-66
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
-66 points (19.4% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7182 readers
694 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It is actually a very common critique in socialist circles. You would recognize it had you ever participated with any principled organization. Heck, Mao wrote a funny little memo that included this critique several times.
Congratulations on skimming Wikipedia and the like.
Yes except you left out the sentence after. It's a question.
It's both, though again you missed the next sentence. The only other sentence after it. I did actually explicitly repeat myself, you have no reason to be this confused except that you didn't read my comment before starting replying.
Not at all. I have consistently offered acknowledgement the moment a seemingly clear answer has been given. I took "emphatic no" and you complained when I ran with it immediately, remember? And now I've said, "Okay so you're giving a yes" and have proceeded to return to the point I was making in trying to get you to answer.
The last 30 or so comments have not had much more going for them in my mind than, "I wonder if this person can just answer a yes or no question" and "wow that sure is a lot of bullshitting to correct". Having acknowledged the "yes", I did already try to go in a direction to drive home my point but unfortunately you decided to ignore my question. If you want more than that, or expected more than that, you are mistaken. If there's something more you'd like to talk about than the point I'm trying to emphasize, you'll have to ask me. Like a reasonable person.
I am currently not waiting for you to say any particular words. You have, apparently, provided a "yes" answer to my question. Right now we are spending most of our time on your false statements about what you had previously said to me and how you have been oh-so-clear despite the obvious reality of confusion and not even knowing what question I had asked.
The pattern is that you ignore and skip over my specific explanations and evidenced callouts of your confusion. You're welcome for my patience on this topic.
You think it is bait for me to tell you that I have given you opportunities to stop digging holes? Huh? The mind boggles.
Your answer: "yes". Who knows what kind of further response you expected to get, but I did respond in asking you a question. I think I need to remind you of exactly how petty this conversation has had to be. There is not a grand lecture I've been hiding in my back pocket, trying to prevent you from seeing. I've been trying to get you to answer a straightforward yes or no question and you've been playing games. Now that your games are (maybe?) winding down, it seems like you thought there would be more to it than that. The only "more" there is: why did you fight so hard against answering a simple yes or no? I have, of course, already answered this question: it is because dissembling on this topic prevents cognitive dissonance for liberals. I am trying to get you to actually confront it. That is my response. Funny that I need to not only explain it but bring your attention to it, I have in no way been unclear as to my point.
I don't have hurt feelings. As you can see, I am very patient. But you have quite a bit of self-crit to do if you ever want to be useful for a struggle against capitalism.
The liberalism here is the elevation of one's own ego and political journey over emphasizing truth, self-crit, and moving forward for the betterment of a project. We are spending all of our time on things like questions you invented on my behalf and talking about "loaded" questions that are not really loaded and pretenses that you said "no" when you went on long-winded rants saying everything except "yes" or "no" oh but actually your answer to my question was "yes and no" but wait no it's actually "yes". This is because you are failing to accept your errors and move on.
You are having trouble understanding my meaning on this topic because you are completely unfamiliar with the social context. Remember, you told me that you are not liberal. And yet when I make references that socialists and anarchists would understand, you start coming to conclusions exclusive to a liberal framing. Such as this one. And when you don't understand, what is your knee-jerk reaction? You begin making things up and provide bad faith assumptions, then accept them as answers. Guess what political tendency teaches these behaviors? Guess which tendencies recognize them and fight hard against them in their own organizations?
The only way for you to move past this is to self-crit and have a touch of humility. It is obvious that you are extremely new to this topic. Instead of trying to pretend, why not just say, "what do you mean?" Would that kill you?
It's not minutiae to say "I need a yes or no answer to my yes or no question that is the entire point" and then press you to directly answer it while you hem and haw. It is, in fact, the point I was making. At the meta level you have already demonstrated my point, lol. It's not like I have hidden that point, either. I have stated it outright several times.
If I were being pedantic I would sound very different.
"I do not" is something you have only said in response to a question I simply did not ask. The genocide deniers thing.
I don't think I could have been any clearer that I had no interest at all in your further rationalizations so long as you could not answer the question directly. That is the entirety of what I have said about this. If you would like to discuss your moral fretting you can ask a question or present something and I can decide whether I will indulge you. You are not entitled to my indulgence, only my honesty, and I have been very clear about this.
