Lmao, someone shares historical facts and explains the material conditions of the world during the rise of the Soviet Union and you just lash out with no factual information, and decide to just complain about “walls of text” when they’re explaining things to you.
You are not looking for a discussion. You are not trying to improve and sharpen your understanding of the world or your rhetorical skills. You’re just throwing a tantrum when people try to explain ideas to you that don’t conform to your worldview.
And that’s exactly what makes you a reactionary. That’s the main difference between our two instances: We actually care about discussing things and educating people while you act like children refusing to eat the veggies on your plate. I’d say the moniker “anarkiddie” is accurate, but I don’t acknowledge people like you as anarchists.
You’re calling us your enemies because you refuse to actually read what we’re saying. We have the same goal and the same people want to put us in prison or to simply shoot us. The only real ways in which our views put us on opposite ends of any political discourse are historical debates like the one you’re running away from right now. If you can’t even engage in the debate (which is valid, I honestly CBA to parse through all the primary sources to figure out which side of the debate is more correct about the nature of the soviet system or whatever either), then why are you taking such a strong position in the debate’s conclusion? Why does the conclusion matter so much to you that you’re willing to draw a line in the sand and declare us your enemies, but the process of getting there doesn’t matter enough to read “walls of text” (God forbid you ever encounter a book)?
I call you enemies because you are reactionaries cosplaying as leftists. I call you enemies because our ideologies are violently incompatible and diametrically opposed to each other.
Okay, but you see how you’re arguing circularly now? Actually, I think if I try to trace back your epistemology here, it’s worse than circular: it’s just made up.
“We’re enemies because we are diametrically opposed, and we are diametrically opposed because of a historical betrayal. The historical betrayal need not be justified because it’s well-established fact and a matter of historical record, your evidence can’t convince me otherwise”
That’s what you sound like. It’s intellectually dishonest. You’ve made a way to argue that is not only exhausting, but puzzling, because I can’t see how you don’t see what’s wrong here.
Okay, but you see how you’re arguing circularly now?
Really? I’m the one “arguing circularly” here?
it’s just made up.
Really? The history of Marxist-Leninists enslaving the working class is “made-up” now? The history of Marxist-Leninists crushing leftist movements throughout it’s sad history is “made-up” now?
It’s intellectually dishonest.
You tankies really have managed to combine the duplicitousness of the liberal with the self-serving zealotry of the fascist.
The liberal and the fascist can, of course, use the excuse they have been brainwashed into it since birth… but you cannot.
Really? The history of Marxist-Leninists enslaving the working class is “made-up” now? The history of Marxist-Leninists crushing leftist movements throughout it’s sad history is “made-up” now?
Just break down to me, in simple terms, how you can defend these claims when earlier in this same thread you were dismissing the refutation of this argument (that cited multiple history books) by calling it “tankie walls of text”. If you make a claim, then someone refutes it, but you refuse to even read their refutation, you’re not in a position to then go back to saying that claim you made earlier is simply true. That’s not how it works.
Lmao, someone shares historical facts and explains the material conditions of the world during the rise of the Soviet Union and you just lash out with no factual information, and decide to just complain about “walls of text” when they’re explaining things to you.
You are not looking for a discussion. You are not trying to improve and sharpen your understanding of the world or your rhetorical skills. You’re just throwing a tantrum when people try to explain ideas to you that don’t conform to your worldview.
And that’s exactly what makes you a reactionary. That’s the main difference between our two instances: We actually care about discussing things and educating people while you act like children refusing to eat the veggies on your plate. I’d say the moniker “anarkiddie” is accurate, but I don’t acknowledge people like you as anarchists.
Correct. I do not discuss squat with enemies.
Oh, look… the reactionary cosplaying as a leftist is calling me a “reactionary.”
We don’t have to be enemies, but if you insist…
Don’t blame me if you find your back against a
You’re calling us your enemies because you refuse to actually read what we’re saying. We have the same goal and the same people want to put us in prison or to simply shoot us. The only real ways in which our views put us on opposite ends of any political discourse are historical debates like the one you’re running away from right now. If you can’t even engage in the debate (which is valid, I honestly CBA to parse through all the primary sources to figure out which side of the debate is more correct about the nature of the soviet system or whatever either), then why are you taking such a strong position in the debate’s conclusion? Why does the conclusion matter so much to you that you’re willing to draw a line in the sand and declare us your enemies, but the process of getting there doesn’t matter enough to read “walls of text” (God forbid you ever encounter a book)?
I call you enemies because you are reactionaries cosplaying as leftists. I call you enemies because our ideologies are violently incompatible and diametrically opposed to each other.
See? No walls of text required, tankie.
Okay, but you see how you’re arguing circularly now? Actually, I think if I try to trace back your epistemology here, it’s worse than circular: it’s just made up.
“We’re enemies because we are diametrically opposed, and we are diametrically opposed because of a historical betrayal. The historical betrayal need not be justified because it’s well-established fact and a matter of historical record, your evidence can’t convince me otherwise”
That’s what you sound like. It’s intellectually dishonest. You’ve made a way to argue that is not only exhausting, but puzzling, because I can’t see how you don’t see what’s wrong here.
Really? I’m the one “arguing circularly” here?
Really? The history of Marxist-Leninists enslaving the working class is “made-up” now? The history of Marxist-Leninists crushing leftist movements throughout it’s sad history is “made-up” now?
You tankies really have managed to combine the duplicitousness of the liberal with the self-serving zealotry of the fascist.
The liberal and the fascist can, of course, use the excuse they have been brainwashed into it since birth… but you cannot.
Just break down to me, in simple terms, how you can defend these claims when earlier in this same thread you were dismissing the refutation of this argument (that cited multiple history books) by calling it “tankie walls of text”. If you make a claim, then someone refutes it, but you refuse to even read their refutation, you’re not in a position to then go back to saying that claim you made earlier is simply true. That’s not how it works.