this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
132 points (82.4% liked)
Anarchism
1286 readers
1 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sounds like they unified against you fairly well.
That they did.
I've only experienced that from them since I've known them. Not one wants a good faith discussion until you grovel to their fundamentalist tripe. Unity to them means blindly following their half-understood theories of centuries-dead men, and anyone who questions a lick of it gets the 4chan swarm treatment.
OP literally did not attempt to have any discussion of any kind, and explicitly said they had no interest in doing so
that's the definition of "not in good faith" homie
Can't exactly have a good faith argument if the post gets brigaded.
No, good faith argument is being a debatelord, as was explained to me at length in the last post. People who just happen to see the post and respond are all brigading if they come from an instance that has a cross-post. Them's the rules.
Don't bullshit me that there is a proper way to argue with that fucker, he demonstrated at length that there was not.
I don't think I've ever seen a sealion so mad before.
Fuck off, all you can do is call names and be smug, there is no point talking to you
You literally came into my thread and started insulting me to third parties, baby. Don't act all huffy when you take what you give.
You're clearly angry because I didn't engage with your sealioning. Take a break. Not everyone owes you attention.
You made a post calling us all out wtf did you expect.
who broadcast a meme to all of lemmy arguing that modern MLs are treacherous murderers who must be defeated in real life?
Not quite what the meme said, and also, it's a meme. For people frequently chanting about death to various things, y'all are surprisingly literal.
You can't use this cop-out like it's a joke whenever it's rhetorically convenient for you, especially when you said in the comments that you completely meant it.
[Yes, I was baited again despite earlier doing the healthy thing of disengaging, that much is not on you]
Yes I did mean not to trust tankies.
Then what the fuck do you say "it's a meme" for? What useful information does that convey? Because clearly you're serious about it and have been told that that response comes off as you saying "it's just a joke bro"
Look mate, "it's a meme" means it's not going to be particularly nuanced in its criticism. It's meant to ellicit cheap laughs through simplifying some parts. Y'all have a brain, you can certainly see which parts are exagerrated for these purposes. Your comrades were certainly capable of starting nuanced discussions about Catalonia based on this understanding.
Honestly, I think you are all playing dumb in order to get some gotchas.
I have no interest in gotchas, what I am seeking is a clear and consistent position. Obviously others who know more about the Spanish Civil War know that it's depiction of Stalin as killing anarchists rather than merely supplying them with 75% of their tanks and no more is a wild misrepresentation, and you still have yet to clarify who the "intellectuals" in Mao's case even refer to.
My further point is that this bizarre blanket characterization of MLs as butchers, including of people that they did nothing but help, is gross historical revisionism pandering to the preconceptions of people who frankly have next to zero historical understanding when it comes to the groups it refers to. It is in fact poor conduct to stand by such a message whether it is "just a meme" or communicated by any other medium, just as I am very careful to limit my accusations of, say, Nestor Makhno only to what the most sympathetic of biographers admit of him (since I personally do not know about the proof of other claims).
I don't particularly have to play by your personal rules. For me the original meme is exagerrating historic events (I already explained why) in order to make a simple point "Don't believe in left unity and be wary of tankies". This is the part I agree with. And before you ask, I don't have to justify myself to anyone, especially when they're typical condescending MLs.
I left the comments open so y'all can counter all the claims in the meme in as much depth you want. I literally gave you full platform access. Y'all prefer to use it to shitpost instead 🤷
You are accusing someone of killing people that he did nothing but help, but simply helped inadequately.
You have no idea who the "intellectuals" even are, do you?
If you're a leftist, don't you think promoting red scare myths is probably bad for understanding history.
Edit: I will repeat what I said a while ago that I have never said that you have to do anything. It is a classic deflection to change the question of what you should do to what you can do. You can do anything you want, deny the Holocaust to own the tankies, I can't stop you, but that doesn't mean you should.
Complete aside, I would never tar anarchists like you tar MLs. There are many anarchists, like Sholem Schwartzbard, who I think were admirable in action and character, and MLs learning from anarchists as Mao did was a good thing.
I don't know how many times I have explained what "this is a meme" means. It's never going to be perfectly accurate or nuanced. There's plenty examples of tankies directly sabotaging and killing anarchists which makes many many anarchists not trust left unity. I don't understand why this is such a difficult idea to maintain.
You shouldn't need to fabricate history to make that point then. The difference between "not giving someone enough tanks" and "summarily executing them" is not merely a matter of "perfect nuance and accuracy", it is a morbid fantasy.
Also it's just sort of poor form to make claims about things you have no idea about, like Mao and the "intellectuals"
Lastly, I'll repost the late second edit you probably missed from earlier:
Arglgbl, I just crossposted the meme, at the spur of the moment no less. I didn't make it! I felt that it was an exagerration but nevertheless good enough for a meme. Cheezus.
