826
A month before an election!? BlooMAGA, amirite??? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
locked 843 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 month ago (21 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

    Experience shows that without context, points fail to land. That's one of the primary differences between dialectical materialism and metaphysical materialism. If you don't have context for what those are, for example, they will just sound like buzzwords.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Yeah and if you force context where it's not needed you're actually just piling more buzzwords to back up your buzzwords. If yoy actually want a dialect it requires a second party, and you have to meet that party where they are if you have any chance of trying to connect with them in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    You're referring to Greek dialectics, not dialectical materialism. That's kinda proving my point, the point was lost because context wasn't provided. Context is necessary a lot of the time, and I've yet to see it backfire.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    That's still wildly presumptuous. Currently what I've seen of dialectical materialism is it being used as a linguistic multitool to confuse and dictate whatever terms are necessary to make your point at tge cost of having to declare your opponent incapable or unwilling to 'learn' or 'understand' what I can only assume at this point is a very clever way to escape a conversation and declare yourself intellectually superior. Not really effective if you're trying to reachput to everyday people.

    The fact that you were ready to define away my explainayion on how to rwach people tells me that it doesn't matter to you at all what another person has only that they agree with you at the end, and I think you're deluding yourself if you thknk the smiles and nods are a victory in that case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Nah, I used it as an example. Dialectical materialism is a worldview that sees the world as an interconnected mix of ever-changing processes, propelled by internal contradictions in everything. It's how I view the world, it's the Marxist standpoint. When a metaphysician analyzes something, they tend to abstract it and try to categorize it as though it's an individual snapshot, while a dialectician will focus primarily on how it came to be, where it appears to be going, and how it relates to everything else.

    Context matters. Sometimes that means I need to take a few extra paragraphs to build my point. Do you have an example of a point I made that had too much context?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I am moving on after this but if you are on the internet and your opening statement, by either topline comment or tacitly invited rebuttal, is more than a paragraph, you've painted yourself as someone who is going to basically use the same points in as broad as a way as possible and that, honestly, you are absurdly easy to provoke.

    In neurtal or hostile setti gs you will be ignored. In friendly setting I'm sure you're told you're greatly well read and very smart.

    As for me I just know I'm in a thread addressing redfash voter supression.

    Do what that what you will.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I don't see an example here, nor do I have reason to believe the limits of reaching people is a single paragraph. The only people willing to change their minds in the first place are the ones willing to read at least a few sentences.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    In Marxist analysis, as capitalism goes on, capital accumulates, centralizes, and coalesces. The rate of profit also has a tendency to fall as time goes on, and automation and productivity raise the organic composition of capital. This has a socializing impact on how production and distribution is organized, while leaving appropriation of the surplus in fewer and fewer hands. This leads to crisis. Accelerating the growth of capital therefore makes this crisis happen sooner.

    The reason this is a terrible strategy is because the collapse of capitalism does not guarantee socialism. For that, you need a revolutionary party that can educate and guide the whole of the working class towards revolution, otherwise it just collapses into barbarism. Climate change cannot wait for capitalism to collapse on its own either. As the better stewards of accumulation, the DNC provides a more stable base for capitalism to progress smoothly and hit crisis faster.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -3 points 1 month ago (3 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I do watch the news, what point are you trying to raise?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Nah not today. Tired of being treated like I'm not a reasoning human being as opposed to a name on the page of some backwater Reddit offshoot. How do you tolerate it? Don't actually answer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    I'll answer anyways, it's because onlookers view conversations made online and this shapes their thinking. When people like yourself admit to never taking your interlocutor seriously, this just serves to legitimize what the other person is saying. I am a Marxist, I believe people can change, and that I shouldn't obscure my views or fail to try to bring people up to better levels of understanding. I also have had people thank me directly, so positive reinforcement helps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)