You say that like you engage with the perspective, but like two dozen people have tried very patiently explaining things to you only to get strung around indefinitely
Third campist bullshit is based on anticommunist distortions and is fundamentally more in line with the ideology of the State Department. Multipolarity will not be achieved by your book club.
If you think China is more anticommunist than NATO, you're smoking crack. If you think even Russia, which is a liberal state that exists to not be the USSR first and foremost, is more anticommunist than NATO, you are smoking crack.
Who supports Cuba? Who seeks its destruction?
More importantly, and forgive me for not spelling this out for you before, China has more than a book club! It has a large military and many other practical things going for it that benefit multipolarity. Your book club has none of that, nor prospects at a fraction of it.
we've seen enough of polarization.
Classics in anarcho-bidenism. Silly me, I should have just thought of opting out of the world order because NPR tells me that "polarization" is bad and this "multipolarity" stuff sure sounds like it's the same thing.
How would I have such comparisons? (It's a rhetorical question btw)
There's no reality with such cryptic assumptions and accusations anyway. You don't have to play with these strawmen. Nobody should be forcing you to do such things
My point is that denying China's status as a historically progressive force geopolitically or even vaguely insinuating that it is anticommunist in a way that is comparable to its opposition is hysterical, and if neither of those are what you mean, then what the fuck are you even saying?
I'm super clear and straight forward with what I've said, with no need for such comparisons or any insinuating. Btw the word you're looking for is a regressive force (as are the other forces you've brought into comparison)
"I am very clear. Here, let me falsely correct you about word usage, elliding the difference in position, to really demonstrate how clear and straighforward I am."
Thank God we have you to remind us that bilateral development is regressive next to imperialism.
I personally don't have any stakes here (and it's worrying people sometimes have strong attachments to governments), just calling out things where I see it
It might help if you understand that their writing is not subtext from my comment. It's their own thoughts, maybe trying to (by confusion, or accident, or purpose) attach to me
It might help if you understand that their writing is not subtext from my comment. It's their own thoughts, maybe trying to (by confusion, or accident, or purpose) attach to me
I thought you said you knew what subtext is. Subtext is always interpreted by someone else and not the author (death of the author and such). It seems you're not aware what subtext your comments, meaning you have no clue about a wider context...
Now you're kind of close. It seems that you're kind of aware that they've displayed their own thoughts with the presented subtext, and not mine. Interpretation — as you said.
As a literary device, sure. Anyone has the right to their own interpretation. Of course I can say that in relation to what I say and mean, all interpretations aren't always true.
Ofc Im aware that it's their Interpretation of the subtext of your comments. It seems that you're not aware what subtext your comments give because if you were youd write your comment in a way that it can't be misinterpreted in the first place. Since you didn't, and since you didn't correct the subtext but defensively dismissed it, its safe to dismiss you as a troll.
We could go into communication 101, and what is the relation between a message creator, interpreter and the other affecting factors. But it's safe to say I'm not being engaged in good faith if the view is that I should dismantle others' imaginary bullshit.
No, don't you get it? Commenting anything on what they've said is just all in that person's head. It has nothing to do with the words that they're responding to.
How would that make any sense? Like one person saying something and then a person responds based on what they said? Unheard of. No we're all just yelling into the void. Don't read into this. Its not like we're on a public forum where we should expect orher people to have any kind of response to us
Nothing you say is ever straightforward. I can never understand you, and when I've asked for clarification you never respond except with more things that don't make sense
Nah I don't waste time arguing, check my history yourself. Same goes for the viewpoints and straightforwardness if you want to correct your assumption.
I'm very understanding of those with mixed or confused views and will help if needed
Thanks for the love comrade. Sometimes it's fun to put those fallacies in light and counter with some unity & compassion. After all, it's understandable and only human.
You say that like you engage with the perspective, but like two dozen people have tried very patiently explaining things to you only to get strung around indefinitely
Third campist bullshit is based on anticommunist distortions and is fundamentally more in line with the ideology of the State Department. Multipolarity will not be achieved by your book club.
I don't even know why you're taking whatever it is on me.
China's "book club" is anticommunist, we've seen enough of polarization.
If you think China is more anticommunist than NATO, you're smoking crack. If you think even Russia, which is a liberal state that exists to not be the USSR first and foremost, is more anticommunist than NATO, you are smoking crack.
Who supports Cuba? Who seeks its destruction?
