That’s literally exactly how my example works. You chose between $1 and $0.
No, it isn’t. Your example falls apart without the “refuse and no one gets anything” part. Unsurprisingly, when you change a major component of a scenario, the strategy best suited to the scenario often changes. Your solution to the scenario is to refuse, because the scenario you devised specifically assigns a significant outcome to refusal. Elections lack that outcome, refusal has no significant outcome.
It’s like test taking strategies. Some tests penalize incorrect answers, some do not. Guessing is a logical strategy on tests that do not penalize incorrect answers, and an illogical one on tests that do. You are suggesting a strategy which is useful in the contrived scenario you suggested, but that scenario you suggested is so fundamentally different from the actual real life scenario of elections that the strategy is not only useless, but counter productive.
if you spend any time around actual Republicans, you’ll hear them complaining about “RINOs” who don’t meet their standards
So? Come election day they vote for them anyway. That’s exactly my point. They got their representatives in, and pushed farther right.
But I don’t feel like wasting any more time with a hypocrite who doesn’t know the difference between effective praxis and liberalism. As you keep saying, it is valid to brand someone with a label when they meet the requirements, even if they disagree. You are, thus, definitively an accessory to left-fracturing propaganda. Assuming you aren’t a deliberate bad actor, I hope you eventually come to your senses. Otherwise we’re doomed to the fascism you insist on helping to cement.
Republicans winning is the “no one gets anything” outcome of a breakdown of negotiations between the democratic party and their voters. So the example holds.
I like how you completely ignored all my actual examples and focused on the one thing I said that wasn’t hard evidence, and just baselessly asserted the nonsense that “Republicans fall in line” without a single shred of evidence to back it up. It is unfalsifiable orthodoxy, assumed with no regard for how reality actually works, just like the unfalsifiable orthodoxy of lesser-evilism. Nothing you say is ever actually backed up by the facts, you’re just regurgitating the “conventional wisdom” that the ruling class told you to get you to fall in line and not cause any trouble by doing things that are actually effective.
Again, completely useless pawn seeped in bourgeois ideology, a pure liberal through and through, completely and totally cooked. Your utter uselessness and fecklessness is the reason we’re unable to change the conditions that are giving rise to fascism.
Republicans winning is the “no one gets anything” outcome of a breakdown of negotiations between the democratic party and their voters.
Ah yes, the very serious and rational leftist belief that fascists are better than liberals. Why oh why would anyone think that “leftists” who are helping accelerate fascism might be bots or trolls? Truly an indecipherable mystery.
Nothing you say is ever actually backed up by the facts, you’re just regurgitating the “conventional wisdom” that the ruling classyour tankie friends online told you to get you to fall in line and not cause any trouble by doing things that are actually effective.
Ah yes, the very serious and rational leftist belief that fascists are better than liberals
Literally never said anything remotely like this and you know it. In fact I said the exact opposite, in my analogy, liberals offer us $1 while fascists offer us $0. Proving my point again that you reject everything we actually say in favor of the shit you make up about us whole cloth.
in my analogy, liberals offer us $1 while fascists offer us $0
Yes, and by rejecting the $99-1 offer in favor of the $100-0 offer, you have expressed your belief that the $0 was better than $1. By rejecting the liberal candidate, you admit that the fascist is preferable.
“No U,” truly the height of liberal discourse.
A perfectly valid response to willful hypocrisy. A little more valid v in my case than the several times you’ve thrown it out so far.
Yes, and by rejecting the $99-1 offer in favor of the $100-0 offer, you have expressed your belief that the $0 was better than $1. By rejecting the liberal candidate, you admit that the fascist is preferable.
Completely missing the point, as always.
Of course $1 is preferable to $0. That’s why I assigned them those values. However, being “preferable” is not the same thing as “being worth sacrificing every ounce of bargaining power over.” I don’t want the Republicans to win, but if disciplining the Democratic party or building an alternative to it causes that outcome, it is an acceptable risk.
