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.
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.