I guess you aren’t going to stop replying in bad faith. I guess I will have to stop replying. The offer stands, however.

Happy to help you understand when you are ready

I’m always available if you would like to engage in good faith.

Being “ready” means nothing, it is just a thought in your head. Praxis requires that you act. You aren’t ready for an uprising if you aren’t actually organizing towards one yourself. And I have yet to meet a successful revolutionary organizer that tries to sheepdog for literally genocidal Democrats.

I haven’t advocated for “doing nothing”, I have advocated against supporting genocide from both a moralizing and electorally strategic angle. I choose these angles because it is the language most people will understand and because the propaganda that I oppose in the process teaches people to give up leverage and cheerlead, which is literally disempowering.

If people want recommendations on something positive to do, I would recommend joining the Uncommitted Movement if you prefer electoralism. If you are interested in politics that also extends beyond electoralism, I would be happy to provide advice on any local groups and reading materials.

If I didn’t want to say xenophobic things I would simply not use Chinese as a derogatory term and then launch into anti-China paranoia as a coping mechanism, inventing fealties from whole cloth.

I am here if you need any help understanding.

We’ve reached, “I have black friends” levels of racist coping.

Thank you for openly confirming your sinophobia.

I never did that. You projected that, and just now, lied about it.

No, it can be understood from how you use the terms. You are adding “Chinese” as a bit of negative spice to your false claim that I am lying or spreading false propaganda. When challenged on this, you attempted to (incorrectly, this is not how language works) redefine “Chinese” to mean “CCP” and, per the typical crypto-sinophobic incantation, not the Chinese people. You then continued to interchangeably use Chinese and CCP as negative epithets.

Your attempt at redefinition actually just dug a new hole. You could just say, “oh wow I don’t mean to suggest that, I will stop” instead of doubling down on treating Chinese like an insult.

I do. I clearly defined the usage, and don’t give two shits about projection from you, or your twisting of the definition.

Your conflation of something being Chinese with something being bad is xenophobic regardless of whether you want to pretend you can redefine it to mean something it doesn’t.

You have claimed, falsely, that China isn’t escalating violence against its neighbors.

I actually haven’t said anything like this. Please provide quotes with your claims because your recollection is incorrect.

Everyone can see that you are, in fact, a CCP shill.

Is that so? When can I expect to receive a check for my valiant effort in knowing installing a nuclear-capable missile is far more escalatory than the tiniest airspace toe dip of a flight path over ocean? Only the finest in professional propagandists could have such an opinion!

They will not exist so long as you vote for “lesser evil” genociders. Why would there be? You still vote for them! They don’t need to listen to you at all and will gladly continue the project that is in their overall material interest in supporting Israel. You show up in their databases as, “Likely Democratic voter” and so they send some volunteers to try to get you to vote and they ask you for money. That is how you are thought of, and I mean this literally. That is how they curate and use their information. The rest is PR for how to ensure you don’t take these looney anti-genociders too seriously.

There is no “push from there” without leverage. If they don’t do what you want, what are you going to do? With what power? If you mske a threat, why is it credible? We are kept docile and ineffective through electoral illogic that serves the interests of the existing political class and cannot imagine gaining or wielding power in any practical way.

What is the logic for supporting 99% Hitler when you could actually choose to work against 99% Hitler and Hitler himself? This is genocide, not a marginal tax bracket you can lesser evil about. The systematic destruction of a people is as bad as it gets, generally speaking.

If you support this and tell other people to vote for it, you are complicit.

You sound upset and are not saying particularly coherent things. It’s okay if you want to take some time to collect yourself, I don’t care about the timeline on which you respond.

For example, you seem upset about perceived personal attacks even though I made none, but seem giddy to be insulting me. Ask yourself if this is correct and good behavior and if you believe you are following the golden rule. Presumably you were taught these things growing up.

Re: it being a reconaissance plane, this is still not an actual offensive weapon nor is it comparable to something banned because it was meant for nukes.

Re: DF17s, if your argument is that parity is justified then you would presumably justify Chins increasing the size of its military and weaponry about 10X and establishing several large bases circling the US, right? Or would you interpret this as a threatening escalation that must be met with even more weapons and capabilities encircling China?

In the context of this particular discussion, China = The CCP ≠ The Chinese people.

I dunno, I think Chinese means Chinese. It sounds like you just throw this around as an epithet and it is sinophobic. Please do some reflection on whether you are okay with xenophobia.

As far as which one are lies? Your entire post history is nothing but Chinese propaganda and lies.

Name one from this comment chain.

It’s not xenophobic to call out CCP bullshit like the shit you are spouting.

Such as?

That’s called being a good human.

I don’t think it’s good human behavior to use xenophobic rhetoric.

The Biden-Harris administration will say they are troubled and then provide $3 billion more to Israel.

Just because a weapons platform is capable of using nuclear warheads doesn’t mean we are going to hand said warheads over. The system has plenty of conventional warheads.

The weapons system was prohibited specifically because of its use with nuclear weapons. This is its distinguishing feature. This is the “message” being sent, though it also isn’t just a message because it is an actual offensive weapon.

Deployment of a weapons system as a deterrent is proportional.

It is obviously not.

You’re spreading Chinese lies.

I am? Which ones? Are Chinese lies a special kind?

Sounds to me like you are flirting with xenophobia.