Likewise, in the experiment I presented, obviously anyone would prefer $1 over nothing, but people still reject $1 offers. It’s not really a difficult concept to grasp. You don’t show up to a car lot saying, “I NEED this car, no matter what, I must have it today!” Hell, even if it’s true at the very least you should try to bluff and feign that you might walk away (though do that repeatedly and they’ll catch on).
People like you are either the worst negotiators on the entire planet, or, you don’t actually have as much of a problem with the Democrats as you claim, and that’s why you lay down your hand before the betting’s even started.
I would love to get the chance to play that $100 game with one of you to find out which it is - I would absolutely offer you only $1, and if you refuse, I would know that you understand how stupid lesser-evilism is which would prove that you’re fine with everything the democratic party stands for, and if you take it, then I would know that you genuinely are that bad at game theory.
I truly don’t think any other culture on earth has ever produced so many people this bad at negotiating. We need to bring back haggling or something for you to learn.
I don’t want the Republicans to win, but if disciplining the Democratic party or building an alternative to it causes that outcome, it is an acceptable risk.
Exactly. Fascism was an acceptable bargaining chip. That’s the difference between you tankies and actual leftists: we care about people, and try to avoid subjecting our fellow people to fascism as a gambit.
people still reject $1 offers. It’s not really a difficult concept to grasp.
Yes. Game theory experiments have a different set of conditions and consequences than elections. They refuse because that doesn’t cost them anything. They leave the exchange neutral. There is no neutral electoral state, refusal does not fulfill the same function in the game as in elections. Refusing to vote doesn’t mean no one wins. The rules of the game do not functionally map to the rules of elections, the strategies of the one do not apply to the other.
Exactly. Fascism was an acceptable bargaining chip. That’s the difference between you tankies and actual leftists: we care about people, and try to avoid subjecting our fellow people to fascism as a gambit.
And by refusing to take that risk, you turn fascism from a risk into an inevitability. If you were actually a leftist like you say, you would understand the material conditions that gave rise to Trump and the fact that the democratic party is never going to address those conditions (at least without significant, genuine pressure). That is one of the primary reasons why we need to pressure the democratic party in the first place and why they are fundamentally unacceptable. It just guarantees fascism at a slightly slower pace.
The only ones advocating a strategy that has any possibility of averting fascism are us “tankies.” Also, I find it hilarious that you’re attempting to take the moral high ground, as if you’re the ones who “actually care about people” when you happily accept the sacrifice of countless Palestinians right now, rather than taking an approach that could potentially save them. You have already written them off as an acceptable sacrifice on the alter on which you worship the democratic party.
Your liberalism is showing again by the fact that you think the Dems winning is a perfectly acceptable outcome that doesn’t involve sacrificing anyone and doesn’t just let the crises we’re facing fester and get worse. As a “leftist,” you ought to understand how fucked we are regardless of who’s in charge at the moment, and that the capitalists aren’t going to come down from on high to save us.
Yes. Game theory experiments have a different set of conditions and consequences than elections. They refuse because that doesn’t cost them anything. They leave the exchange neutral.
This is a completely arbitrary distinction. Not getting a dollar you could’ve gotten is no different from losing a dollar you could’ve avoided losing, change the experiment to where they lose $50 by walking away as opposed to losing $49 by accepting a one-sided agreement and you’ll get the same results.
This is just nitpicking. You’re trying desperately to find any reason to avoid accepting the obvious truth. The game is only one example, in any negotiation, the same principle applies.
If you were actually a leftist like you say, you would understand the material conditions that gave rise to Trump and the fact that the democratic party is never going to address those conditions (at least without significant, genuine pressure).
Uh, yeah. Obviously. Never said that wasn’t the case.
It’s just guarantees fascism at a slightly slower pace.
Yeah. Exactly. I said this back at the beginning. A vote for Democrats is a vote for more time to prepare a functional progressive movement. The sole reason to vote for them is to keep fascism developing at the slower of the two inevitable rates, while building the material capability to apply significant political pressure.
The only ones advocating a strategy that has any possibility of averting fascism are us “tankies.”
According to you. It’s a baseless claim unsupported by history or theory.
rather than taking an approach that could potentially save them.
