I think that me deciding to engage in this actual discussion with you should be proof enough
For fun, I'm going to keep a tally of obvious misrepresentations / petty ego-protecting shit, which I'll put under the heading, "pissbaby". It is very clear, it is obvious, that my point about "fedposting" is that your behavior is far more in line with doing so despite your criticisms. You decided, today, to go out and be utterly toxic to some comrades while being a big ol' hypocrite, and then are surprised when this is pointed out?
Oh, and because you're minimizing my criticisms of toxicity, let me be clear that swearing and namecalling aren't inherently toxic, particularly in response to toxicity. I'm not calling for decorum. I'm pointing out that you're attempt to disrupt and alienate people who are actually interested in some level of organization.
pissbaby: 1
but also if you just look through my history, you’ll see a post where I flat out apologize to another person for being wrong about something.
Your 1-day history where you've said a whole host of blatantly false shit. If that's the metric for not fed posting, you have a lot to apologize for, lol.
pissbaby: 2
Apologies for not engaging in the most principled possible debate imaginable off to start
Childish ego-protecting straw man trying to minimize your toxic behavior.
pissbaby: 3
and that at least should give some credibility, considering I’m being at least somewhat consistent at this point.
Turning on Rddit debatebro mode rather than Rddit dunking mode has not improved the situation.
Also, spare me your tone-policing
Kindly shut the fuck up. If you don't want to be called out for wrecker toxic shit, don't do wrecker toxic shit. It is not my fault that you chose to go do wrecker toxic shit today, nor my fault for noticing it, nor my fault for correctly calling it out. Your route away from having this kind of conversation is to no longer do this kind of thing. I do not give a shit about apologies, though if they make you feel better and less likely to do this in the future, knock yourself out.
And your idea of "improvement" is to go into a dishonest damage control mode. I was trying to avoid being so blatant about it, but it seems like you're just going to keep going down this path of feeling good about this shit if I try to beat around the bush and give you that pretense that I think you're acting in good faith. Minimizing your toxicity is not a good faith interaction. Ignoring or deflecting from my main points is not a good faith interaction. Misrepresenting what I say is not a good faith interaction. These are not some list of grievances against me, as I have low expectations and am not offended by them. They are reflections of your approach to these conversations: that we are not real people you should take seriously in any way, your comrades. This is not good shit, comrade.
pissbaby: 4
During the development and deployment of Neoliberalism, the policies and erosion’s to the working class haven’t had the time to fully develop (...)
Cool, my point about Western powers was related to the impact of neoliberalism on the S part of BDS, since that's the thing they can do officially. The hint for this was that I mentioned sanctions. That was in no way particularly different before or after neoliberlism picked up steam. I am essentially having to guess about what point you're trying to make re: neoliberalism, since it's not even that well-defined in leftist spaces and its relevance to this conversation is in no way obvious. Black South Africans under apartheid did not live in particularly rich conditions for personal economic stability or organizing - they did so out of necessity and desperation, more like. The average person in TX is in a much more favorable position, far more stable. But again, I'm probably being too generous in trying to make what you're claiming have basic logical connections between what you're concluding vs. what you're claiming. Feel free to just actually make a point that's an actual criticism of OP's vague allusion to BDS in Texas.
I don’t actually know the exact historical nuances of South Africa during the anti-apartheid movement, and unless you’re willing to start sharing some sources, I don’t think you do either.
We can have a conversation that involves collaboratively sharing information when it ceases to be one premised on bad-faith interactions and excuse-making.
You’re the one that brings up the SA BDS movement, reflexively.
I brought it up as an example of a reasonably successful boycott campaign - and, interestingly, one that shows the necessity of tabling under certain circumstances. I think this is obvious and will not condescend to suggest you didn't understand the relevance. Not sure why you mention "reflexively" if not to be pointlessly dismissive.
pissbaby: 5
Note that you don’t go on to say what this misrepresentation is exactly.
The entire claim is a misrepresentation because I never claimed or implied what is stated in it. It is at best irrelevant (telling some stories to make your point easier) and at worst an attempt to saddle me with a bullshit claim so that you can rationalize your thinking more easily.
pissbaby: 6
This is just tone-policing.