Cluster bombs and mines are sacrificing so much future Ukrainian life.

I’m holding out for titanium do I can add it to my EDC loadout and totally dunk on that loser Travis at the office.

Sounds like you have no counterarguments. And I did not issue any personal attacks, though clearly your comment is just a hackneyed attempt at insulting someone with a realistic political understanding. Or do you think it is a personal attack to lightly make fun of absurd claims? One can only guess.

You’re such an expert on Russia that you have never heard of defenestration.

I said I didn’t understand the sentences, not individual words. Ironic that your response is condescending despite your simple error.

I bet you haven’t heard of any of these people either.

What about it?

I can only understand your point if you actually state it coherently. I would prefer not to guess.

When was the last time Russia officially released casualty figures? It hasn’t since the very beginning of the war. And even then they were laughably inaccurate. Instead they have been saying that everything is going according to plan.

This is irrelevant to anything I’ve said. What is your logic, here? What do you think you are responding to?

UK, Economist, Ukraine. They all agree on this.

I asked for your best source. You listed two nation-states and the name of a magazine.

Again: show me your best source. You have a very specific claim. Where does it come from? There are numbers. Show me those numbers.

You didn’t understand my answer.

No, I did understand it - as a deflection that avoided answering my question. Please try again in good faith.

Yes, it does. You said Russia can easily trade with the outside world. Going through middle-men in not easy, cheap or fast.

You are confused. What actually happened is that you asked me why Russia was using middlemen and I answeted that it is because they provide an easy way around financial restrictions. You are now trying to quibble about the meaning of “easy” and introducing quantities like expense and delay, but this does not actually address anything meaningful in my response. I think you have forgotten why you even asked the question. You even left out half of my original response, lol.

The financial reports of Uralvagonzavod. At least it gives and upper bound to the number of tanks they are able to produce.

Is that so? Can you show me these financials?

You have done nothing of the sort

Please try to be less contrarian and instead participate in good faith. It is an obvious truth that I have mostly been poking holes in your claims. This, combined with yiu not asking questions, is why you are now so frustrated that I’ve asked you for further backing for your always-multiplying claims and I haven’t had to provide additional specifics on basically anything.

You have ignored the direct evidence I have provided

I have actually quoted and responded directly to everything you have said. Please do your best to be accurate in your statements.

instead kept stead arguing that you are correct while providing no evidence for it.

I have provided plenty of specifics comporting with my claims but my offer still stands for teaching you how to ask questions.

You are not comparing like for like. You are taking figures from a time period when Russian figures were even worse. […]

It is countries comparable in different ways and it is within the last few years. It shows that the current inflation rate is within norms that make some people hand wring but nothing like an emergency. If we wanted to really dive in we would need to look at real wages. Again, you are objectively wrong that this is much worse. It is okay to admit when you are wrong about something.

For comparison, what is Argentina’s current inflation rate?

The reason there wasn’t is because USA was just about the only industrialized nation capable of mass producing things after WW2. […]

Oh, so you know that the vague generalization you made is wrong? Glad we are in agreement, then.

The mental gymnastics you have to go through to keep your opinion without providing any evidence on full display.

No, that was an example of basic humility and then moving forward. The fact that it seems alien and wrong to you may explain why you keep choosing to die on absurd hills and multiply incorrect attempts at nitpicking. Ask yourself why you can’t just say, “a 7% yearly inflation rate is in line with comparable countries in the last few years”. Would it mean that PUTIN WINS!?

Just a few comments ago you were arguing that wages weren’t rising and now they are.

No I wasn’t.

I suggest you do the same.

The salient difference here is that I do that and you don’t. Another trivial fact that you must, against all reason, dispute.

Which is it?

The two are not incompatible. I will wait for you to think about it and then tell me how you think that could be the case.

You have made specific claims that you have never proven or have been proven be factually incorrect.

Only one claim, actually, and it was just me forgetting the newer stats and instead recollecting of the ruble from last year. This is not comparable to 20-30 specious claims. It is also quite different in that I easily acknowledge a trivial error and move on while you (1) double down on every absurdity with new silly generalizations and guesswork and (2) seem to think that it is actually a bad thing to acknowledge a trivial error and move on.

Very revealing.

Even when I have repeatedly asked for proof you have not provided it.

You’re just making things up, now. Show one (1) example of you repeatedly asking for proof and me not doing do.

Instead you have demanded that I do all the heavy lifting. Which I am no longer willing to do.

No, I’ve just asked you to back up claims. It’s not my fault you have decided to make so many, and while clearly hastily Googling things. There would be fewer if you could acknowledge the obviously true things I say instead of trying to pick new fights about them.

Good day, sir.

Please avoid the use of gendered assumptions.

Yeah, the person above you seems to be ignoring the fact that them breaching their air space for the first time is an escalation, not to mention China has generally been escalating it’s rhetoric recently.

Surely this makes offensive missiles designed for nukes a proportional response to a plane with no weapons briefly dipping a toe into Japanese airspace over ocean on one of its several circles.

I haven’t ignored anything, I’m just aware of how absurd this is. No one saying this is a reasonable response can claim to care about escalation.

It could be argued that China is feeling pressured to escalate (due to external events or US escalating trade/policy stances), but threatening a missile system is more signaling “keep this up and we’ll respond”.

By nuking them?