Did you take that approach? Did it save them? Did you get close? That “potentially” is straining the limits of logic. It could have “potentially” saved them the same way I could “potentially” win the lottery tomorrow, and I didn’t buy a ticket. It was a bad plan, it was never going to work, and now the bodies are stacking even faster.
As a “leftist,” you ought to understand how fucked we are regardless of who’s in charge at the moment, and that the capitalists aren’t going to come down from on high to save us.
Yup. And as a materialist, I know that ignoring the mechanics of elections doesn’t get you closer to a solution.
Not getting a dollar you could’ve gotten is no different from losing a dollar you could’ve avoided losing
Categorically false. Arithmetically, psychologically, just plain incorrect. Maybe if you’re a gambling addict, but in the general population we generally find losses are felt much more strongly than equivalent gains. You’re just making up poorly constructed psychological experiments, claiming what those hypothetical results would be, and extrapolating that to national politics.
You haven’t supported any of your divisive nonsense with anything more than your say-so.
No, it isn’t. Your example falls apart without the “refuse and no one gets anything” part. Unsurprisingly, when you change a major component of a scenario, the strategy best suited to the scenario often changes. Your solution to the scenario is to refuse, because the scenario you devised specifically assigns a significant outcome to refusal. Elections lack that outcome, refusal has no significant outcome.
It’s like test taking strategies. Some tests penalize incorrect answers, some do not. Guessing is a logical strategy on tests that do not penalize incorrect answers, and an illogical one on tests that do. You are suggesting a strategy which is useful in the contrived scenario you suggested, but that scenario you suggested is so fundamentally different from the actual real life scenario of elections that the strategy is not only useless, but counter productive.
So? Come election day they vote for them anyway. That’s exactly my point. They got their representatives in, and pushed farther right.
But I don’t feel like wasting any more time with a hypocrite who doesn’t know the difference between effective praxis and liberalism. As you keep saying, it is valid to brand someone with a label when they meet the requirements, even if they disagree. You are, thus, definitively an accessory to left-fracturing propaganda. Assuming you aren’t a deliberate bad actor, I hope you eventually come to your senses. Otherwise we’re doomed to the fascism you insist on helping to cement.
Republicans winning is the “no one gets anything” outcome of a breakdown of negotiations between the democratic party and their voters. So the example holds.
I like how you completely ignored all my actual examples and focused on the one thing I said that wasn’t hard evidence, and just baselessly asserted the nonsense that “Republicans fall in line” without a single shred of evidence to back it up. It is unfalsifiable orthodoxy, assumed with no regard for how reality actually works, just like the unfalsifiable orthodoxy of lesser-evilism. Nothing you say is ever actually backed up by the facts, you’re just regurgitating the “conventional wisdom” that the ruling class told you to get you to fall in line and not cause any trouble by doing things that are actually effective.
Again, completely useless pawn seeped in bourgeois ideology, a pure liberal through and through, completely and totally cooked. Your utter uselessness and fecklessness is the reason we’re unable to change the conditions that are giving rise to fascism.
Oh hey, proving my original point.
Ah yes, the very serious and rational leftist belief that fascists are better than liberals. Why oh why would anyone think that “leftists” who are helping accelerate fascism might be bots or trolls? Truly an indecipherable mystery.
Ftfy
Literally never said anything remotely like this and you know it. In fact I said the exact opposite, in my analogy, liberals offer us $1 while fascists offer us $0. Proving my point again that you reject everything we actually say in favor of the shit you make up about us whole cloth.
“No U,” truly the height of liberal discourse.
Yes, and by rejecting the $99-1 offer in favor of the $100-0 offer, you have expressed your belief that the $0 was better than $1. By rejecting the liberal candidate, you admit that the fascist is preferable.
A perfectly valid response to willful hypocrisy. A little more valid v in my case than the several times you’ve thrown it out so far.
Completely missing the point, as always.
Of course $1 is preferable to $0. That’s why I assigned them those values. However, being “preferable” is not the same thing as “being worth sacrificing every ounce of bargaining power over.” I don’t want the Republicans to win, but if disciplining the Democratic party or building an alternative to it causes that outcome, it is an acceptable risk.
