So I thought to myself, well that’s a weird comment. It’s nonsensical in a couple of different ways.
Creating a program that does something good that wasn’t there before doesn’t somehow become a bad thing if there are ways in which it doesn’t do enough. Almost every real action which takes place in the real world represents some kind of imperfect step towards an ideal future, not like a “we got it perfect the first time and every single nook and cranny of the objective is satisfied by this, the first attempt we made to improve things.”
People who draw mostly W2 income actually aren’t “destitute” necessarily. I don’t even know where the connection came from. Most people who are struggling in life have simple taxes. Most people who are doing well have complicated taxes this doesn’t apply to. Your complaint, even taking the rest of it at face value and using some un-addressed population as a reason not to address things for the 140,000 people in the pilot program or however many millions will be addressed by this second phase, is backwards.
So I sort of wondered to myself: Why would someone be so aggressively negative in this specific way about something that almost any normal human being would look at and say “hey that’s good,” and for such weird and counterlogical reasons?
And so I looked three comments back in your history and said oooooohhhhhhhh okay I get it it all makes sense now.
Normally I would disagree with you, but yeah This Guy is actually probably a plant and a shill, but you guys throw that at so many people who don’t worship the ground Biden walks on that it is hard to trust you
The truth is, I have no idea and I don’t think it’s all that productive in most cases to try to sort it out or talk about it. I didn’t actually say anything at all about what the person was; I simply highlighted flaws in their argument and linked to one of their other comments and let the reader draw their own conclusions. In this case I think they were so self explanatory that I didn’t really need to indicate any of what my conclusions were.
But… to deal explicitly with my conclusions, I’ll say that in almost every case where there’s some kind of weird nonsense-logic, and then poking through the person’s history instantly yields some “let’s not vote for Biden” advocacy, I do personally tend to draw the conclusion that they’re a political shill. If I saw a bunch of geopolitical stuff or extended arguments about Marxism then that would tilt the scales in favor of tankie (although like I say, this is only my private logic about it, not like anything I would present as conclusive, because it’s basically impossible to tell.) Going into mainstream political forums and getting real vocal about how people involved with mainstream US politics are supposed to engage with it doesn’t strike me as real common tankie behavior.
Going into mainstream political forums and getting real vocal about how people involved with mainstream US politics are supposed to engage with it doesn’t strike me as real common tankie behavior.
Really? Hm. Maybe I’m using it wrong, it seems like that’s a big thing they do. Like we don’t support third parties because we’re terrible liberals who love war, and not because third parties have zero chance and almost always hurt the chance for progressive reforms. (Also ‘liberals love war’ is just Qanon level batshittery, I just can’t)
I classify most of those people as shills. The people who want to talk about communism or anarchism or pro-China/Russia-ism, and lack of any interest or hope for US electoral politics as kind of an outgrowth of that but US electoral politics is not the main thing they are interested in focusing on, I classify as probably authentic tankies.
Like I say, of course, I have no idea. That’s just how I write it down in my head.
I looked back in my history as an exercise in self criticism, and I found many many recent instances of me arguing with people I’m pretty sure are shills without bringing that accusation into it in any capacity, because usually, it’s not relevant and I think just dealing with their arguments at face value is more productive. And then, I found a comment from a few days ago where I called the Biden administration “fuckin assholes” about their support for Israel.
I won’t say that back further ago than that, you won’t be able to find me accusing someone of being a shill, because you will. I will say something about it in cases like this where it’s (a) hilariously obvious and (b) relevant to the conversation on a level that makes bringing it up productive, in addition to dealing factually with what they’re saying. But I actually don’t say it nearly as often as I think it. I won’t speak for how anyone else likes to do their internet arguments, but just as far as my conduct is concerned I’m pretty sure you’re just making up a convenient reality that doesn’t exist. Both of your main accusations here have nothing to do with the actual reality that exists in the real world.
I’m not sure why you’re committed to saying something “rebuttal-like” here, instead of just “yeah that guy’s full of shit” without any “but” attached afterwards, athough I have a theory.
(Also, this conversational pattern – where one person who is pretty clearly a shill expresses a statement, and someone does a rebuttal, and then the first person disappears completely and someone different instantly jumps in and starts conducting the conversation or attacking the rebutter – happens often enough and is slightly-unusual enough that I think that pattern is worth pointing out, also.)
Sure. My question is, why such a concerted effort to look for bad things about such a clear win?
Like would it work the other way? If the IRS was making life more difficult and expensive for everyone making W2 income under $79k, would you be out here saying well I guess an L is an L, but let’s remember it only applies to W2 earners and only some of them and anyway it’ll probably get overturned later on and I want to highlight the program’s important limitations and etc etc, instead of just saying “that’s a bad thing” like a normal person?
So I thought to myself, well that’s a weird comment. It’s nonsensical in a couple of different ways.
