You said he thinks that voting for democrats is accelerationist, and he explained why he believes that.
You claimed that he thinks all of leftist thought is whatever tankies think (a pretty vague claim, tankie is not exactly a well established term), and then you use some flowery sequence of platitudes without real refutable specifics to propose a broader definition of leftism. Cowbee responds by clarifying what he believes leftism is, which is broader than his own ideology.
What words are you saying he ignored? Are you upset he didn’t answer “how ya been?” Are you confused as to which comment he’s responding to?
Man you’re late I ain’t going over all this shit again. There’s a whole conversation you can go look over and be weird about if you want to try and draw any more context from my interactions here. It’s all in the open in the replies. I don’t even understand if you’re trying to make a point or. White kniting at this point and I don’t care. Come at me with your own shit or stay out of it.
I think I’m decently effective. I’ve managed to convince people both in real conversations and online. I’d like to see what you mean by me being condescending, because if that’s true I would like to correct that.
I never said condescending. You did make tacit implication the my accusation to you applied to other people and one could see that as almost an insult.
I think unfortunately you’re super genuine and actually excited about educating people but unfortunately that means in order to have any argument you take huge cake slices of textbook and regurgitate the same 6 paragraphs for every point. Great for a lecture, but I would believe a nonzero number of these converts are trying to move on with their day.
For what it’s worth, I do agree. I used to actually post walls of text, now I keep it curt and to the point. Sometimes those points need a bit of development to not completely slide off of people, but it’s a balancing act I try to get better at.
All good. I’d rather the sharing of ideas take place than not but this still isn’t an ‘every idea is valid’ situation. If I’m going to keep running into you I want to hear a point, not endless reasons why I should look at your point.
Right and I do ask for context when it’s needed, but I would recommend not presuming the context for your case. That’s like badgering yourself as the witness before the cross examination even starts.
He’s not. He’s a bad faith propagandist and an accelerationist. He almost exclusively criticizes the democrats without really touching the republicans and actively discourages people from voting for democrats even when they’re the only viable option to prevent republicans from being in power. He works for maga.
No? This is a conspiracy theory. I have said accelerationism is incorrect, and I’ll clarify that I mean both the actual accelerationist take, which is trying to consolidate capital as quickly as possible, and the liberal understanding of accelerationism, which is actively making things worse for people, are wrong. Support for the Republicans is out of the question, which is why I don’t bother touching it much. 99% of people on this federated website understand that Republicans are reactionary garbage, but a good chunk still have flawed ideas about the role of the Democrats.
The only viable option to fight fascism is to struggle directly against the system that enables it, because fascism isn’t simply a preference of this or that party, but a response to a decayed material base.
Oh yeah, I’m well aware. But I just get a real sense of despair if I start treating everyone as one dimensional charicatures of whatever they appear to be portraying themselves as. The moment they said the accelerationist vote was for Democrats I knew I was never going to take them seriously, but it is a lot of fun catching them in double speak and weirs logic they try to pull.
Do you think the Democrats are less effective managers of capitalism, or do you think accelerationism is deliberately making things worse? The former is pretty inarguable, the latter is a widespread misconception on a flawed ideology to begin with. There’s no doublespeak on my part, but it’s nice to at least know you were bad-faith from the beginning.
I think you’re purposefully misreading the intent and your supposed outcomes in order to manufacture an argument that you can both claim is technically correct while also using it as a defeter to anyone trying to make economic arguments.
Because if good managing in capitalism will ruin capitalism then what the fuck is the Iran War doing? Do you even watch the news?
Jesus christ never met a person more eager the talk incessantly without paying attention to a single word that’s said to them.
You said he thinks that voting for democrats is accelerationist, and he explained why he believes that.
You claimed that he thinks all of leftist thought is whatever tankies think (a pretty vague claim, tankie is not exactly a well established term), and then you use some flowery sequence of platitudes without real refutable specifics to propose a broader definition of leftism. Cowbee responds by clarifying what he believes leftism is, which is broader than his own ideology.
What words are you saying he ignored? Are you upset he didn’t answer “how ya been?” Are you confused as to which comment he’s responding to?
Man you’re late I ain’t going over all this shit again. There’s a whole conversation you can go look over and be weird about if you want to try and draw any more context from my interactions here. It’s all in the open in the replies. I don’t even understand if you’re trying to make a point or. White kniting at this point and I don’t care. Come at me with your own shit or stay out of it.
I’ve seen quite a few people in this thread that fit that description, and don’t believe that applies to me.
See there we go, a biting comeback and you’re still pleasant and polite about it.
I don’t fully get your angle but we can make you an effective interlocutor one of these days.
I think I’m decently effective. I’ve managed to convince people both in real conversations and online. I’d like to see what you mean by me being condescending, because if that’s true I would like to correct that.
I never said condescending. You did make tacit implication the my accusation to you applied to other people and one could see that as almost an insult.
I think unfortunately you’re super genuine and actually excited about educating people but unfortunately that means in order to have any argument you take huge cake slices of textbook and regurgitate the same 6 paragraphs for every point. Great for a lecture, but I would believe a nonzero number of these converts are trying to move on with their day.
For what it’s worth, I do agree. I used to actually post walls of text, now I keep it curt and to the point. Sometimes those points need a bit of development to not completely slide off of people, but it’s a balancing act I try to get better at.
All good. I’d rather the sharing of ideas take place than not but this still isn’t an ‘every idea is valid’ situation. If I’m going to keep running into you I want to hear a point, not endless reasons why I should look at your point.
I do try to be direct and to the point, as I said. Sometimes context is not just helpful, but critical, which is usually where length comes in.
Right and I do ask for context when it’s needed, but I would recommend not presuming the context for your case. That’s like badgering yourself as the witness before the cross examination even starts.
He’s not. He’s a bad faith propagandist and an accelerationist. He almost exclusively criticizes the democrats without really touching the republicans and actively discourages people from voting for democrats even when they’re the only viable option to prevent republicans from being in power. He works for maga.
No? This is a conspiracy theory. I have said accelerationism is incorrect, and I’ll clarify that I mean both the actual accelerationist take, which is trying to consolidate capital as quickly as possible, and the liberal understanding of accelerationism, which is actively making things worse for people, are wrong. Support for the Republicans is out of the question, which is why I don’t bother touching it much. 99% of people on this federated website understand that Republicans are reactionary garbage, but a good chunk still have flawed ideas about the role of the Democrats.
The only viable option to fight fascism is to struggle directly against the system that enables it, because fascism isn’t simply a preference of this or that party, but a response to a decayed material base.
Oh yeah, I’m well aware. But I just get a real sense of despair if I start treating everyone as one dimensional charicatures of whatever they appear to be portraying themselves as. The moment they said the accelerationist vote was for Democrats I knew I was never going to take them seriously, but it is a lot of fun catching them in double speak and weirs logic they try to pull.
Do you think the Democrats are less effective managers of capitalism, or do you think accelerationism is deliberately making things worse? The former is pretty inarguable, the latter is a widespread misconception on a flawed ideology to begin with. There’s no doublespeak on my part, but it’s nice to at least know you were bad-faith from the beginning.
I think you’re purposefully misreading the intent and your supposed outcomes in order to manufacture an argument that you can both claim is technically correct while also using it as a defeter to anyone trying to make economic arguments.
Because if good managing in capitalism will ruin capitalism then what the fuck is the Iran War doing? Do you even watch the news?