn it, then get out of the activists’ way.

You’re right no-one is reading this far down. Fortunately, me constantly pointing out the flaws in your arguments is all up where it will be read, you didn’t bury any of it, that’s not how threads work. You misrepresented me immediately, and was called out for it immediately. You were wrong multiple time and were shown to be immediately. All where it can be seen.

None of this down here matters, you achieved nothing here, just like supporting Dems achieved nothing.

You’re going away for good? I sure hope so, but you’ve proven yourself wrong about when you’re going before.

You cannot even be trusted to leave when you say you’re going to. When your words have such little value to you, why do you believe anyone else should value them higher. Go away.

Yes, this has been you the entire time: ignoring the argument, doubling down on refuted claims, trying to reverse it when that doesn’t work, and refusing to examine your own flawed logic.

Remember kids, when losing an argument take everything you been shown to be doing and claim the other person does it. It works for DJT, surely it will work for you. -The rationalist’s guide to argument

Bye

What does it mean when someone says ‘bye’ and doesn’t leave? I mean you just said bye, and here you are again? What gives?

No, actually what gives? Imagine trying to claim any amount of bad faith on my part when you can’t even be trusted to leave when you said you were going to. You said you were going, so GO.

I have been empathetic to your claims and feel you’ve explained yourself well. Fascism=bad, genocide=bad, why you voted what you voted, and why you don’t like what others are doing was all communicated well. For what it’s worth, and at risk of repeating myself, I see damage limitation as a valid POV.

I obviously dont feel like you’ve granted me the same courtesy of empathy, and I’m sure you think I’m as confused as ever.

That’s ok, I think people reading after will understand the claim that supporting dem is a cycle of bad-worse-bad-worse, until there is no worse to go… or you change for something “good” instead of “least bad”.

I think they’ll see that a new party is a very real option it’s happened before (when did UK Labour start, who did they replace) it’s happening now (who the fuck were Reform UK last election cycle). UK is a FPTP 2 party system too.

I think they’ll see that opposing genocide is a valid and good priority have. Convincing the electorate to vote the exact right amount of genocide: can’t be too much (republican), can’t be too little (anyone else), the genocide amount has to be just right (dem). That was was a foolish campaign for dem leadership to run, blame those in power.

That’s a point, it came and went but I think they’ll see that we blame leadership (the people with the power) in every field. Except politics for some reason, then it’s the little guy’s fault. “Sure Elon musk is a cunt, but have you seen the way Jerry sweeps floors, that’s what’s really fucking the stock”, “Facebook maybe designed to be a rage inducing, attention hogging machine by the Zuck, but if we just had more users, maybe we’ll reverse the systemic alt-right pipeline”.

We don’t agree that’s fine. What I thing is not fine is that this comment was me just re-stating what I’ve already said. If I wasnt on mobile I think this could have all been quotes from previous comments. I don’t think you’ve said anything substantially new either, that must be frustrating too.

Let me know if you can be convinced that: perhaps voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might not be in your best interest. Or let me know if you think of a new reason why voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might be in someone else’s best interest. We’ve covered: they’re the ‘bad’ in the “worse, bad, worse” cycle, and you don’t want the worse, so take the bad. We’ve covered: you don’t think good will win, so you won’t vote for them, and because you won’t vote for them you don’t think they’ll win, so vote bad.

Actually, just go away. You announced your departure 5 hours ago. You’ve tried to dismiss me in every ‘thought terminating’ way you could. Why are you still here?! Why “waste your time”? Why, if I lack the ability to learn do you still harass me? Please leave me alone.

Remember kids, when you’re losing an argument, that’s not time for introspection. It was a “waste of time” - a rationalist’s guide to argument.

Bye

What does it mean when someone says ‘bye’ and doesn’t leave? I mean you just said bye, and here you are again? What gives?

We don’t agree that’s fine. What I thing is not fine is that this comment was me just re-stating what I’ve already said. If I wasnt on mobile I think this could have all been quotes from previous comments. I don’t think you’ve said anything substantially new either, that must be frustrating too.

Let me know if you can be convinced that: perhaps voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might not be in your best interest. Or let me know if you think of a new reason why voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might be in someone else’s best interest. We’ve covered: they’re the ‘bad’ in the “worse, bad, worse” cycle, and you don’t want the worse, so take the bad. We’ve covered: you don’t think good will win, so you won’t vote for them, and because you won’t vote for them you don’t think they’ll win, so vote bad.

