What argument? 20+ arguments were made. Which one am I meant to address?

If I focus on one you'll jump on me for not addressing the 19 others, which is why it's a bullshit tactic.

Yes. That's correct.

I choose not to waste my time. What do you do when dealing with bad-faith actors?

When everyone you meet is an asshole, you are probably the real asshole.

Funny how this works with social media as well.

That's a fair question and in all honesty the answer is no, because based on what I can easily see and understand of hexbears, they aren't intellectually serious people and to the contrary are more akin to a kind of 4-chan trolling community than anything worth actual intellectual engagement.

I could be wrong, but so far I have yet to see any evidence as such.

If you have to ask...

As if Hobbes' Leviathan isn't a thing. Thanks, but no thanks. This is a pedestrian understanding of reality, and one with which I have zero desire to engage.

Good day.

Precisely my point. My degree in poly sci means nothing, you guys somehow "know" better than me.

It's a huge part of why no one who matters actually takes you seriously.

You are not intellectually serious people, you don't actually care about honest and open discussion of ideas, you are far more interested in policing language than you are in constructive conversation.

As if it's somehow impossible to make a long comment in support of a single argument? As if Gish galloping comments don't actually exist? Do I follow your logic properly? What part about this do I not understand?

Yes, because engaging with hexbears is a waste of time. They are not here in good faith. Either that or they don't know any better, which in practice amounts to the same thing.

When everyone you meet is an asshole, guess what? You're the asshole.

Said no one. Except you. You either know what a Gish gallop is, or you don't. A long comment is not necessarily a Gish gallop. In this case the charge is entirely accurate.

That's precisely the point. These guys have a toolbox of fallacious arguments and techniques that they regularly trot out. The Gish gallop is one of them. Another, that you see being put to wide use in this thread, is redefining words and terms to fit their narrative.

It's their go-to move. They'll do it every time. Redefine the terms and words in ways that are favorable to their positions. It's what one does when they have no objectively sound arguments. Again, pay attention, watch for it. They do it every single time.

"I hereby appoint myself the final arbiter of all terms and definitions!"

All you guys do this, for obvious reasons.

In this context, in political science, "authoritarian" does in fact have a very specific and well-defined meaning. Pretending otherwise just excludes yourself from the conversation. Maybe that's for the best.

I love how you guys have decided that your definitions are the only correct ones. It's your primary weapon here, for obvious reasons.

Don't bother friend. I know from long experience that they will insist on defining the terms of the discussion on their own, as if some whack job fringe theorist is somehow to be accorded the final word in adjudicating our use of language.

The problem therein is of course that when your opponent gets to set the parameters of meaning and discussion, you aren't really exchanging ideas on an intellectually even playing field.

I've pointed this out many times over the years, but it still hasn't taken with your true believers/idiots.

Long story short; don't waste your time; you aren't arguing with good-faith interlocutors.

They are playing semantic games and have no interest in honest discussion.

To them. You and I are simply uneducated morons who have yet to receive the true message.

Ah yes, the tyranny of small differences. Let us tear each other apart over this trifling distinction.

Fact; fascism falls under the larger umbrella of authoritarianism.

Good. I appreciate the lack of condescension. I still think you are wrongheaded in your analysis, but I am happy to cordially disagree with you while not infantilizing your arguments.

As for China, I think what's notable is that it was able to use command capitalism to achieve its admittedly phenomenal economic success specifically on the back of capitalism.

But now China is facing demographic collapse together with a collapse of its real estate market.

It's in the rest of the world's interest to mitigate China's coming economic difficulties as much as we can, but there's only so much we can do for an economy built on a house of cards.

Mark my words; China is in deep shit economically, and it will be a huge deal in the coming years.

And your point is?

We are

Born like this

Into this

Into these carefully mad wars

Into the sight of broken factory windows of emptiness

Into bars where people no longer speak to each other

Into fist fights that end as shootings and knifings

Born into this

Into hospitals which are so expensive that it’s cheaper to die

Into lawyers who charge so much it’s cheaper to plead guilty

Into a country where the jails are full and the madhouses closed

Into a place where the masses elevate fools into rich heroes

-Charles Bukowski