More importantly, and forgive me for not spelling this out for you before, China has more than a book club! It has a large military and many other practical things going for it that benefit multipolarity. Your book club has none of that, nor prospects at a fraction of it.
Classics in anarcho-bidenism. Silly me, I should have just thought of opting out of the world order because NPR tells me that "polarization" is bad and this "multipolarity" stuff sure sounds like it's the same thing.
How would I have such comparisons? (It's a rhetorical question btw)
There's no reality with such cryptic assumptions and accusations anyway. You don't have to play with these strawmen. Nobody should be forcing you to do such things
My point is that denying China's status as a historically progressive force geopolitically or even vaguely insinuating that it is anticommunist in a way that is comparable to its opposition is hysterical, and if neither of those are what you mean, then what the fuck are you even saying?
I'm super clear and straight forward with what I've said, with no need for such comparisons or any insinuating. Btw the word you're looking for is a regressive force (as are the other forces you've brought into comparison)
"I am very clear. Here, let me falsely correct you about word usage, elliding the difference in position, to really demonstrate how clear and straighforward I am."
Thank God we have you to remind us that bilateral development is regressive next to imperialism.
Sheesh, and you claim me of false use of words with these. What's with the selective imperialism fandom
Do you even know what subtext is
Sure. Do you need help with that or...?
Then why are you so defensive when the subtext of comment is pointed out to you.. it's literally what you wrote
What are you reading as defensive?
I personally don't have any stakes here (and it's worrying people sometimes have strong attachments to governments), just calling out things where I see it
It might help if you understand that their writing is not subtext from my comment. It's their own thoughts, maybe trying to (by confusion, or accident, or purpose) attach to me
deleted by creator
I thought you said you knew what subtext is. Subtext is always interpreted by someone else and not the author (death of the author and such). It seems you're not aware what subtext your comments, meaning you have no clue about a wider context...
Now you're kind of close. It seems that you're kind of aware that they've displayed their own thoughts with the presented subtext, and not mine. Interpretation — as you said.
As a literary device, sure. Anyone has the right to their own interpretation. Of course I can say that in relation to what I say and mean, all interpretations aren't always true.
deleted by creator
Ofc Im aware that it's their Interpretation of the subtext of your comments. It seems that you're not aware what subtext your comments give because if you were youd write your comment in a way that it can't be misinterpreted in the first place. Since you didn't, and since you didn't correct the subtext but defensively dismissed it, its safe to dismiss you as a troll.
We could go into communication 101, and what is the relation between a message creator, interpreter and the other affecting factors. But it's safe to say I'm not being engaged in good faith if the view is that I should dismantle others' imaginary bullshit.
deleted by creator
subtext of your comments
No, don't you get it? Commenting anything on what they've said is just all in that person's head. It has nothing to do with the words that they're responding to.
How would that make any sense? Like one person saying something and then a person responds based on what they said? Unheard of. No we're all just yelling into the void. Don't read into this. Its not like we're on a public forum where we should expect orher people to have any kind of response to us
deleted by creator
Nothing you say is ever straightforward. I can never understand you, and when I've asked for clarification you never respond except with more things that don't make sense
Who is this? My comments were to someone else. What do you want help with?
Are u confused at the concept of this being a public forum and not a DM?
Nope. What confuses you to spark such a thought
I see you pop up from time to time. You say stuff that makes no sense, and then argue that the people who don't understand you are wrong.
You're the least straightforward person I've seen. What even is your point of view?
Nah I don't waste time arguing, check my history yourself. Same goes for the viewpoints and straightforwardness if you want to correct your assumption.
I'm very understanding of those with mixed or confused views and will help if needed
You say something. Someone says something back, or asks a question. Then you say "nah i don't argue"
I'm not making an assumption. I'm making an observation based on your actual behavior.
Also, i asked you what your persoective is. I'm not assuming it. You're just dodging like you always do
Always? I don't even know you.
But let's amuse the viewers. My top comment has the clear perspective. What do you need help with that? Remember the rules are no dodging :)
??? I have no clue what the perspective is here. You could just tell me
Oh wow you're actually trying to correct yourself! See, my history is clear-cut :)
(No need for the notification spam tho)
I have no clue what you are saying
Pretty sure not even the bored tortoise has any idea what they're saying either
Gonna start treating them as performance art piece
Lol absolute octopus ink cloud moment
deleted by creator
Thanks for the love comrade. Sometimes it's fun to put those fallacies in light and counter with some unity & compassion. After all, it's understandable and only human.