Really? A “no u”? Grown up indeed.

Remember kids, when someone disagrees with you in a way you can’t handle. It’s not the time for introspection; they’re “confused”, “grandstanding”, “performative”, “ineffective” and “juvenile”. - The rationalist guide to argument.

I referred you to ChatGPT. After I entirely told you what was going to happen: you were going to focus on how effective they were, despite you being just as effective. Guess what you spent your whole comment doing? Complaining about how ineffective they were. So thanks, I guess?

After you had the gall to say you “didn’t criticize” people who protested genocide, in a comment full of critising them as “ineffective” and “performative”. Even if you didn’t then, you are now. It’s all same-same. You’re saying the same things now as other’s, if not you, were saying then. Which was my point you asked for a thing, they did that thing already, it isn’t good enough for you because: hypocrisy. So thanks, I guess.

You once again misrepresented me though. Your choice is to shoot for something good, or take bad. That’s irrelevant of probability. Will/may it doesn’t matter: go for an unknown good, or take one of the known bads. Shoot for the good thing. It has to be deliberate misrepresentatiom at this point.

I don’t think any reply you have will be valuable, I understand your position enough to completely predict its behaviour: them ineffective, performative, you strategic, also ineffective.

Ineffective doesn’t matter to your position, but is everything to theirs. History has no lessons for you. Other FPTP 2 party systems have no lessons for you. Anyone that disagrees with you isn’t valid: they’re “confused”, “ineffective”, “performative”, no lessons there either. No lessons for you anywhere, there are only your values, and there’s no empathy to understand other’s.

Even after all that, I still get it, the devil you know is at least known. ‘Damage control’ is a valid position to have. I get it, I really do.

Chatgpt’s reply is a bad one, but my last reply was good enough to predict what you were going to do, and it was wasted on you. Anyway, hope the robot gets through:

Yes, it has, fundamentally. Your whole argument rests on the decision to do the thing being inconsequential to the outcome. And yet, that is the reality we live in. You act as though voting blue creates material improvement, when we both agree that genocide continues. If doing “the bad thing” (voting Dem) and not doing it (voting third party) both lead to genocide, then your argument collapses under its own weight — because the outcome doesn’t change, only the story you tell yourself about it.

You keep treating symbolic dissent as “performative,” but voting for genocide because you think it’s strategic is the ultimate performance. It’s the act of saying “I hate this” while continuing to fund, empower, and normalize it. You’re mistaking participation for influence.

I oppose actions which make genocide worse, obviously, because I oppose genocide. And yet you vote for a party that continues it. I get the logic of damage control — I’ve acknowledged it several times. What I don’t get is how you can accept “some genocide” as a strategy. That’s not damage control; that’s complicity with a more polite version of the same harm.

They used effective methods, I applaud them. Those methods weren’t “effective” until they became effective — after years of being ridiculed, arrested, and told their actions were “counterproductive.” You’re praising history while ignoring the lesson it teaches.

Politics is the one field where the little guys are the ones who elect leadership. No — the little guys ratify leadership. They don’t choose it. You’re describing consent manufacturing as choice. You don’t get to blame voters for a system designed to contain them.

Stop trying to make voting do things it doesn’t do. Exactly. Voting doesn’t end genocide. It’s a participation checkbox, not a moral shield. You can vote defensively if you like — that’s your right — but don’t pretend it’s resistance. Resistance is what happens outside the ballot box.

You say you want progress; I do too. But progress doesn’t come from treating moral triage as if it were justice. “Less bad” is not a destination. It’s an anaesthetic.

If you ever decide you want to build something genuinely good, not just postpone the next collapse, you’ll find me there — still doing the good thing, even if “the bad thing may happen anyway.”

It fundamentally does. The difference between certainly and possibility is logically massive, especially when it is the core of your argument

It doesn’t:

You can do the good thing and the bad thing may happen. Or not do the good thing and the bad thing may happen anyway. May as well do the good thing. - see, hasn’t changed in tone or content in any meaningful way.

Don’t believe me?

