Also, why is your reply littered with little “gotchas” like “… there are (still unspecified) material conditions…”?
I was reminding you of one of my few original points that you repeatedly ignored.
I mean this is pure projection, where on one had you want me to engage in a thorough and peaceable discourse
I have never suggested you be thorough or peaceable. I have told you to not be shitty to comrades, particularly your form of toxicity. I deal with that shit enough in irl organizing where baby leftists can't figure out that they shouldn't be trying to dunk on comrades in the same goddamn room with their shitty hot takes.
pissbaby: 11
you could instead literally just say “Can you please enumerate what material conditions that you believe are lacking” but you’re choosing not to, and feel free to just say it plainly why you are choosing not to do this.
That's not my point. I made the point that your position is not based on an analysis of material conditions or history. I am correct in that point and this extended storytelling and ego-protecting session is proving that very well.
In any case, the material conditions I believe are lacking, while not explicitly enumerated are implied in this portion of my “ridiculous and imaginary discourse” where I ask if you believe there “… is an army of fellow comrades with sufficiently developed mutual aid networks capable of securing material needs to be secretly transported into Texas to help the comrades there build grow their membership and education programs?”.
I recommend that you ask, "material conditions for what?" and see whether you can even make it match what OP is talking about. It is very clear that you jumped from "boycotts don't work and just hurt the workers" to a boilerplate description of the anemic state of socialist organizing in the United States without actually making a material connection between the boycott (etc) itself and your conclusion. Given that this is a bad-faith discussion, I don't think it would be worthwhile for me to try to fill in the gaps of logic in any way.
Either way, it’s telling, and convenient for your response, that you’ve chosen to not engage with this to simply write it off as some “absurd” self imagined fight, when I’m legitimately asking you to answer for what you think a BDS on Texas is going to accomplish.
It is indeed convenient for my position that your points are so terrible. But it's no fault of mine that this is the case, obviously.
I think a lack of empathy is going on, here, and is partly explanatory of your behavior. Your storytelling has next to zero material relevance to a BDS program. You have not actually tied it to the expected activities or outcome of a BDS-style movement. Do you really expect anyone to go down a rabbit hole with you about your stories? Would you follow that rabbit hole? I hope not.
And no, it was not clear that your question was anything but rhetorical because you went on to suggest why you think it would only accomplish negative things or otherwise lacked the ability to effect positive change. I'll think about answering it if I don't write off this entire conversation shortly, though hell you can find me elsewhere in the thread explaining the useful function of boycotts and related movements.
A very notable thing you decided to not give an answer to was: Texas is a settler colonial region of America, it is a racist region of America, and it is a sexist region of America.
That's not a question, lol. wtf do you expect as an answer to an obvious fact that poses no clear challenge to the thing in question? Let me help you organize your thoughts: when you bring up a point, ask yourself, "is this different enough from SA or Palestine [or whatever] for me to be making a point?"
Israel is a settler-colonial state. SA is a settler-colonial state. Both are racist. Both are sexist, and SA was in particular. Does this mean that BDS would be unworkable for those two?
Rewind the clock to the 60s: are you making a super great point about not doing any boycott-ie attempts in the UK re: SA? In other words, let's pretend there weren't already obvious counterexamples. Your claim doesn't even have clear relevance or validity regarding the premise.
But find for me a region in North America where that is not the case? If you cannot find a place where that is not the case, then, Texas is not any different the the rest of the United States.
This does not follow. If every state is American (and therefore settler-colonial), racist, sexist, it cannot be any different? You clearly don't fucking get around a lot, because there are areas (and states) where it's a lot more dangerous to be gay or black or socialist than others, including Texas. You are failing to understand qualitative vs. quantitative differences, which is the whole basis of a materialist analysis: the qualitative emerge from the quantitative, with significant gaps developing prior to recognizing a qualitative distinction. Seattle is still racist but it's a hell of a lot less racist, and less dangerous to e.g. black people than, massive swaths of Mississippi. And, if one were to pick a geographical divide, it would be more rural vs. urban than anything else, with TX having a larger rural (and suburban) reactionary population than states where the cities are absolutely dominant. i.e., the organization of underlying political forces need not be at the state level to be reflected by it and therefore reasonably targeted by state-level interventions.
Anyways I'm explaining too much. The logic you presented does not follow.
As well as this, this is approaching “orange man bad” levels of liberalism, since, the only reasons left to you or anyone who’s pro-BDS for texas at this point is: “Do BDS because we don’t like the GOP" and “Do BDS because I think it will help build socialism there”.
