I didn't say they are like an anti-NATO campist or whatever (campism is a stupid concept anyway), but more generically that they have different biases. This is because everyone does and everyone's ideology is ultimately downstream of their material position. The difference here is that it flatters a Redditor's view of the world to believe that the DPRK has feces quotas it collects from each citizen, it does not flatter our comrade's view that the US does the same because that information is incompatible with their beliefs (they are socially much closer to the US than any Redditor is to the DPRK). They are looking straight ahead and declaring that they have no blindspots because they can see perfectly well, when "straight ahead" is rarely where someone's blindspots actually are.
If you knew what to say and how to say it, you could get most of the people on this site to agree with very outlandish things (not because they are stupid, but because they are people), you just can't take an identical tact because their position is not actually the mirror of a Redditor's position.
I think I understand the gist of what you’re saying; still I feel like you can have different biases and also a different level of skepticism in general. If I hear that like the U.S. or Israel commit some new atrocity, that information is in line with what I already believe about those governments, but I’m still going to do a certain amount of looking into the claim and what the evidence for it is before believing it and repeating it.
Sure, but we must consider why you do such things. I can hazard a guess: Because we are a minority opinion, the socially-designated burden of proof is on us irrespective of the kind of claim being made. We can point to the CIA literally stating in an official capacity that they did X and it's still a crapshoot whether the person we are talking to will consider us a conspiracy theorist for pointing it out. With some crowds, it is much worse talking about Israel (though with some it is better).
Redditors can just accept MSNBC slop because MSNBC is thought of as reputable. We and many of our sources are regarded as disreputable, which is why I can tell you offhand about like a dozen different liberal journalist or governmental reports on Tienanmen Square, it's effectively a type of opinion laundering, whatever we tell ourselves it is. It takes some effort for us to "clean" the case we want to make, while Redditors receive claims that are already "clean," but fundamentally it doesn't indicate as much of an internal difference in our attitudes as OP wants to believe. We have basically the same desire: To be making claims that will be regarded as reputable by the kind of people we are likely to be speaking with. It takes more work in our case, but that too is part of our social position, just like our ideology itself.
Mind you, I'm not even criticizing our practice. You know what I just said about laundering my opinions about Tienanmen Square through the liberal press? I'm going to keep doing it! I barely even engage with overtly communist (or even more generally anti-west) news sources because it just adds in extra steps. Just look hard enough at neoliberal slop, especially from the more "useful idiot" types who watched too much West Wing, and you'll see them tip their hands left and right.
I don't think it's as dishonest as my wording might imply. I view many political arguments as centering on stipulated premises, so it's really just a matter of picking and choosing what premises I want to stipulate. Even if some liberal saying "Yeah, I was sipping tea under the Mao statue on the morning of June 5th" wasn't the origin point of my stance, I'm not saying it was! I'm just presenting that claim (which, incidentally, I do also believe) because I view it as more useful to stipulate than something that is more central to my beliefs but more likely to be dismissed out of hand.
As an aside, here's one where we're in the same boat as Redditors: Have you ever looked up the Gonzalite boiling babies story? I tried to find a basis for it but couldn't.
As an aside, here’s one where we’re in the same boat as Redditors: Have you ever looked up the Gonzalite boiling babies story? I tried to find a basis for it but couldn’t.
This reminds me of a snippet of a BRG article I have burned in my brain:
That’s a good point. I haven’t seen hard evidence for those stories, so I resign myself to not knowing for sure whether or to what extent it is true. In other instances where there is actually clear evidence of self described communists committing atrocities (eg Pol Pot) I do accept it as the truth.
Thanks for elaborating on your point, I see where you are coming from.
The Pol Pot case gets wildly exaggerated in terms of the sheer magnitude, and I think there are even cases where western bombardment gets pinned on the Khmer Rouge, but it's absolutely true that the type of murder people talk about (e.g. killing some Cambodians basically just for being too "western") took place and that a very large number of people died. I seriously believe that Pol Pot was, on a scale relative to the power and population of the country he controlled, potentially a more destructive leader than Hitler, yet even the terrible things he did are not enough for anticommunists, who are so desensitized from pumping the numbers like they do in all cases, and therefore saw fit to pump the numbers for him has well.
I apologize for going on a tangent that makes me look like even more of a crank but, as you might be able to tell from the previous topic, I'm a bit anal-retentive about technical correctness (ironic, given what else I am arguing). Anyway, thank you for hearing me out on the propaganda topic, you helped me work through some thoughts I had.
but I’m still going to do a certain amount of looking into the claim and what the evidence for it is before believing it and repeating it.
You don't need to do this
The west owns a hugely disproportionate amount of wealth, and you're also an english-speaker, so by default 99% of anything crossing your ears is going to either have a pro-western and pro-white and pro-capital bias, or be neutral
I wouldn't consider hexbear to have an anti-western bias either, it's just closer to neutral. An anti-western bias would have to be something like "each and every anglo saxon is unironically spawned from the loins of esau and has corrupt DNA" or something like that. Basically, due to the sheer scale of actual bad things the west is doing (and has done) it's hard to actually make untrue propaganda about it.