Regarding this conversation, I am simply patient, honest, correct, and focused. I don't think that's a very high bar to clear, to be honest.
Who said I had faith in liberal democracy? I am simply agitating liberals.
Liberals believe that politics is electoralism. To agitate among them, you must sometimes frame challenges in their language. None of them are going to become principled socialists with a single sentence. They must be knocked off balance where they are.
A true cherry on top to repeat the answer to a question I didn't ask, lmao.
So anyways, why did it take you so long to answer my question, liberal? Why not just answer it right away? Why say the question was loaded? Why say it was "not so simple" instead of answering despite you apparently being able to just say "yes" the entire time? Why provide 3 distinct answers? Why answer questions I didn't ask and then present them as if I had?
These questions are all rhetorical, of course. They only have one point and it's related to my original one: liberals with dissemble rather than deal with the harsh truths of what they support because it helps them avoid cognitive dissonance. They will imply a "no" through their attempts to justify voting for genocidal candidates, but are too afraid to just say "no" because they would have to see a harsh truth about themselves and their political obligations. They use the same rationalizations you provided rather than give a "yes" or "no". Now, of course, having answered "yes", you will believe yourself to be in a different position than them. I'm sure you will think, "but that doesn't describe me! I don't vote for genocidal candidates!" But there you were, avoiding the question and using the same form of cognitive escape hatch ("complexity" lmao). What was the impetus?
Already told you that in my very first response to you. Because this election isn't as simple as voting for or against genocide.
And then I quite quickly actually answered, but it wasn't in the precise format you expected, so you ignored it (and even admitted ignoring it).
Do you not know what a rhetorical question is? I even spelled out the meaning for you lmao.
Of course I know what one is. That's kinda the problem here. A rhetorical question, among other things, is intended to make a point. The obvious point concluded from answering this question in the morally correct way is that it is always wrong to support genocide or vote for genocidal candidates, in a sort of Kantian categorical imperative.
If you know what one is why did you answer it? lol
Buddy you gotta take a break you just aren't making sense anymore
Damn you are literal-minded. The idea of "it doesn't need an answer" isn't like... a law. It's a poetic description of the fact it makes you think. The discussion isn't supposed to just, like... stop there, is it? After the question has prompted the thought you're supposed to re-engage, enlightened by the knowledge the rhetorical question gave you.
Also... you asked me to..?
I'm just trying to get on the same page man, you're not making it easy
It's not overly literal to know that rhetorical questions are for making a point, not asking you a question. Yet again the basixa taught to children are something you think is just doo dang literal.
Anyways, the purpose of my rhetorical quest3 is for you to take a little time, do some self-crit, and think about the similarities between your behavior and those of genocide apologetic liberals, and then come back and talk about that if you would want to continue.
I am not seeing any accounting of my blatant point in your responses. You have missed it all, apparently. So I will wait for you to engage with it and I will be dismissing your attempts to steer this in your various confused directions.
Yes - and then?
Sticking to the basics is taking it too literal, yes.
I admit I haven't communicated very well, but perhaps you also need to reflect on your own ability to listen. Communication is two-way, and I have not made it impossible for you, despite you gesturing in that direction.
I think you're projecting that. I have not once ever provided genocide apologia and nor do I ever even remotely condone it. I think you're assuming intentions I don't have, and I would prefer for you to not do that. My only point I wanted to make is that the coming US election is very unlikely to result in anyone other than the two imperialist, genocidal parties winning. I interpreted your rhetorical question as shaming anyone who votes for either of the two obvious potential winners.
Maybe this appears to you as me "defending" the Democrat party. They don't deserve defending. The only positive I can offer is that their domestic policy is less dystopic than the Republicans - but that's not a high bar. It's still more capitalism. No, I do not actually condone them. I just think it's naive to think anyone other than the Ds or Rs would win.
What blatant point is that? That you think I'm a liberal? There's no need to "account for" that. It's just false. You might as well call be a Martian.
That's nice of you to say.
I'm not "steering". I'm answering and trying to actually engage in a dialogue with you. "Dismissing" that just means you're dismissing understanding.