You can do the good thing and the bad thing may happen. Or not do the good thing and the bad thing will happen anyway. May as well do the good thing.

You’re pettifogging.

You keep trying to frame it this way, this is wrong. The analogy doesn’t work with your substitutions. Third parties are smoking, Democrats are not smoking. Switching it around doesn’t work, the conditions are fundamentally different.

This is an assertion with nothing to back it up.

Axiom 1 Genocide is cancer, we agree genocide is bad.

Axiom 2. Voting for genocide is smoking

Axiom 3. Democrats support genocide.

To get cancer (1) you have to smoke (2) and voting democrrat makes you smoke (3). Therefore in your smoking analogy democrats is the equivalent to chain smoking. I’m granting republican is worse still,

You don’t like it, but it’s true. Genocide isn’t even the only “cancer” Dems give you, just an undeniable one. Good news though, you have years to quit.

Am I repeating myself? I feel like I’m repeating myself.

Genocide is a cancer, one of many that are the symptoms of supporting dem. - Me circa 21st century.

Hmm I am repeating myself. This will be a motif the comment. I’ll spare you and me, the finding of the quotes, I’ve provided this one as an example for the rest.

Supporting Democrats gave us a sitting chance of avoiding our present situation. If you’re talking about achieving nothing, you’re talking about voting third party in general elections.

This is called a double standard. When judging others you judge them by the result of their actions and not their intentions. But you, you want to be judged by the intention of your actions and not the results.

People who oppose fascism at all costs inc genocide: well intentioned, it doesn’t matter their result.

People who oppose genocide at all costs inc Fascism: achieved nothing, it doesn’t matter their intention.

It’s plain as day, can’t you see it? Here’s the thing: opposing fascism is valid (you can accept this, you lived this), opposing genocide is also valid (you can’t seem to accept this, I don’t know why). You now have the opportunity to build something that opposes both.

Again, the people protesting for civil rights before it was an effective movement were doing a good thing.

Am I repeating myself, I feel like I’m repeating myself?

Democrats win presidential races, they’ve won many times in fact, and every time slows down the Republican race to fascism.

Doomed to flip from bad to hellscape, to bad to hellscape… Or shoot for something good. Am I repeating myself? I feel like I’m repeating myself.

[Third] parties do not win presidential races, so voting for them achieves nothing. Unless you want to count splitting the vote against fascism, it certainly achieves that.

Insert me repeating Tory Vs Labour then Reform… Am I repeating myself? I feel like I’m repeating myself.

They did that with direct action. I never said anything against direct action.

Hmm

Direct action

the use of strikes, demonstrations, or other public forms of protest rather than negotiation to achieve one’s demands.

You mean like the protests? Yeah they did that. They were very much criticised for it, all the same critisms you’re making now. Remember? No? Down the memory hole that went I guess.

You support direct action done with the intention to oppose genocide? But not that direct action done with the intention to oppose genocide, I’m guessing. Because of the result of that direct action done with the intention to oppose genocide? Their results, of course, being the same results you achieved. then double standard, and on, and on, we’ll go.

Just being against something isn’t a priority. Actions that actually oppose genocide are a priority. Voting third party was not such an action.

They took many actions: they VOTED for a party that didn’t support genocide, that definitivly is an action with the intention to oppose genocide. Gainsaying it doesn’t make it not. Next you’ll complain about what they achieved, and they achieved the same results as you, then you’ll present the double standards again and on we’ll go.

But, before voting and libs (libs is a stand in, I cant be sure you specifically, but probably you specifically, definitely libs though. Phew some LW users went off) complaining about how they did or didn’t vote, they PROTESTED. Also an action with the intention to oppose genocide. Gainsaying it doesn’t make it not. Next you’ll complain about what they achieved, and they achieved the same results as you. Then you’ll present the double standards again and on we’ll go.

But, before protesting and libs (again, stand in) complaining about how they did or didn’t protest they COMMUNICATED that genocide=bad (among other cancers). Also an action with the intention to oppose genocide. Gainsaying it doesn’t make it not. Next you’ll complain about what they achieved, and they achieved the same results as you. Then you’ll present the double standards again and on we’ll go.

