I’m not talking to Meow, and this is not a formal debate setting. I agree with Meow, and am fine to back up Meow’s points if you wish, after all, I put together the reading guides Meow mentioned. That’s my personal investment in this discussion, defending the utility of guides I put together (even if the advanced list isn’t really a list at this point but a remnant of the prototype basic list).
I feel that if you want to avoid discussing Marxism-Leninism, it’s better to not make a counter-assertion at all, and instead just indicate from the get go that you don’t want to discuss it. I agree with Meow that it’s critically relevant to the discussion at hand, though, which is why it was brought in.
With respect, I’m just not interested in reading guides as again, whether people choose to believe so or not, I actually have studied this in an academic setting and am satisfied with that. I understand your passion, but Marxism, socialism, and leftism absolutely inform my politics, but they aren’t my entire life and I think too many people use them as a source of identity that ends up trying to conform to a label rather than incorporating ideas into well thought out positions. I say this as someone who probably strayed too close to that in my youth as a firebrand and just don’t see the point in my old age. It just leads to ulcers and infighting, IMO. I did extend the offer for private discussion if is really that important, but I really do find the tone that is struck very different when people are talking one on one versus, even subconsciously, trying to make points that win upvotes a la reddit. Take that initial reply I took issue with… would anyone really bother privately messaging this? “Hey, I’m not really going to elaborate, but I really disagree with you, go read this other thing”? I’ve never encountered such a thing and I think we can agree that would come across a bit… unhinged. But it’s par for the course with these kind of discussions in public forums and is uniquely bad in Marxist circles IMO.
Note that I’m not saying any of this is you, but I do think this might be true of the person who leveled it at me in the first place (which might be unfair, but I think is no more unfair of an assumption than those made about me).
Feelings noted, but I think that point can simply be taken back one more step: one shouldn’t make snappy, bad faith assumptions with no actual support aside from the weaponizing of a guide someone on the Internet has written as a cudgel to dismiss people they disagree with. I feel you’re being unfair in your application of who should and shouldn’t make an assertion based on who you happen to agree with. So we just don’t agree with each other’s position here, and that’s fine.
Surely you can also see that, by positioning yourself as old and experienced, ie wiser, you are speaking condescendingly towards those you disagree with? I’m fine to take this to DMs, if you wish, but my preference is open discussion as the main purpose of discussing Marxism, and the merits of it, is to create more comrades.
You’ve already shown yourself to be fairly obstinate, and likely aren’t going to be swayed, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t onlookers. There’s no karma on Lemmy, upvotes do practically nothing (by design), but people are swayed and convinced when they see effective and sensible points being made.
In other words, I focus on swaying onlookers, rather than the person I am directly talking to. Far more effective use of time, unless the person I am talking to is willing to have an actual discussion (which is rare).
I also disagree that the guide was being used as a “cudgel,” the point being made was that Marxist theory is useful. The guide was given as an avenue to explore theory, not as a way to “debunk” you. The point stands without the guide, that Marxist theory is useful, and your counterpoint dismissed it by saying you studied Marxism in a liberal, western academic setting, a setting well-known for distorting Marxism, blunting and defanging it.
Surely you can also see that, by positioning yourself as old and experienced, ie wiser, you are speaking condescendingly towards those you disagree with?
Do you not think you’re being a bit condescending yourself in suggesting people go read a guide written by you in order to have a discussion with you? I think you’re holding yourself and people who agree with you to a very different standard than those who disagree with you.
Regardless, my intent isn’t to really be condescending, but you’ve been pretty tenacious in asking why I won’t debate you… what else am I to do but explain why I’ve reached the position I have when you keep pressing and say that I should do a thing I’ve decided against doing as a rule?
You’ve already shown yourself to be fairly obstinate
Physician, heal thyself. You’ve pressed me for… what, half a dozen comments now? On literally nothing but saying I should debate you or others when I don’t care to and explained why. I think you’re quick to see qualities in others that you aren’t realizing you have yourself.
