Closer than my attempt at nuance? I didn’t know I made an attempt at nuance yet. I thought I just vaguely gestured towards the nuance and said it exists. Can you please explain what my position is on how much I think voting can accomplish so I’m all caught up with the conversation?

The socialist alliance party is working with Israel? Wowzers, I didn’t know that! Can you provide a source, or are you making things up?

See, the problem with Dessalines’ meme is that it uses “work” as a binary category. As in, something either has no effect or it completely restructures society. It is absolutely true that electoralism can’t completely restructure society, and there are many valid explanations for why that is in communist theory. However, Dessalines reveals his lack of understanding by equating completely restructuring society with “working”.

If we were to construct a true binary between working and not working, it would be between having zero effect, and having any effect, no matter how small. The beating of a butterfly’s wings has some effect on the world, and could theoretically contribute towards a tornado that sucks up all the bourgeoisie and allows the workers to democratise the means of production. So obviously voting has some tiny effect, since it’s stronger than a butterfly’s wings. Voting works, in other words. But that’s a virtually meaningless statement if we’re constructing a binary as Dessalines did.

The correct approach is to ask “how much can voting accomplish”, and with that question we can actually arrive at an answer with some nuance and a justification from within the theory. But the binary question Dessalines asks can afford no nuance, and is obviously not supported by theory or anything else. Which proves that even if Dessalines read theory, he didn’t understand much of it.

Your use of “work” is doing a lot of heavy lifting and is very reductive. I’d recommend reading theory until you properly understand the issue, Dessalines.

Yeah, the gooner weeb likes the weeb game with the suicidal children, so complaining about a blinding joke is a bit petty

To help people with paralysis shimmy into their wheelchairs in the morning and to keep the elderly in poorly insulated homes from freezing in the night.

Are you angry on your own behalf or on the other person’s? That is to say, are you angry that the explanation that helps someone else appreciate the joke will lessen your own appreciation? Or are you worried they won’t appreciate the joke they don’t understand after they understand it?

Why does other people asking to understand a joke make you angry?

Oh, so your joke about us all being autistic was just internalised prejudice, got it

The person complaining about the blinding joke is a gooner weeb so this is a classic case of people in glass houses throwing stones.

Hot take: allism is a social disability and right here we have a perfect example of an allistic person complaining that they don’t want a joke to be explained because their allism doesn’t like clear communication. Allistic people feel an innate need to obfuscate communication because their brains need the exercise of deciphering hidden codes in everything.

What we need is a socialist revolution

The lyric from dress is about a dress. But if the lyric from wood is about wood, then that’s one long fucking dick