Likewise, in the experiment I presented, obviously anyone would prefer $1 over nothing, but people still reject $1 offers. It’s not really a difficult concept to grasp. You don’t show up to a car lot saying, “I NEED this car, no matter what, I must have it today!” Hell, even if it’s true at the very least you should try to bluff and feign that you might walk away (though do that repeatedly and they’ll catch on).
People like you are either the worst negotiators on the entire planet, or, you don’t actually have as much of a problem with the Democrats as you claim, and that’s why you lay down your hand before the betting’s even started.
I would love to get the chance to play that $100 game with one of you to find out which it is - I would absolutely offer you only $1, and if you refuse, I would know that you understand how stupid lesser-evilism is which would prove that you’re fine with everything the democratic party stands for, and if you take it, then I would know that you genuinely are that bad at game theory.
I truly don’t think any other culture on earth has ever produced so many people this bad at negotiating. We need to bring back haggling or something for you to learn.
Exactly. Fascism was an acceptable bargaining chip. That’s the difference between you tankies and actual leftists: we care about people, and try to avoid subjecting our fellow people to fascism as a gambit.
Yes. Game theory experiments have a different set of conditions and consequences than elections. They refuse because that doesn’t cost them anything. They leave the exchange neutral. There is no neutral electoral state, refusal does not fulfill the same function in the game as in elections. Refusing to vote doesn’t mean no one wins. The rules of the game do not functionally map to the rules of elections, the strategies of the one do not apply to the other.
And by refusing to take that risk, you turn fascism from a risk into an inevitability. If you were actually a leftist like you say, you would understand the material conditions that gave rise to Trump and the fact that the democratic party is never going to address those conditions (at least without significant, genuine pressure). That is one of the primary reasons why we need to pressure the democratic party in the first place and why they are fundamentally unacceptable. It just guarantees fascism at a slightly slower pace.
The only ones advocating a strategy that has any possibility of averting fascism are us “tankies.” Also, I find it hilarious that you’re attempting to take the moral high ground, as if you’re the ones who “actually care about people” when you happily accept the sacrifice of countless Palestinians right now, rather than taking an approach that could potentially save them. You have already written them off as an acceptable sacrifice on the alter on which you worship the democratic party.
Your liberalism is showing again by the fact that you think the Dems winning is a perfectly acceptable outcome that doesn’t involve sacrificing anyone and doesn’t just let the crises we’re facing fester and get worse. As a “leftist,” you ought to understand how fucked we are regardless of who’s in charge at the moment, and that the capitalists aren’t going to come down from on high to save us.
This is a completely arbitrary distinction. Not getting a dollar you could’ve gotten is no different from losing a dollar you could’ve avoided losing, change the experiment to where they lose $50 by walking away as opposed to losing $49 by accepting a one-sided agreement and you’ll get the same results.
This is just nitpicking. You’re trying desperately to find any reason to avoid accepting the obvious truth. The game is only one example, in any negotiation, the same principle applies.
Uh, yeah. Obviously. Never said that wasn’t the case.
Yeah. Exactly. I said this back at the beginning. A vote for Democrats is a vote for more time to prepare a functional progressive movement. The sole reason to vote for them is to keep fascism developing at the slower of the two inevitable rates, while building the material capability to apply significant political pressure.
According to you. It’s a baseless claim unsupported by history or theory.
Did you take that approach? Did it save them? Did you get close? That “potentially” is straining the limits of logic. It could have “potentially” saved them the same way I could “potentially” win the lottery tomorrow, and I didn’t buy a ticket. It was a bad plan, it was never going to work, and now the bodies are stacking even faster.
Yup. And as a materialist, I know that ignoring the mechanics of elections doesn’t get you closer to a solution.
Categorically false. Arithmetically, psychologically, just plain incorrect. Maybe if you’re a gambling addict, but in the general population we generally find losses are felt much more strongly than equivalent gains. You’re just making up poorly constructed psychological experiments, claiming what those hypothetical results would be, and extrapolating that to national politics.
You haven’t supported any of your divisive nonsense with anything more than your say-so.