In other words, I focus on swaying onlookers
I’m very aware of that, that’s exactly what I’m uninterested in. I’ve moved past “debate” in the sense of a public disagreement and an attempt to sway people to my side… used to do that a lot, but I’m just over it at this point. I’m interested in real conversations and attempts to understand another person and another point of view, I explicitly do not like the kind of conversation that happens when people are trying to convince a third party. I think it lends itself to toxicity, condescension, basically the worst qualities that people associate with redditors, for good reason.
I also disagree
Okay. I disagree with your disagreement :). I think not offering any substantive rebuttal and simply saying “you don’t know theory, go read this” is definitely a cudgel to dismiss opinions a person doesn’t agree with without putting in any effort, and it’s obviously a performative thing for onlookers. If you disagree, I’m comfortable with that.
I never once suggested that people need to read a list compiled by me to have a discussion with me, so I’m not sure where that came from. The list isn’t a prerequisite for discussion, neither Meow nor I implied that. I also said you’re completely okay to not discuss with me, I also despise debate culture, getting cheap “wins,” etc. I just pointed out why people may be “dogpiling” you, as you said. I’m fully comfortable with not having a discussion with you, I’ve said so multiple times, so I’m also not sure why you describe me of not understanding why you don’t want to. I do understand.
You were upset because you felt I was trying to position myself as wisened in order to be condescending. I’m pointing out that this wasn’t my intention, I was doing so to explain why I don’t do public debates regarding Marxism anymore, which you were arguing that I should probably be doing. You could not have understood that before I explained it, because you have no clue what my intentions are without me telling you, man… I’d suggest the inability to admit you didn’t know something as impossible to know as my personal reasons for not doing something is indicative of the bad faith this conversation has developed into, even if it didn’t start that way, so I think this is the end, bud.
I’d further suggest you really consider your own obstinate behavior in arguing for hours with someone about why they won’t argue with you before casting that particular stone.
Have a good one, but we just aren’t looking for the same kind of conversations, man. I’m not interested in the debate that you are.
I don’t know what tour intentions are, and I didn’t suggest that I did. I understand why you don’t discuss Marxism, you told me already. I’m not sure why you think I’m forcing you to “debate me,” I already explained that it’s fine not to. Really not sure what you’re trying to do here.
I’m not talking to Meow, and this is not a formal debate setting. I agree with Meow, and am fine to back up Meow’s points if you wish, after all, I put together the reading guides Meow mentioned. That’s my personal investment in this discussion, defending the utility of guides I put together (even if the advanced list isn’t really a list at this point but a remnant of the prototype basic list).
I feel that if you want to avoid discussing Marxism-Leninism, it’s better to not make a counter-assertion at all, and instead just indicate from the get go that you don’t want to discuss it. I agree with Meow that it’s critically relevant to the discussion at hand, though, which is why it was brought in.
With respect, I’m just not interested in reading guides as again, whether people choose to believe so or not, I actually have studied this in an academic setting and am satisfied with that. I understand your passion, but Marxism, socialism, and leftism absolutely inform my politics, but they aren’t my entire life and I think too many people use them as a source of identity that ends up trying to conform to a label rather than incorporating ideas into well thought out positions. I say this as someone who probably strayed too close to that in my youth as a firebrand and just don’t see the point in my old age. It just leads to ulcers and infighting, IMO. I did extend the offer for private discussion if is really that important, but I really do find the tone that is struck very different when people are talking one on one versus, even subconsciously, trying to make points that win upvotes a la reddit. Take that initial reply I took issue with… would anyone really bother privately messaging this? “Hey, I’m not really going to elaborate, but I really disagree with you, go read this other thing”? I’ve never encountered such a thing and I think we can agree that would come across a bit… unhinged. But it’s par for the course with these kind of discussions in public forums and is uniquely bad in Marxist circles IMO.
Note that I’m not saying any of this is you, but I do think this might be true of the person who leveled it at me in the first place (which might be unfair, but I think is no more unfair of an assumption than those made about me).