Here we are again at the start of the cycle, awareness is being raised. Communication is happening. Here you are again, complaining about it. Next you’ll complain about what it might acheive…

Can we call this an impasse? I feel we’ve gone full circle a couple times now. Our arguments are well explained to anyone reading our thread (no one is reading our thread).

I have been empathetic to your claims and feel you’ve explained yourself well. Fascism=bad, genocide=bad, why you voted what you voted, and why you don’t like what others are doing was all communicated well. For what it’s worth, and at risk of repeating myself, I see damage limitation as a valid POV.

I obviously dont feel like you’ve granted me the same courtesy of empathy, and I’m sure you think I’m as confused as ever.

That’s ok, I think people reading after will understand the claim that supporting dem is a cycle of bad-worse-bad-worse, until there is no worse to go… or you change for something “good” instead of “least bad”.

I think they’ll see that a new party is a very real option it’s happened before (when did UK Labour start, who did they replace) it’s happening now (who the fuck were Reform UK last election cycle). UK is a FPTP 2 party system too.

I think they’ll see that opposing genocide is a valid and good priority have. Convincing the electorate to vote the exact right amount of genocide: can’t be too much (republican), can’t be too little (anyone else), the genocide amount has to be just right (dem). That was was a foolish campaign for dem leadership to run, blame those in power.

That’s a point, it came and went but I think they’ll see that we blame leadership (the people with the power) in every field. Except politics for some reason, then it’s the little guy’s fault. “Sure Elon musk is a cunt, but have you seen the way Jerry sweeps floors, that’s what’s really fucking the stock”, “Facebook maybe designed to be a rage inducing, attention hogging machine by the Zuck, but if we just had more users, maybe we’ll reverse the systemic alt-right pipeline”.

We don’t agree that’s fine. What I thing is not fine is that this comment was me just re-stating what I’ve already said. If I wasnt on mobile I think this could have all been quotes from previous comments. I don’t think you’ve said anything substantially new either, that must be frustrating too.

Let me know if you can be convinced that: perhaps voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might not be in your best interest. Or let me know if you think of a new reason why voting for a party that, by your own admission, is bad (genocidily so) might be in someone else’s best interest. We’ve covered: they’re the ‘bad’ in the “worse, bad, worse” cycle, and you don’t want the worse, so take the bad. We’ve covered: you don’t think good will win, so you won’t vote for them, and because you won’t vote for them you don’t think they’ll win, so vote bad.

It may get the worse of the two possible outcomes (Republican power) or it may get the less bad of two possible outcomes

Distinction without difference, I was thoughtless to use the word will. Swapping it to may doesn’t change my argument over much. Options are maybe good, definitely bad, definitely hellsacpe. Doom yourself to flip from bad to hellsacpe eternally? Or try for good?

Regardless, I’ll be more careful when stating the position as less certain in future, you’re right, there is a non zero chance they win an election but, of course, there’s always the election after.

How does voting for a candidate with no chance of winning yield a good result?

For someone who just made a point of non-zero vs zero chance, I thought you would be more careful with your verbage. I made a direct acknowledgement of the mistake, and a sincere commitment to do better, I expect the same from you.

You’ve got a few years to try and increase that chance, or you can try keep people smoking, which have you chosen to do? Which do you intend to do going forward? Genocide is a cancer, one of many that are the symptoms of supporting dem. Everyone believed the UK Tories were the only alternative to UK Labour, “it’s a FPTP and therefore two party system”, then Reform started to take off. 2 party system has always been a lie. To be clear, Reform are fascist as fuck.

Good intentions with bad outcomes does not make a good thing.

Are you talking about supporting Democrats here? Supporting Democrat achieved nothing and so “Wasting [their] vote is a bad thing. [They] keep calling it good, it is not.” Everyone that didn’t vote Republican made an ineffective vote, did you vote for Trump because it would be effective? No, you didnt vote for Trump (I imagine) because it would be a bad thing to do, regardless of the outcome.

I disagree with you, the people fighting for civil rights when it was unpopular to do so were doing good. Perhaps that’s our fundamental disagreement: just because it’s unpopular (and therefore ineffective in politics) doesn’t make it not good. A lot of unpopular things are good, and the people doing them are doing good.

Voting [democrats] does not accomplish that. It makes you feel good for opposing [Fascism], while enabling that genocide to get worse. Bad thing.

