anything else?

I don't like it because it doesn't describe the subject.

It is contextually unsupportable. Nuclear weapons don't lose effectiveness the more you use them. They also annhilate everything leaving nothing.

A smear campaign relies upon belief which is not as reliable as the physical laws which govern a fission bomb.

The internet is the slowly growing Republican control base. As a whole, from what I have seen, the internet is remarkably right wing or at least right of center.

A better analogy is one that describes the strengths and weaknesses of the subject you're analogizing... in this case a smear campaign.

so can I go with the assumption you don't like the analogy?

My objection is not pedantry.

and that would be it?

Given that your analogy suggested a judgment and informed the rest of your argument, by removing that analogy... we leave your argument without a foundation.

How would you better put his analogy?

glad I wasted all this time writing on this just to have some ACTUALLY pedantic argument about "the effectiveness of nuclear weapon analogies"

I suggested a poison or toxin for which a biological resistance can be built up.

Nuclear weapons are not simply a weapon in and of themselves

They are also a tool of influence

Again, the more frequently they use it, the less well it works.

nuclear weapons don't work that way.

yes and the more frequently you threaten to nuke people the less they think you'll do it

The analogy doesn't work because if they do it... I build up a resistance. I don't build up a resistance to nuking.

and instead of even considering the ACTUAL argument you'll sit here having some silly argument about how nukes work

fine

lets say you replace it with your analogy

Ok, going with the poison analogy, and the build up of resistance... Have you ever considered that there are some poisons powerful enough and fast acting enough as to not allow the build up of said resistance.

now can we talk about the actual argument or no?

No, you're the one making hyperbolic argument suggesting that using effective political tactics = nuclear MAD annhilation.

the difference between business and politics is that a nation must be founded on ideals. Also "the only winning move is not to play" is a perfectly valid statement wrt increased partisanship and idpol taking over the political landscape

@TheDogOfSinope that would require both sides to have nukes. And both sides dont

All respect, Beemann, if you don't play... you concede in politics.

the current trajectory will see the credibility of both sides ultimately destroyed, if it isn't already

@Beemann This.

If I choose to not play the "accuse everyone of rape" game, how do I lose

"if you dont pick a self defeating option you lose lol"
so how are socialists winning seats

As to mutual destruction, that actually will do more to increase scrutny which will profit the republicans more.

@Beemann @TheDogOfSinope yeah this was a waste of time

seems that way, yes

The result of all this infighting is a general weakening of the host system.

The listen and believe stuff is a serious problem. Cynicism at least gets people to check and not be so gullible.

yes and you win the idpol game by not playing it

^

every time you play into the dumb side games, you increase the efficacy of those games

You came to the debate section of an internet discord server.

they're dependent on wide acceptance

that doesnt give you license to make bad faith arguments