Feelings noted, but I think that point can simply be taken back one more step: one shouldn’t make snappy, bad faith assumptions with no actual support aside from the weaponizing of a guide someone on the Internet has written as a cudgel to dismiss people they disagree with. I feel you’re being unfair in your application of who should and shouldn’t make an assertion based on who you happen to agree with. So we just don’t agree with each other’s position here, and that’s fine.
Surely you can also see that, by positioning yourself as old and experienced, ie wiser, you are speaking condescendingly towards those you disagree with? I’m fine to take this to DMs, if you wish, but my preference is open discussion as the main purpose of discussing Marxism, and the merits of it, is to create more comrades.
You’ve already shown yourself to be fairly obstinate, and likely aren’t going to be swayed, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t onlookers. There’s no karma on Lemmy, upvotes do practically nothing (by design), but people are swayed and convinced when they see effective and sensible points being made.
In other words, I focus on swaying onlookers, rather than the person I am directly talking to. Far more effective use of time, unless the person I am talking to is willing to have an actual discussion (which is rare).
I also disagree that the guide was being used as a “cudgel,” the point being made was that Marxist theory is useful. The guide was given as an avenue to explore theory, not as a way to “debunk” you. The point stands without the guide, that Marxist theory is useful, and your counterpoint dismissed it by saying you studied Marxism in a liberal, western academic setting, a setting well-known for distorting Marxism, blunting and defanging it.
Do you not think you’re being a bit condescending yourself in suggesting people go read a guide written by you in order to have a discussion with you? I think you’re holding yourself and people who agree with you to a very different standard than those who disagree with you.
Regardless, my intent isn’t to really be condescending, but you’ve been pretty tenacious in asking why I won’t debate you… what else am I to do but explain why I’ve reached the position I have when you keep pressing and say that I should do a thing I’ve decided against doing as a rule?
Physician, heal thyself. You’ve pressed me for… what, half a dozen comments now? On literally nothing but saying I should debate you or others when I don’t care to and explained why. I think you’re quick to see qualities in others that you aren’t realizing you have yourself.
I’m very aware of that, that’s exactly what I’m uninterested in. I’ve moved past “debate” in the sense of a public disagreement and an attempt to sway people to my side… used to do that a lot, but I’m just over it at this point. I’m interested in real conversations and attempts to understand another person and another point of view, I explicitly do not like the kind of conversation that happens when people are trying to convince a third party. I think it lends itself to toxicity, condescension, basically the worst qualities that people associate with redditors, for good reason.
Okay. I disagree with your disagreement :). I think not offering any substantive rebuttal and simply saying “you don’t know theory, go read this” is definitely a cudgel to dismiss opinions a person doesn’t agree with without putting in any effort, and it’s obviously a performative thing for onlookers. If you disagree, I’m comfortable with that.
I never once suggested that people need to read a list compiled by me to have a discussion with me, so I’m not sure where that came from. The list isn’t a prerequisite for discussion, neither Meow nor I implied that. I also said you’re completely okay to not discuss with me, I also despise debate culture, getting cheap “wins,” etc. I just pointed out why people may be “dogpiling” you, as you said. I’m fully comfortable with not having a discussion with you, I’ve said so multiple times, so I’m also not sure why you describe me of not understanding why you don’t want to. I do understand.
You were upset because you felt I was trying to position myself as wisened in order to be condescending. I’m pointing out that this wasn’t my intention, I was doing so to explain why I don’t do public debates regarding Marxism anymore, which you were arguing that I should probably be doing. You could not have understood that before I explained it, because you have no clue what my intentions are without me telling you, man… I’d suggest the inability to admit you didn’t know something as impossible to know as my personal reasons for not doing something is indicative of the bad faith this conversation has developed into, even if it didn’t start that way, so I think this is the end, bud.
I’d further suggest you really consider your own obstinate behavior in arguing for hours with someone about why they won’t argue with you before casting that particular stone.
Have a good one, but we just aren’t looking for the same kind of conversations, man. I’m not interested in the debate that you are.
I don’t know what tour intentions are, and I didn’t suggest that I did. I understand why you don’t discuss Marxism, you told me already. I’m not sure why you think I’m forcing you to “debate me,” I already explained that it’s fine not to. Really not sure what you’re trying to do here.