Lol I’m not going to continue this conversation as if you didn’t spend the last 15 comments evading a simple question and lying by saying you already answered it.
Trying to talk with you is literally like Monty Python’s argument clinic sketch.
“Is this the right room for an argument?”
“I already told you five times.”
“No you haven’t! Where?”
“Yes I did. I did it before.”
“No, you didn’t. When, where?”
“Yes I did. I said it before.”
Absolute clown.
I conclusively proved that everything I said is true 300 times. I will refuse to point to a specific comment or quote a single line where I did it once, but it definitely, 100% happened. So, that outweighs your 5 times easily. And before you try to say you explained it 301 times, I proved you wrong infinity+1 times.
Or we could not just say bullshit and actually back up our claims, with the expectation that if you claim to have done something, you can point to a specific line on a specific comment where you have done so. I’d prefer to do that, but if you wanna go with bullshit, then fine, I just don’t know why either of us is still here then.
At this point, even if you could point to anywhere where you supposedly explained your reasoning, I would demand an explanation for why you’ve wasted so much time evading the question. This has been a completely unreasonable and unacceptable response to an extremely basic question. All you had to do was answer once and we wouldn’t be doing whatever this is.
Once again, trying to have a serious, substantive discussion with a .worlder proves impossible because y’all compulsively lie and do not give a rat’s ass about evidence, and when someone catches you doing it you just call them “crybaby” for calling it out.
You were slinging insults at me from the very beginning when you called me an accelerationist, stupid, etc. You still cannot point to even a single word in a single comment where you explained anything. What a ridiculous conversation, why would you prefer to argue so much over whether you’ve explained your position when, if you had, you could simply point to where you explained it? Because you didn’t explain it, so this is all you’ve got. Who are you even trying to fool at this point?
The point I don’t understand is how my stance doesn’t meet literally the exact definition of isolationism that you provided, in every single way, to a t. You have not explained a single link in your reasoning to arrive at that conclusion, all you’ve done is assert the conclusion over and over again with zero explanation, anywhere, whatsoever. Now you’re repeatedly claiming that you’ve explained it, without being able to point to any explanation anywhere. And now, following your complete inability to defend your absurd position, you’ve resorted to just calling me a troll.
What an absolute clown.
>Claims ridiculous nonsense
>Refuses to elaborate
>Claims to have elaborated
>Accuses the other person of being a troll
Good talk. You were always looking to laugh at me no matter what I said or didn’t say, that’s why you spent the whole conversation trolling and claiming ridiculous nonsense and pretending like you’d defended it when you didn’t explain a word of your reasoning the whole time. I don’t know whether I ever entertained “Isolationism isn’t isolationism” for a moment, you obviously only said it to troll from the start.
Cool, the last 7 of my comments contained conclusive proof that you were wrong.
I gave you my exact reasoning
Where?? Where did you even begin to explain this total and absolute nonsense? You can’t just claim to have explained it without explaining anything.
So, you can’t present any line of reasoning. Called it.
I’m not an idealist at all. You’ve said this several times now but it’s completely wrong. If anything, I’d think you’d call me too cynical. It isn’t realistic for Ukraine to reclaim all of it’s lost territory, and the war is about national interests moreso than helping the average person. How are either of those things idealist rather than cynical or realist? You’re the one who wants to keep fighting regardless of the conditions of the ground purely because you see your side as morally correct. That is idealist.
Start with proving a single lie ya crybaby.
You lied about me being an accelerationist. You lied about me not being an isolationist.
You still can’t explain any of your reasoning at all about how opposing intervention is somehow not isolationist, which, I mean, obviously you can’t, any more that you could prove that 1=2. It’s a completely absurd and unserious claim on its face.
So you’re saying you are Ukrainian?
No, I am not Ukrainian. I oppose my country’s involvement in the conflict. That is an isolationist position, by your definition.
Walk me through the chain of logic that leads you to say that I would have to be Ukrainian for my opposition to involvement in foreign conflicts to be isolationist. I know that you can’t do this, because you were just spouting off random bullshit when you asked that, but pretending that there’s some bizarre chain of reasoning behind it, what is it?
And when you can’t provide it, as you’ve been evading doing this whole time, I will be proven right that you’re just another liar.
a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.
