cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/8181688

undefined

  • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Have you read anything about the failures of coordination among the anarchist militias in Catalonia? Or their failures of economic coordination beyond the local level?

    Have you even absorbed the critiques enough that you are in a place to argue against them?

    Because this is serious stuff that you should be educated about before you make judgements about it.

    I'm very sympathetic to anarcho syndicalism, but it showed its weaknesses in Spain and sectarian anarchists blame it on the USSR instead of learning from it.

    PS: I like how you sneaked in that call to emotion at the end. Very manipulative. Love it!

    It is not socially well adapted to declare "appeal to emotion" when someone is communicating why something is personally important to them. What I'm doing is expressing myself in a normal human way, and you consider that manipulative?

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      hexagon
      M
      ·
      1 year ago

      Have you read anything about the failures of coordination among the anarchist militias in Catalonia? Or their failures of economic coordination beyond the local level?

      Ah, nice try, but I already told you I'm not going to debate you on the Spanish Civil War. Why don't you go to the places where there's anarchists up for that sort of thing?

      What I’m doing is expressing myself in a normal human way, and you consider that manipulative?

      You implied that not crushing anarchists would have directly led to a successful genocide. Ye it's pretty manipulative.

      • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah, nice try, but I already told you I'm not going to debate you on the Spanish Civil War.

        I asked you if you've even read anything about it, not if you want to debate me about it.

        You implied that not crushing anarchists would have directly led to a successful genocide. Ye it's pretty manipulative.

        It isnt manipulative to point out that my family would have been killed if the anarchists won, it is giving you an explanation for why I have little sympathy for complaints by anarchists repeating the "stabbed in the back" myth instead of actually digging into the history of their project and learning from its failures to do better next time.

        • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          hexagon
          M
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I asked you if you’ve even read anything about it, not if you want to debate me about it.

          That's how they get you! taps forehead

          It isnt manipulative to point out that my family would have been killed if the anarchists won,

          lol, yea it is. You don't have any idea what would have happened if the anarchists won. Maybe they Spanish revolution would have worked without the backstab and Hitler would have expended himself. Who the fuck knows. It's pretty manipulative to posit a major historical event going completely differently would have worked out the same way except that it would have led this one really horrible thing which everyone has an emotional reaction to. Cmon...

          • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That's how they get you! taps forehead

            If the goal is to get you to read yes, that is the secret tankie plot, to make you a better anarchist who is able to grow from previous failures instead of acting like an aggrieved post ww1 german soldier.

            It's pretty manipulative to posit a major historical event going completely differently would have worked out the same way except that it would have led this one really horrible thing. Cmon...

            Were any anarchists talking about the need for massive industrialization at any cost in the late 1920s early 1930s in the soviet union? No? Then if the anarchists were in charge, yes, the nazis would have won and been able to implement plan ost.

            • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              hexagon
              M
              ·
              1 year ago

              Were any anarchists talking about the need for massive industrialization at any cost in the late 1920s early 1930s in the soviet union? No? Then if the anarchists were in charge, yes, the nazis would have won and been able to implement plan ost.

              Tell me when the novel comes out.

              • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Asking you if something crucially needed to defeat the nazis was even documented as on the radar of contemporary anarchists isnt writing a novel.

          • UlyssesT
            ·
            edit-2
            12 days ago

            deleted by creator

      • UlyssesT
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days ago

        deleted by creator

      • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        galaxy-brain I'm not going to debate you, I'm just going to talk shit.

        The difference is that I shit my pants and cry when you respond to me gigachad

        • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          hexagon
          M
          ·
          1 year ago

          Apparently shitting my pants is enough to have two dozen hexbears hopping mad to the point that they're trolling through the comments days later trying to dunk on me. Stay mad, bby!

          • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Everybody who calls me on my behavior is mad and no that's not a transparent coping mechanism

            • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              hexagon
              M
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh sorry I didn't know "you shit your pants" and similar terms was your collective hexbest at a call out.

              In that case I do apologize for thinking the random shitposts on random comments were due to anger. You're clearly trying.

              • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Not sure where you think you have the standing to call other people out for not putting effort into their posts when that is exactly the criticism being directed at you that you're choosing to wallow in rather than address.

                You are shitting your doo doo pants trying to maintain your smug sense of self all over this thread. You can't engage in good faith so you're pulling boomer quotes about pigeons playing chess and mugging at the crowd like they're on your side to begin with.