Ftfy, kinda, I think opposing fascism is a valid priority to have. You acknowledged genocide is bad but can’t seem to accept it’s opposition is also a valid priority.

The smoker in this analogy is the nation as a whole, doing the good thing would be changing the outlooks of half the country.

What do you think I’m trying to do if not change your outlook?

Huge content edit to the first paragraph. Normally I just edit without fuss but it’s worth mentioning when a paragraph now says the opposite of what it did. Further, I won’t see a reply telling me which version you’ve seen before I have to leave. Hopefully you only see/respond to the edited one, being results minded.

Anyways to the edit: the original had me saying you suggested Dems were a “good”, you didn’t, they’re a bad and that’s always been acknowledged. I changed the tone to be much less confrontational too. Good conversation and all that, I’m getting tired and my natural dickishness is coming (lol) though.

No, you’re confused because your logic is bad. Logic isn’t something you can disagree with. You can disagree on the axioms you apply logic to, but you can’t disagree with the logic itself.

Ok

Axiom 1. doing a good thing (not supporting a genocide party) might get a bad result (republican power)

Axiom 2. Not doing the good thing (supporting a genocide party, genocide=bad we agree, bad!=good) will get a bad result anyway (republican power)

Therefore, you might as well do the good thing. You might get a good result, not doing so will get the bad result.

You haven’t proven the logic bad. You haven’t proven an axiom incorrect. You have misrepresented the position a couple times as I’ve demonstrated to you. This is a third time, I’m going with “misrepresented”. How many times until deliberate misrepresentation. How many until malicious misrepresentation?

I am not confused, your trying to portray me as such is a bad faith attempt to dismiss me. If I’m confused then you don’t have to think about what I’m saying. It would be like dismissing you as “genocide supporter” right? It doesn’t promote good conversation.

Voting democrat isn’t a good thing, we agree. You think it’s the necessary thing, I acknowledged that in my previous comment, thanks for ignoring it. Explaining why you think it’s the necessary thing doesn’t make me think you believe it’s the necessary thing even more. Explaining why you think it’s the necessary thing doesn’t prove it’s the good thing. (Genocide=bad, bad!=good) Therefore explaining why you think it’s the necessary thing doesn’t show my position to be illogical and was a waste of time. We both agree, you think it’s the necessary thing and I think that’s a valid POV. There’s no argument to be found here.

Voting third party does not help obstruct genocide in any way. I compared it to smoking because it feels good, it scratches an itch, but long term it’s bad.

Right, “feels good, scratches an itch but long term it’s bad” that’s supporting democrats. Damage limitation is short term feel good, but long term loss, gestures at the current state of things. Instead of damage limitation you have a few years to quit smoking, as it were, and build something better.

Or, you can do what you’ve always done (vote Democrat) and hope you don’t get more of what you’ve always got (relentless march to fascism)

Which is probably where you’re getting confused.

[…]

Voting Democrat is like not smoking.

Voting third party is like smoking.

You’re right, here is where the disconnect is. Seems strange to blame it on me being confused, can you not accept I’m a rational person in any way? Because I don’t 100% agree I have to be “confused”?

Anyways, we can drill down to just here. Is genocide bad? To those that think “genocide=bad” voting democrat cannot be a good thing, which is why you struggled so much fitting it into my argument right? You can think it’s a necessary thing, but it can’t be a good thing.

So, empathy time:

Can you accept that it’s a rational thing to assert: “genocide=bad”?

You can disagree that it is “bad enough”, damage limitation is also a rational argument right? At least I accept damage limitation to be a valid POV. I don’t think we can move on until you accept “genocide=bad” is a rational POV, not born of confusion.

Once we have “genocide=bad” it’s easy to get to “republicans=heroin”, “democrats=chain smoking” and you now have a few years to quit.

If you vote Democrat [bad thing, genocide is bad no?], a Republican might win [bad thing] anyway, so you might as well throw your vote away on a third party [bad thing]

You see how you have once again either misinterpreted or misrepresented the argument? 2nd time now, how many before we can assume deliberate misrepresentation?

Smoking was a good analogy, why run from it? Voting democrat [chain smoking] is the devil a lot of people know, and it sure as hell beats voting republican [heroin]. No argument from me: chain smoking > heroin.

But… you could quit smoking and not do heroin either.