Kindly shut the fuck up. The other commenter probably had a better idea in just sending you PPB.
pissbaby: 7
You’re right though, I could’ve just decided to have a giant big brain discussion on someone’s post that was literally “haha they like free markets, lets let em have it and do a praxis”, but let’s be honest, I’m doing this now and you’re taking the ethos too far. Also if I’m “incorrect” in general, there hasn’t really been much in the way of you showing me where I’m incorrect? There has been 3 posts, 1 of me trying to do a “le epic dunk” on the OP, 1 of me trying to do a lesser “le epic dunk” on you, and then the one you are replying to presently.
If you wanted more explanation of my criticisms, you could ask questions. And most of the things where I've pointed to you being incorrect are blatant and obvious, requiring no explanation unless you reject the easily verified premise. Example: did the SA boycott movement have much steam in the 60s? No, it fucking didn't. It more like petered out for most of that decade. Therefore, discussing the movement in the 60s re: neoliberalism does not speak to my point and bringing it up was an error. Did you need me to explain this after I pointed out that it didn't pick up steam until the decades after the one you mentioned? I assumed you would put this together fairly easily, and I'm confident that you actually did do so.
I didn’t know it was a competition for who has the most credentials here
Not credentials. Being familiar enough with the topic to at least be consistent with condescension - though the toxicity displayed still wouldn't be warranted.
but yeah, I’m involved in socialist organizing, in my local area, there’s not a ton of stuff going on so, I guess sorry for not living wherever you live. My dismissiveness is towards the idea of doing this BDS for Texas, and I’m outlining my reasons why, not that Boycotts and Tabling don’t work, because it clearly worked, for anti-apartheid movements in South Africa, which I’ve already said is a good thing.
You have an incoherent set of stories that amount to, "it will just hurt the people it's meant to help", or more generously, "it will just hurt the workers". They have the trappings of a socialist discourse but aren't actually connected to the BDS part of the equation because you don't know the impact of such movements because you don't actually know jack shit about them.
This would be fine if you were asking questions or lurking or whatever. But you decided today was a good day to be shitty to a comrade with an idea and then all of the people who pushed back on that toxicity.
You keep equating “Boycotts” and “BDS” as though these are the exact same things.
Lie.
pissbaby: 8
Not to mention, “The Economist” line on this presupposes an actual organized movement with actual support networks and power, because they are fighting in the interest of the bourgeoisie.
It presupposes a boycott that is getting attention and there's an incentive to respond. We don't really need to dither about the extent to which they actually threaten the bourgeoisie given that you are taking their line on this.
My “line” on this is literally saying “this cannot work because there are no conditions present now or in the foreseeable future for this to be something that can possibly happen”.
As the person making the accusation, actually I get to tell you what line I'm referring to, which is the notion that all the boycott etc would do is hurt workers. The Economist actually uses the same line today to attack the idea of boycotting places with poor labor practices. Good consumer, do not fret about the 16 hour work days in unsafe conditions, you are actually helping lift that Bangladeshi out of poverty!
pissbaby: 9
I’m replying to the whole snippet here: simply put, we are currently talking about it, so I don’t know why you’re still going on about this? I literally am engaging in this discussion now, so let’s move on from whining about it.
Oh yes, now it's even a fault of mine for criticizing that toxic behavior! I'm "whining" for pointing to the thing you barely acknowledge, let alone correct, let alone admit fault for. Classic toxic R*dditor behavior.
If you wanted to vent today or something, there are plenty of other venues with actually deserving people for you to participate in.
For fun, I'm going to keep a tally of obvious misrepresentations / petty ego-protecting shit, which I'll put under the heading, "pissbaby". It is very clear, it is obvious, that my point about "fedposting" is that your behavior is far more in line with doing so despite your criticisms. You decided, today, to go out and be utterly toxic to some comrades while being a big ol' hypocrite, and then are surprised when this is pointed out?
Oh, and because you're minimizing my criticisms of toxicity, let me be clear that swearing and namecalling aren't inherently toxic, particularly in response to toxicity. I'm not calling for decorum. I'm pointing out that you're attempt to disrupt and alienate people who are actually interested in some level of organization.
pissbaby: 1
Your 1-day history where you've said a whole host of blatantly false shit. If that's the metric for not fed posting, you have a lot to apologize for, lol.
pissbaby: 2
Childish ego-protecting straw man trying to minimize your toxic behavior.
pissbaby: 3
Turning on Rddit debatebro mode rather than Rddit dunking mode has not improved the situation.