I would say it's impossible to make propaganda about the west that's anywhere near as false and unfair as the propaganda they make about others, simply because of the atrociously huge material wealth gap in both the past and present
I didn't say they are like an anti-NATO campist or whatever (campism is a stupid concept anyway), but more generically that they have different biases. This is because everyone does and everyone's ideology is ultimately downstream of their material position. The difference here is that it flatters a Redditor's view of the world to believe that the DPRK has feces quotas it collects from each citizen, it does not flatter our comrade's view that the US does the same because that information is incompatible with their beliefs (they are socially much closer to the US than any Redditor is to the DPRK). They are looking straight ahead and declaring that they have no blindspots because they can see perfectly well, when "straight ahead" is rarely where someone's blindspots actually are.
If you knew what to say and how to say it, you could get most of the people on this site to agree with very outlandish things (not because they are stupid, but because they are people), you just can't take an identical tact because their position is not actually the mirror of a Redditor's position.
I think I understand the gist of what you’re saying; still I feel like you can have different biases and also a different level of skepticism in general. If I hear that like the U.S. or Israel commit some new atrocity, that information is in line with what I already believe about those governments, but I’m still going to do a certain amount of looking into the claim and what the evidence for it is before believing it and repeating it.
Sure, but we must consider why you do such things. I can hazard a guess: Because we are a minority opinion, the socially-designated burden of proof is on us irrespective of the kind of claim being made. We can point to the CIA literally stating in an official capacity that they did X and it's still a crapshoot whether the person we are talking to will consider us a conspiracy theorist for pointing it out. With some crowds, it is much worse talking about Israel (though with some it is better).
Redditors can just accept MSNBC slop because MSNBC is thought of as reputable. We and many of our sources are regarded as disreputable, which is why I can tell you offhand about like a dozen different liberal journalist or governmental reports on Tienanmen Square, it's effectively a type of opinion laundering, whatever we tell ourselves it is. It takes some effort for us to "clean" the case we want to make, while Redditors receive claims that are already "clean," but fundamentally it doesn't indicate as much of an internal difference in our attitudes as OP wants to believe. We have basically the same desire: To be making claims that will be regarded as reputable by the kind of people we are likely to be speaking with. It takes more work in our case, but that too is part of our social position, just like our ideology itself.
Mind you, I'm not even criticizing our practice. You know what I just said about laundering my opinions about Tienanmen Square through the liberal press? I'm going to keep doing it! I barely even engage with overtly communist (or even more generally anti-west) news sources because it just adds in extra steps. Just look hard enough at neoliberal slop, especially from the more "useful idiot" types who watched too much West Wing, and you'll see them tip their hands left and right.
I don't think it's as dishonest as my wording might imply. I view many political arguments as centering on stipulated premises, so it's really just a matter of picking and choosing what premises I want to stipulate. Even if some liberal saying "Yeah, I was sipping tea under the Mao statue on the morning of June 5th" wasn't the origin point of my stance, I'm not saying it was! I'm just presenting that claim (which, incidentally, I do also believe) because I view it as more useful to stipulate than something that is more central to my beliefs but more likely to be dismissed out of hand.
As an aside, here's one where we're in the same boat as Redditors: Have you ever looked up the Gonzalite boiling babies story? I tried to find a basis for it but couldn't.
This reminds me of a snippet of a BRG article I have burned in my brain:
I've read that one too, though I struggled to find it again during the aforementioned search, so I appreciate it.
That’s a good point. I haven’t seen hard evidence for those stories, so I resign myself to not knowing for sure whether or to what extent it is true. In other instances where there is actually clear evidence of self described communists committing atrocities (eg Pol Pot) I do accept it as the truth.
Thanks for elaborating on your point, I see where you are coming from.
The Pol Pot case gets wildly exaggerated in terms of the sheer magnitude, and I think there are even cases where western bombardment gets pinned on the Khmer Rouge, but it's absolutely true that the type of murder people talk about (e.g. killing some Cambodians basically just for being too "western") took place and that a very large number of people died. I seriously believe that Pol Pot was, on a scale relative to the power and population of the country he controlled, potentially a more destructive leader than Hitler, yet even the terrible things he did are not enough for anticommunists, who are so desensitized from pumping the numbers like they do in all cases, and therefore saw fit to pump the numbers for him has well.
I apologize for going on a tangent that makes me look like even more of a crank but, as you might be able to tell from the previous topic, I'm a bit anal-retentive about technical correctness (ironic, given what else I am arguing). Anyway, thank you for hearing me out on the propaganda topic, you helped me work through some thoughts I had.
You don't need to do this
The west owns a hugely disproportionate amount of wealth, and you're also an english-speaker, so by default 99% of anything crossing your ears is going to either have a pro-western and pro-white and pro-capital bias, or be neutral
I wouldn't consider hexbear to have an anti-western bias either, it's just closer to neutral. An anti-western bias would have to be something like "each and every anglo saxon is unironically spawned from the loins of esau and has corrupt DNA" or something like that. Basically, due to the sheer scale of actual bad things the west is doing (and has done) it's hard to actually make untrue propaganda about it.
I would say it's impossible to make propaganda about the west that's anywhere near as false and unfair as the propaganda they make about others, simply because of the atrociously huge material wealth gap in both the past and present