“Refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction” is exactly what the other poster did. My “that’s not how reality works” was the next step after “if people spontaneously see how I see voting they’d vote third party too” my argument referring to how people don’t just spontaneously change their mind and vote third party en masse.
Instead they retorted with some vague nebulous “people know how reality works” implying that people know The System™ is corrupt and flawed, which sure they get the instinct it is but don’t actually know why or how it is corrupt and flawed. Which is not what I was talking about. It doesn’t actually refute my point or the description of the exact conversation I’ve had dozens of times. It pretty much always goes the same way, as I described it.
First Past the Post always leads to 2 dominant parties, the last time in us history there was a 3rd party that won one party died and another party split itself in 2. Those conditions are what is most likely to get a third party in the US, and any amount of wishful thinking about the populace suddenly wishing up and just voting 3rd party is delusional magical thinking at best.
There isn’t much more textbook of an example of a strawman you can get in the wild.
Democrats who didn’t care either way and the Whig party just up and died in 1850 and that’s the only way a 3rd party becomes viable in FPTP. And then we just argue back and forth of “well if people just spontaneously saw things the way I do they would vote third party too!” to “That’s not how reality works.”
Your talking point scores your underlying view on the discussion. When it was presented it became open as an allowed point of discussion. As a result, refuting it does not, a straw man make. -It would make for a straw man if you had not presented the previously quoted argument in the first place and you had still gotten the same response of “people know how reality works”, but that’s not what happened.
“Refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction” is exactly what the other poster did. My “that’s not how reality works” was the next step after “if people spontaneously see how I see voting they’d vote third party too” my argument referring to how people don’t just spontaneously change their mind and vote third party en masse.
Instead they retorted with some vague nebulous “people know how reality works” implying that people know The System™ is corrupt and flawed, which sure they get the instinct it is but don’t actually know why or how it is corrupt and flawed. Which is not what I was talking about. It doesn’t actually refute my point or the description of the exact conversation I’ve had dozens of times. It pretty much always goes the same way, as I described it.
First Past the Post always leads to 2 dominant parties, the last time in us history there was a 3rd party that won one party died and another party split itself in 2. Those conditions are what is most likely to get a third party in the US, and any amount of wishful thinking about the populace suddenly wishing up and just voting 3rd party is delusional magical thinking at best.
There isn’t much more textbook of an example of a strawman you can get in the wild.
Your talking point scores your underlying view on the discussion. When it was presented it became open as an allowed point of discussion. As a result, refuting it does not, a straw man make. -It would make for a straw man if you had not presented the previously quoted argument in the first place and you had still gotten the same response of “people know how reality works”, but that’s not what happened.