Apologies for not researching your whole post history, but I don’t see how that’s relevant anyway. If its no big deal, why the fuck are you spending so much time and effort defending it, arguing with people who pointed out your error?
Not actually spending that much time.
There’s no error, again, many are overthinking this whole damn thing.
It’s not about “equivalency”. Like I’ve already said, it’s not as deep as you think it is.
Just think of a party, insert it in the given place, and the statement most likely still works in one way or another. It’s that simple.
E.g. If socialists were capable of using logic, they wouldn’t be socialists. It’s just a versatile statement. Even works with libertarianism which is closet to my own position, as in the context of libertarian partys unfortunate tendencies to perpetuate racism; e.g., inconsistencies between ideals like individual rights and how some actors/coalitions actually behave.
Bruh
Apologies for not researching your whole post history, but I don’t see how that’s relevant anyway. If its no big deal, why the fuck are you spending so much time and effort defending it, arguing with people who pointed out your error?
Not actually spending that much time.
There’s no error, again, many are overthinking this whole damn thing.
It’s not about “equivalency”. Like I’ve already said, it’s not as deep as you think it is. Just think of a party, insert it in the given place, and the statement most likely still works in one way or another. It’s that simple. E.g. If socialists were capable of using logic, they wouldn’t be socialists. It’s just a versatile statement. Even works with libertarianism which is closet to my own position, as in the context of libertarian partys unfortunate tendencies to perpetuate racism; e.g., inconsistencies between ideals like individual rights and how some actors/coalitions actually behave.