So I sort of wondered to myself: Why would someone be so aggressively negative in this specific way about something that almost any normal human being would look at and say “hey that’s good,” and for such weird and counterlogical reasons?
And so I looked three comments back in your history and said oooooohhhhhhhh okay I get it it all makes sense now.
Normally I would disagree with you, but yeah This Guy is actually probably a plant and a shill, but you guys throw that at so many people who don’t worship the ground Biden walks on that it is hard to trust you
Doesn’t look like a plant or a shill. Looks like a tankie.
The truth is, I have no idea and I don’t think it’s all that productive in most cases to try to sort it out or talk about it. I didn’t actually say anything at all about what the person was; I simply highlighted flaws in their argument and linked to one of their other comments and let the reader draw their own conclusions. In this case I think they were so self explanatory that I didn’t really need to indicate any of what my conclusions were.
But… to deal explicitly with my conclusions, I’ll say that in almost every case where there’s some kind of weird nonsense-logic, and then poking through the person’s history instantly yields some “let’s not vote for Biden” advocacy, I do personally tend to draw the conclusion that they’re a political shill. If I saw a bunch of geopolitical stuff or extended arguments about Marxism then that would tilt the scales in favor of tankie (although like I say, this is only my private logic about it, not like anything I would present as conclusive, because it’s basically impossible to tell.) Going into mainstream political forums and getting real vocal about how people involved with mainstream US politics are supposed to engage with it doesn’t strike me as real common tankie behavior.
Really? Hm. Maybe I’m using it wrong, it seems like that’s a big thing they do. Like we don’t support third parties because we’re terrible liberals who love war, and not because third parties have zero chance and almost always hurt the chance for progressive reforms. (Also ‘liberals love war’ is just Qanon level batshittery, I just can’t)
I classify most of those people as shills. The people who want to talk about communism or anarchism or pro-China/Russia-ism, and lack of any interest or hope for US electoral politics as kind of an outgrowth of that but US electoral politics is not the main thing they are interested in focusing on, I classify as probably authentic tankies.
Like I say, of course, I have no idea. That’s just how I write it down in my head.
Fair enough. I just think of “shill” in a context of paid advertiser or, well, useful idiot. Yeah, ok I could see that.
A tankie… Do you even what the term means lol
I looked back in my history as an exercise in self criticism, and I found many many recent instances of me arguing with people I’m pretty sure are shills without bringing that accusation into it in any capacity, because usually, it’s not relevant and I think just dealing with their arguments at face value is more productive. And then, I found a comment from a few days ago where I called the Biden administration “fuckin assholes” about their support for Israel.
I won’t say that back further ago than that, you won’t be able to find me accusing someone of being a shill, because you will. I will say something about it in cases like this where it’s (a) hilariously obvious and (b) relevant to the conversation on a level that makes bringing it up productive, in addition to dealing factually with what they’re saying. But I actually don’t say it nearly as often as I think it. I won’t speak for how anyone else likes to do their internet arguments, but just as far as my conduct is concerned I’m pretty sure you’re just making up a convenient reality that doesn’t exist. Both of your main accusations here have nothing to do with the actual reality that exists in the real world.
I’m not sure why you’re committed to saying something “rebuttal-like” here, instead of just “yeah that guy’s full of shit” without any “but” attached afterwards, athough I have a theory.
(Also, this conversational pattern – where one person who is pretty clearly a shill expresses a statement, and someone does a rebuttal, and then the first person disappears completely and someone different instantly jumps in and starts conducting the conversation or attacking the rebutter – happens often enough and is slightly-unusual enough that I think that pattern is worth pointing out, also.)
I didn’t say it wasn’t good, just highlighted the programs’s limitation. U weaved this story around it lol
Let’s see if the tax prep lobby will allow them to love beyond pure w2 wage slaves.
So you think it’s a good thing, just doesn’t go far enough / needs to be extended further in the same direction in the future?
My bigger concern is that it won’t happen due to the strong lobby, yes
W is a W, and starting from the bottom makes sense.
But between income restrictions and complexity thresholds…
Why does it have 79k agi limit? What purpuse does this limit serve beyond sending people earning more to paid clowns…
If limit is w2 then just make it w2 jfc
Sure. My question is, why such a concerted effort to look for bad things about such a clear win?
Like would it work the other way? If the IRS was making life more difficult and expensive for everyone making W2 income under $79k, would you be out here saying well I guess an L is an L, but let’s remember it only applies to W2 earners and only some of them and anyway it’ll probably get overturned later on and I want to highlight the program’s important limitations and etc etc, instead of just saying “that’s a bad thing” like a normal person?
It seems your issue is my delivery which is all good but that’s how I choose to deliver my message.
I don’t provide factually incorrect info, if I do, please correct me.
I have no issue with learning!