OK, stranger.

You’re absolutely right: dismissing anything you don’t want to hear as “propaganda bullshit” is a much easier way of having a discussion than participating.

He does this because - it may surprise you to hear, but it’s true - America does not have a parliamentary system of government. Here, everybody left-of-nazi is forced to pretend like they are all members of the same party. If America’s system de facto allowed for more than two parties, then the progressive party could actually choose whether or not to form a coalition with the centrists, conditional on policy concessions. Since we do not, the centrists offer is “we get what we want or else you get nazis.” Then make the progressives out to be the bad guys if they call the bluff, which isn’t a bluff, because the centrists today genuinely would prefer 4 years of nazis over conceding anything to progressives.

So, exactly like the top level comment described. Weird take.

Ah, of course. America’s communist party should be trying to form a coalition government in Parliament this year. Literally equivalent.

It may not have been a weird take in the early 20th century. It’s a weird take now.

That comment was not referring to literal nazis. They were talking about the American right wing.

Counterpoint: he’s controversial because of what he says and does, not because of lies people tell about him.

The question was, “How do you deal with depression about climate change?” Maybe voting in local elections does that for you (singular), but it may not work for you (general).

Already doing that. No change in material conditions, still depressed. Next idea?

Well then it becomes a logistical question. How?

100mg of ketamine every day, half in the morning, half in the afternoon.

So your solution to depression about climate change is, “singlehandedly accomplish what all of the non-evil politicians have been trying and failing to do for decades, but do that while both powerless and depressed”?