To not answer questions put to you after you pretend to be a master debater.

not answering questions, especially loaded or irrelevant ones, is a great debate strategy.

edit:

while i think they are picking a semantic fight about a topic on which they are not prepare to engage, your engagement has been kind of shitty toward them, too. i think you could be better and still show that they are silly and ignorant of the topic.

nazis aren’t fish. i don’t care to convert them. i want to drive the back under the rock they crawled from under.

that’s not what duverger’s “law” says.

hate this idea that it’s somehow principled to allow the fascist to win.

i hate to break it to you, but the secret service is allowing him to win. the democrat-run justice department is allowing him to win. you are allowing him to win. you could stop him. but you don’t really believe he’s a threat. you’re just berating people who won’t join your team.

if i elect an average right wing conservative (which is redundant) and they go on to do bad things, which is practically guaranteed, I would not feel better.

i couldn’t do that.

but what happens if you vote for someone and they end up winning?

i think this is pretty hard to draw a direct comparison. first, a few mods/admins deciding to ban is not the same as hundreds of individuals voting. even if half of them are bots (no one games lemmy votes, though, do they?), that’s still a far cry from someone stepping in and actually silencing a user.

second, while i think you’re right about the nature of western societal control, i don’t think there is any conspiracy to enact that on .world. maybe i’m naive though.

i’m open to the possibility that you’re right, but my experience is that criticism of the cia or zionism is tolerated to a much greater degree on .world than criticism of china or soviet russia is tolerated on .ml.

can you point to specific instance-wide bannings for talking shit on us foreign policy or zionism?

Increasing the money supply, all other things equal, decreases the value of the currency. It’s that simple.

how can we test this theory? and would you ever concede it has failed, or will all exceptions be thrown under “all other things weren’t equal”?

this theory has no genuine predictive value. it’s a tautology