                You want to be treated respectfully, you seem to be implying. Deserve it first. Stop acting like a smirking piece of shit and you'll be taken seriously. Or as seriously as you deserve to be taken when you're in the barrel for posting something extremely stupid in the first place.

                • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  hexagon
                  M
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I'm not doing that though. I'm just saying y'all just insulting me randomly doesn't constitute a call out l. It's just you all letting collective steam, because you're kinda upset.

                  • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    No one is insulting you randomly. Not a single person. not a single insult.

                    Erasing context and intent from everything people say to you is the most pathetic, juvenile coping mechanism I've ever seen.

                    Why not address the specific criticism I made of you in that parody dialogue of your actions? When you cried like a angry child about people putting words in your mouth for reading the words you wrote? And then asked you to clarify and you petulantly refused?

                    That's a specific criticism you could choose to remember right now. Why not take a swing at it? Why not be honest instead of dishonest? Why not act smart instead of stupid?

                    Why are you choosing to be a worse person and putting more effort into it than you would have if you just acted like a reasonable adult?

                    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                      hexagon
                      M
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      Simple , because nobody can engage in good faith with patronizing blowhards like you. I had no trouble engaging with other people, feel free to check. But until I now you're only deserving of ridicule from me. Start engaging like an equal, of you want respectful discussion next time.

                      • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
                        ·
                        edit-2
                        1 year ago

                        Absolutely delusional. Your interactions with others is what you're being judged for. I had an entire day of watching you acting like a child to make my impression. It's not like it wasn't pointed out to you over and over again. So it's not like you aren't aware when you say this shit. You know you're being a dishonest, smirking piece of shit. So fuck you trying to reverse your responsibility onto others.

                        • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                          hexagon
                          M
                          ·
                          1 year ago

                          Not mad at all. No siree.

                          Mate, I've been responding to y'all how you deserve. You want to be patronizing? you're gonna get ridicule back. You wanna sealion? you gonna get trolling back.

                          Hexbears have been sniffing their own farts way to long I think.

                          • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
                            ·
                            edit-2
                            1 year ago

                            The way I know you're upset at what I've been saying to you is the way you're now trying to reverse the attack back on me.

                            Here's the difference, stupid: I haven't spent this entire time refusing to engage in good faith by whining about how I've been treated.

                            You wanna sealion?

                            Read: someone criticized your post on specific factual basis and you instantly shut down and started a two day long tantrum by shrieking the names of logical fallacies like they were yugioh trap cards.

                            That's when people really started making fun of you and you 100% deserved it at that point.

                            You're going to have to start deleting comments to pretend that's not what happened

                            • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                              hexagon
                              M
                              ·
                              1 year ago

                              I've been "having a tantrum" cause y'all are very very easy to ridicule. So I have to respond to some of your nonsense now and then.

                              Y'all think you're doing the master dunkers but hundreds of hexbears showing their asses to the world is telling a different story. I don't have to delete comments. Anyone who's not smelling hexbear farts all day can clearly see what's going on and have expressed it clearly.

                              If you want yo believe I'm in tears over here, go right ahead, baby.

                              Read: someone criticized your post on specific factual basis and you instantly shut down

                              Lol at least make up stories to third parties mate, I was there 😁

                              • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
                                ·
                                1 year ago

                                More reasonable to say the person showing their ass is the one who cries "strawman" and refuses to elaborate when engaged in good faith while making separate posts crying about this post.

                                Do you not remember being there for that?

                                • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                                  hexagon
                                  M
                                  ·
                                  1 year ago

                                  More reasonable to say the person showing their ass is the one who cries “strawman” and refuses to elaborate when engaged in good faith while making separate posts crying about this post.

                                  It was a stawman, my guy. Why would I elaborate in good faith when the opening argument was in bad faith?

                                  • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
                                    ·
                                    edit-2
                                    1 year ago

                                    You would have used any excuse to avoid good faith debate just like you used 'brigading' and 'sea lioning' elsewhere and every single time you were challenged. There was no strawman. You were a bad faith actor from the second you posted the meme. That's what attracted the 'brigade' in the first place.

                                    Not that any of this will sink in with someone with such an amazing ability to "I was there" delude themselves

                                      • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
                                        ·
                                        1 year ago

                                        Not that any of this will sink in with someone with such an amazing ability to "I was there" delude themselves