Kindly shut the fuck up. If you don't want to be called out for wrecker toxic shit, don't do wrecker toxic shit. It is not my fault that you chose to go do wrecker toxic shit today, nor my fault for noticing it, nor my fault for correctly calling it out. Your route away from having this kind of conversation is to no longer do this kind of thing. I do not give a shit about apologies, though if they make you feel better and less likely to do this in the future, knock yourself out.
And your idea of "improvement" is to go into a dishonest damage control mode. I was trying to avoid being so blatant about it, but it seems like you're just going to keep going down this path of feeling good about this shit if I try to beat around the bush and give you that pretense that I think you're acting in good faith. Minimizing your toxicity is not a good faith interaction. Ignoring or deflecting from my main points is not a good faith interaction. Misrepresenting what I say is not a good faith interaction. These are not some list of grievances against me, as I have low expectations and am not offended by them. They are reflections of your approach to these conversations: that we are not real people you should take seriously in any way, your comrades. This is not good shit, comrade.
pissbaby: 4
Cool, my point about Western powers was related to the impact of neoliberalism on the S part of BDS, since that's the thing they can do officially. The hint for this was that I mentioned sanctions. That was in no way particularly different before or after neoliberlism picked up steam. I am essentially having to guess about what point you're trying to make re: neoliberalism, since it's not even that well-defined in leftist spaces and its relevance to this conversation is in no way obvious. Black South Africans under apartheid did not live in particularly rich conditions for personal economic stability or organizing - they did so out of necessity and desperation, more like. The average person in TX is in a much more favorable position, far more stable. But again, I'm probably being too generous in trying to make what you're claiming have basic logical connections between what you're concluding vs. what you're claiming. Feel free to just actually make a point that's an actual criticism of OP's vague allusion to BDS in Texas.
We can have a conversation that involves collaboratively sharing information when it ceases to be one premised on bad-faith interactions and excuse-making.
I brought it up as an example of a reasonably successful boycott campaign - and, interestingly, one that shows the necessity of tabling under certain circumstances. I think this is obvious and will not condescend to suggest you didn't understand the relevance. Not sure why you mention "reflexively" if not to be pointlessly dismissive.
pissbaby: 5
The entire claim is a misrepresentation because I never claimed or implied what is stated in it. It is at best irrelevant (telling some stories to make your point easier) and at worst an attempt to saddle me with a bullshit claim so that you can rationalize your thinking more easily.
pissbaby: 6
Kindly shut the fuck up. The other commenter probably had a better idea in just sending you PPB.
pissbaby: 7
If you wanted more explanation of my criticisms, you could ask questions. And most of the things where I've pointed to you being incorrect are blatant and obvious, requiring no explanation unless you reject the easily verified premise. Example: did the SA boycott movement have much steam in the 60s? No, it fucking didn't. It more like petered out for most of that decade. Therefore, discussing the movement in the 60s re: neoliberalism does not speak to my point and bringing it up was an error. Did you need me to explain this after I pointed out that it didn't pick up steam until the decades after the one you mentioned? I assumed you would put this together fairly easily, and I'm confident that you actually did do so.
Not credentials. Being familiar enough with the topic to at least be consistent with condescension - though the toxicity displayed still wouldn't be warranted.
You have an incoherent set of stories that amount to, "it will just hurt the people it's meant to help", or more generously, "it will just hurt the workers". They have the trappings of a socialist discourse but aren't actually connected to the BDS part of the equation because you don't know the impact of such movements because you don't actually know jack shit about them.
This would be fine if you were asking questions or lurking or whatever. But you decided today was a good day to be shitty to a comrade with an idea and then all of the people who pushed back on that toxicity.
Lie.
pissbaby: 8
It presupposes a boycott that is getting attention and there's an incentive to respond. We don't really need to dither about the extent to which they actually threaten the bourgeoisie given that you are taking their line on this.
As the person making the accusation, actually I get to tell you what line I'm referring to, which is the notion that all the boycott etc would do is hurt workers. The Economist actually uses the same line today to attack the idea of boycotting places with poor labor practices. Good consumer, do not fret about the 16 hour work days in unsafe conditions, you are actually helping lift that Bangladeshi out of poverty!
pissbaby: 9
Oh yes, now it's even a fault of mine for criticizing that toxic behavior! I'm "whining" for pointing to the thing you barely acknowledge, let alone correct, let alone admit fault for. Classic toxic R*dditor behavior.
If you wanted to vent today or something, there are plenty of other venues with actually deserving people for you to participate in.
pissbaby: 10