Very noble of you, but A) you don't know my lived experiences with tankies, and B) MLs calling anarchists immature, naive and being generally insufferably patronizing is probably older than Lenin and basically the total experience I've had with hexbear the last 2 days :D
Then the recommendation I'd offer is to not cross-post shit that's bad. You probably didn't know the history of Catalonia (there were things in the discussion that I don't know), but just sort of went off of a cold war vibe in your head that most murder accusations of MLs are probably true "enough". You certainly made at least a bare effort, after it was pointed out to you, to make the meme less racist, but you showed no interest in making even the same guy have a remotely true mass-murder accusation next to his name.
Also the whole "MLs calling for left-unity" thing is, well, ahistorical aside from the United Front, which worked out perfectly well for its purpose of fighting the Nazis. Hexbear says that, but the figures listed did not (idk about Khrushchev, but fuck him).
So it's basically just contempt completely warping your view to the point of accusing people of lies when they neither said what you claim nor did what you claim after.
They sure as shit didn't murder you. Were your buddies subjected to some 21st century ML firing squad that I've never heard of?
You know what all this is? Not murder! You'd still get complaints from people who can't take a joke, but if you just called MLs patronizing to start with, you'd actually have a valid point
I do know the history of Catalonia. I just don't want to debate it.
Man, it was going to well until now, don't start making me ridicule you again...
My reaction to patronizing behaviour is ridicule. Way funnier.
Sorry, I was giving you benefit of the doubt, see then my earlier point about spreading complete fabrications
I could have phrased it in a nicer way, but I thought what I said got to the point more succintly. On reflection, I was incorrect and I apologize for that. Let me try again with more diplomacy:
You are being very non-specific. Did you have a bad time with an ML org or even multiple ML organizations? Did they treat you poorly?* Then foo on them! They were probably Trots just because of our social context (or Bob Avakian's cult that calls itself maoist but also seems more consistent with Trotskyism). But whatever they were, including ML in the sense I'd agree to, they shouldn't have done that.
However, that would not justify the portrayal as butchers, especially using completely fabricated events.
*If my guess was wrong, please correct me.
If I wasn't clear enough, ridiculing someone for being patronizing is perfectly reasonable behavior. However, accusing someone of mass murder when they were merely patronizing is decidedly unreasonable.
Then put those on the meme instead of the blatant falsehoods that are there. Like, sorry, but "oh, it's a meme it doesn't have to be accurate" is a terrible argument for posting a misleading, anti-communist meme. Just make a better meme, it's not hard
I didn't make the meme. I didn't plan to make a meme. My life doesn't revolve around what hexbears might think of me.
[Picture of people being massacred in a pool of their own blood] — "modern online MLs will do this to you in the future if you believe their lies, do not trust them!"
it's all in good fun though, right tankies I would totally organize with in real life?
He thinks the death to america posts aren't literal
And yet you keep giving it.
You literally started a discussion in a public forum. You don't get to be offended people in the forum engaged with it.
Disengage
I've never seen an Inco DeNiro Factsum Glish Galoop Slish Slosh No True Strawman Fallacy used so blantantly
-Le Epic Redditeur
Strawman
This isn't fucking reddit, "brigading" is not a real thing.
Why can't an OP have a good faith argument if the post gets "brigaded"? That doesn't really make sense to me. Anyone can choose to argue in good faith regardless of how the other party behaves.
Well for several reasons.
You have to find someone who actually wants to have a good faith argument with you.
You have to be disciplined enough to only argue with them, as you will expend energy arguing with the 500 other commenters who are just trolling you.
Actually be able to go through your inbox and find the replies of the person you think is actually acting in good faith.
Be in the mood to argue in good faith. Which is unlikely from the begining, basically impossible at the end.
Can't have a good faith argument with people we have no faith in. Eat shit
what part of db0's crosspost was calling for good faith discussion? Did you look at it? https://lemmy.ml/comment/5783449
Don't be mad db0 sank to your level. Get dunked on or whatever
You're a dweeb and should quit posting.
When they don't have a counterargument, they attack your character. It shows just how strong their foundation of understanding is that a simple debate or differing viewpoint is a dire threat to their entire worldview. It's extremely pathetic tbh.
I think they just observed that you generally ignored the counterarguments and correctly concluded that presenting yet another to you is absurd, but of course you pick that as the comment you respond to
Also calling someone a dweeb isn't a character attack, like calling them a moron isn't.
I'd fucking love to talk with someone here on terms of argument and counterargument, but that is considered "sealioning" by every fucker I've encountered so far on this worthless anarcho-bidenist instance