And then you can choose whether to engage and address the point that was made or to not do so and either disengage or act in bad faith. Guess which option you chose.
Rather than attempt conversation in good faith you have decided to reject the basics of language taught to children.
Nope I've done a great job. Seeking fault in others when you've been called out, trying to "level the field", is textbook defensive behavior BTW. It is okay for you to be wrong and for me to be right and cool. That is a thing that is actually the case and you should make peace with it.
I don't think you know what projection is. I have the antithesis of these sentiments both inside and out.
Rather than doing any self-reflection you are simply doing a defense - with the expected lashing out.
Take as much time as you need. Can you really see zero similarities in your initial responses to me and those of the genocidal apologetic liberals I was responding to? Do you really see zero similarity between your reticence to answer my question and liberals' reticence? I mean, it is right there, plain as day. You just have to do actual self-criticism.
And sure it isn't fun to do self-crit, but I will provide a tip: it is much easier if you do it earlier rather than after you have already become petty and dug yourself a thousand holes.
I think your responses here indicate that you generally do not have cognizant intentions whatsoever and are purely reactive. Guess who else is like that, even using your exact same initial framing and reticence to answer a simple question. Do you see any similarities yet?
Remove the "imperialist, genocidal" part and you are literally doing the main genocide apologetic talking point that is every liberals attempt to deflect from agitation. How do you not see the similarities?
You were hardly informing me of anything. The only effect is to run interference and undermine my point, which you initially did so in an insulting way that did not have that talking point in it whatsoever. You are giving yourself far too much credit.
Which rhetorical question? My agitational questions are usually non-rhetorixal, but they do challenge.
Nope. I saw your reply as internalized liberalism, as attempting to draw attention to your own patronizing point that tried to make voting for genociders into a "complex" issue as if half-remembered high school civics is such a revelation. Really, this is an escape hatch for those facing cognitive dissonance. Based on that suspicion, I treated you as a fellow liberal attempting to deflect and posed the direct question to you, expecting the same evasive behavior of other liberals.
And, hey, guess what you did for something like 30 comments.
Tell me who, by username, is this naive person. Tell me who thinks that. Show your evidence.
If you cannot find them, then tell me, what is the real meaning of your point? What does it serve if your opponent is a straw man? What was your actual thought process, because it 100% was not, "TheOubliette just said a third party was gonna win the election".
That you did the liberal song and dance and your actions speak much louder than your current rationalizations. The parallels are pretty obvious. I suggested that you actually spend time looking for them. That you actually do some self-crit to look at the answer to the rhetorical question of why you deflected from my question over and over, called it a loaded question, presented 3 different answers, invented entire questions I never asked, and then belabored the false premise that it had all been above board and you had clearly answered ages ago. You should do self-crit on why you maintain that the dishonest bullshitting described above is just you doing your bestest as a smol bean leftist. And then take a wider view to look at the emotional content and why it parallels liberals, which is to say, you felt scratched and took a turn to rightward patterns of bad faith engagement.
I have been relatively patient and nice, all things considered.
It isn't it? Like I said, I am very patient. Very few people would have done anything other than insult you and move on. Remember that.
Looks like I was too nice, really. I indulged your responses.
Anyways, take time to self-crit. You are not taking the needed time or doing the reflection. You are not pointing out the specific failures, let alone the parallels I have repeatedly highlighted and that you have wholesale ignored. I shouldn't have needed to highlight them. You should have taken time to find them yourself by doing some honest self-crit. You are very reactive to criticism, including vakid criticism, and should do it yourself rather than relying on me to describe it because you are too defensive to actually take a step back and recognize basic facts about this interaction.
Sure. I fucked up bad enough that you ended up thinking I'm a liberal. I can admit that.
Now what? What's the point? Because when I read back through the thread, you did indeed come in and say it's easy to just not vote for genocide. And sure, I guess you could just not vote, or third party. But you don't actually think that someone other than them will win, do you?
Something other than voting is needed for the genocide to stop. Real action needs to happen. People need to organise, agitate, demonstrate, prefigure - and that's just the start.
Surely we agree on this? If not, then what's the point?
As noted in my other comments I will not be responding further.
I agree that it's wrong to support genocide or vote for genocidal candidates.