I hate you so much for spelling fanboy with an i.

Hell, maybe someone even butt fumbled a kneel down in the closing seconds of an NFL Europe game circa 1997.

Because the stakes were infinitely higher, I would even argue that last year’s Super Bowl loss was worse. If we go back a little farther, what about the 5th down game, where the mistake was made by the refs and it ended up casting doubt on the co-national champions? If you’re referring simply to the happenings on the…

ps. Wasn’t it Friedman himself who argued against labels, advocating for ideas instead? I’m essentially making the same argument. I’ve already said elsewhere that he espouses many socialist ideas. But to label him a socialist at every turn ends all arguments before they begin. It is reductive and stupid.

I don’t remember you using any big words, but I guess that’s an okay joke. The problem is that the argument you’re making is asinine. If we were arguing for or against relativism, then maybe we could have a discussion, but we’re not. Rather, you’re making a semantic argument so petty that it makes my originally petty…

That’s a long way of saying I’m further left than American mainstream politics would ever dare to go.

This is a dumb argument you’re trying to start, so I won’t indulge it entirely, but I will say that, although I do advocate reluctantly for the lesser of two evils, I don’t belong to either of these parties, nor do I endorse their policies. If you read my post, you could probably safely assume that I have a…

I’m truly sorry for the previous response. It was out of character. I never would have said those things if I knew you were under the age of 10.

This is true, but you can go even farther back. Marx, indeed, believed that socialism was the logical step from capitalism to communism. The idea has been expounded upon in innumerable other places as well. That isn’t to say, however, that everyone believes that, this because some people see socialism as an end in and…

I can’t thank you enough for that. The number of replies I’ve received that are some iteration of, “But he says he’s a socialist!” or, “Nobody’s fully socialist!” is truly astounding.

How is it at all weasel-like to expect some level of nuance rather than categorical distinctions when describing political or historical figures? If you prefer unambiguous, non-contextualized labels, then I can provide one of those too: you’re a moron.

By no means. Indeed, none of them are blameless. Of course, I support revolution, but you can spend your time assigning blame as you see fit.

How many times can I be bothered to say the same thing? I’ll give you a list, because I presume you need one. First, read the rest of my comments on the matter. Second, read the rest of everybody else’s comments in the thread, thereby eliminating the need to parrot ten other iterations of the same thing. Third, no…

Could you even be bothered to read the rest of my comments? You’re a reactionary and your comment is almost incoherent.

My point is, again, simply that people are treating a person with varied ideas with all of the nuance of a sledgehammer. Read again, and you’ll notice that I said he is not party to any of these ideas in full. He is, without doubt, an imperfect democratic socialist, one who also moves in other directions, whether by…

How adept are you at close reading, or reading in general? How about taking the time to realize you’re the 80th person who’s made that comment in the past 12 hours, and that, even more annoyingly, I’ve already answered it elsewhere? Thank you, though. Your rhetoric is nuanced and without peer. Who would’ve thought…

Thank you for bolding that. Otherwise I never would have seen it. I need not google Murray Rothbard to know who he is (or, rather, was). You are a pedant, so I’ll match your pedantry with more of the same. I wrote this elsewhere, but it seems to have been deleted, so I’ll repost it here.

And, moreover, the term socialist is more nuanced that it is commonly considered.

I never said he wasn’t a socialist. I merely said that he wasn’t a socialist in full. That is, his political position is more nuanced than that label implies.

And I could call myself a unicorn, but it doesn’t make it entirely true. He’s also hedged quite a bit. Anyway, that’s about as apt a descriptor for him as it would be to call Trump a human.