That’s literally what I’m arguing for. How could you possibly construe that definition as supporting your position as opposed to mine?
Putin isn’t doing the Holocaust. In the case of WWII, you can point very clearly to a reason why stopping Hitler was in the class interests of the people of Europe. I never claimed to be opposed to all war, just to wars that aren’t in the interests of the average person. It’s kind of telling that you have to jump to a completely different conflict from 70 years ago instead of just making the case for the current conflict, or at least comparing it to something from recent history.
That’s also true, but I was talking more about the .world culture where you can just casually lie and make up whatever you like about the out group and everyone just goes along with it, with zero sources needed. It’s very much an echo chamber where nobody cares about evidence or truth, not just in terms of politics and world affairs, but also with people and conversations. You can go full on Yeonmi Park with it so long as you’re in the in-group talking about the out-group. I think it’s brought over from toxic Reddit culture.
That’s a completely ridiculous take. That’s not isolationism, that’s political disengagement. How do you even manage to say something so wrong?
Isolationists do not disengage from matters of foreign intervention, we actively oppose it. That’s what isolationism means, and you obviously know that.
If you actually had any confidence in your position whatsoever, you would have no problem saying that my position is isolationist and that isolationism is wrong. But instead, you’re trying to use wordplay to shift definitions in an attempt to delegitimize my position, by adopting the completely insane stance that wanting non-intervention in a conflict is somehow inconsistent with isolationism.
This is very blatant bad faith.
A one state solution doesn’t mean that everyone in Israel would have to leave. It would just mean that everyone in the region gets an equal voice in governance. Many people would probably choose to leave, in the same way many people left South Africa when their system of apartheid ended.
Trump failed in it’s execution because we were still there when he left office. Biden succeeded in it’s execution as evidenced by the fact that we are no longer there.
I will repeat my question, since you didn’t answer it at all: How do you pull out of the country, watch the inevitable collapse of the regime you spent 20 years building, and hand the county over to your enemies without it being messy and getting egg on your face?
Please elaborate how opposing military aid to a country on the other side of the world is not an isolationist stance. You just said, “because they don’t want to get involved.” That’s my stance, I don’t want to get involved.
I don’t think you know what any of those terms mean tbh. Or rather, I think you know what they mean and are pretending that they don’t mean what they do because you’re acting in bad faith.
I don’t “know” their intent on reunification of the Soviet Union and neither do you. They say the same thing in every conflict we’ve ever been in, the enemy will keep expanding forever so we have no choice but to fight. Remember “Domino Theory” from Vietnam? How’d that play out? Remember how with the War on Terror, it was “If we don’t fight them over there, we’ll have to fight them over here.” Well, we’re not fighting them over there, so where are they? It’s the easiest propaganda line ever because you don’t need any evidence and you can apply it to anyone under any circumstances.
As for a word for what you’re describing “isolationist” or “dove” would be most appropriate. Peacenik. Defeatist. Pinko. Hell, you could even go with coward, if you like. It’s not as if there’s a shortage of derogatory terms for people advocating peace, it’s a very common thing to deride, historically speaking. Just go back and look at what people were calling me when I opposed the War on Terror if you need some inspiration.
In what way is that accelerationist?
If I were an accelerationist, I would want the US to overextend into as many conflicts as possible, and I would want those conflicts to last as long as possible, in order to weaken it. I don’t, because I’m not, because that’s a lie.
That user is an accelerationist
Source?
who wants Donald to drive the US into the ground
Source?
Y’all just casually lie about people constantly, all the time and none of you ever see anything wrong with it whatsoever. You’re backing up someone who is blatantly lying, and who constantly lies about my positions. Back up their claims then, if you claim they’re not a liar, if you claim that “it doesn’t seem like they’re wrong.” Show me that you don’t just blindly accept claims with zero evidence. Show me that you’re not a liar just like they are.
Stop trying to change the subject to evade the question. How did you get from a definition that says “Isolationism is when you oppose intervention in foreign countries” to, “Opposing intervention in Ukraine is only isolationist if you are Ukrainian?” What exactly is your reasoning that brought you from point A to point B, and, furthermore, where are the “five times” that you laid out this reasoning? Give me every single one of the five or admit that you’re wrong. I’m not going to continue the conversation and just allow you to weasel your way out of that, I will not engage on any other point until you answer that.