I have said nothing like either thing and you are now telling stories again. Though the latter does provide insight into why your points are so bad - you're believing some of your own storytelling about what I'm saying.
pissbaby: 12
In any case, if you do answer these questions later, because of a misunderstanding of what the intent was there, consider all of these “conveniences” and “telling” parts of your response to be forgiven, since, I understand that when you’re trying to win the epic debate (and not discuss amongst comrades) sometimes things are misunderstood.
Do not confuse my treatment of you in a conversation where you bring no good faith with you jumping in to be shitty to comrades coming up with ideas for action.
“Ask yourself how you got from BDS to martyrdom.”
I get there from the present conditions to say, isolating Texas does not give you anything but potentially harmed comrades.
Believe it or not, restating your conclusion in a slightly different way doesn't fill in the gaps.
More reactionaries organized to do violence against leftists and minorities is very different from early anti-apartheid organization for a number of reasons.
You're right, it's a lot easier going in the US vs. being a black South African in the 60s. And the SA boycott campaign had to pick up steam in a Thatcherite UK, in contrast to vaguely left-liberal/leftist American cities outside of TX where people are already used to the idea of consumption as advocacy, conflicted as it is as a general tool.
Though you'd have to actually state things clearly for me to do much more without trying to fill in gaps on your behalf.
Sure it does
Does it? Because it's just a random person's idea for a post and has no specifics. I'm highlighting the absurdity of your insulting pushback against all kinds of nonexistent specifics.
but the issues are not local to Texas, these are issues present everywhere in America
What issues? What is OP referring to? We don't even know. If I were to think of what TX has done most recently, it's to try and challenge federal protections for oppressed peoples (women, black, gay) established by the Supreme Court, and to have some success doing so. TX is not alone in this, but it is also in no way uniform, instead being restricted to states run by right wing parties. In addition, TX has a much better time with this due to its resources and near-total control by committed reactionaries. You're also falling for your own trap of not understanding quantitative vs. qualitative differences. And don't even get me started on the fact that you can mobilize people even if you think they are hypocrites or inconsistent.
But again, you'd need to actually ask OP some questions in good faith to have this conversation. You're dismissing a phantom.
You are the one imagining an America which has the potential to sanction off 1 segment of its country.
I was reminding you of one of my few original points that you repeatedly ignored.
I have never suggested you be thorough or peaceable. I have told you to not be shitty to comrades, particularly your form of toxicity. I deal with that shit enough in irl organizing where baby leftists can't figure out that they shouldn't be trying to dunk on comrades in the same goddamn room with their shitty hot takes.
pissbaby: 11
That's not my point. I made the point that your position is not based on an analysis of material conditions or history. I am correct in that point and this extended storytelling and ego-protecting session is proving that very well.
I recommend that you ask, "material conditions for what?" and see whether you can even make it match what OP is talking about. It is very clear that you jumped from "boycotts don't work and just hurt the workers" to a boilerplate description of the anemic state of socialist organizing in the United States without actually making a material connection between the boycott (etc) itself and your conclusion. Given that this is a bad-faith discussion, I don't think it would be worthwhile for me to try to fill in the gaps of logic in any way.
It is indeed convenient for my position that your points are so terrible. But it's no fault of mine that this is the case, obviously.
I think a lack of empathy is going on, here, and is partly explanatory of your behavior. Your storytelling has next to zero material relevance to a BDS program. You have not actually tied it to the expected activities or outcome of a BDS-style movement. Do you really expect anyone to go down a rabbit hole with you about your stories? Would you follow that rabbit hole? I hope not.
And no, it was not clear that your question was anything but rhetorical because you went on to suggest why you think it would only accomplish negative things or otherwise lacked the ability to effect positive change. I'll think about answering it if I don't write off this entire conversation shortly, though hell you can find me elsewhere in the thread explaining the useful function of boycotts and related movements.
That's not a question, lol. wtf do you expect as an answer to an obvious fact that poses no clear challenge to the thing in question? Let me help you organize your thoughts: when you bring up a point, ask yourself, "is this different enough from SA or Palestine [or whatever] for me to be making a point?"
Israel is a settler-colonial state. SA is a settler-colonial state. Both are racist. Both are sexist, and SA was in particular. Does this mean that BDS would be unworkable for those two?
Rewind the clock to the 60s: are you making a super great point about not doing any boycott-ie attempts in the UK re: SA? In other words, let's pretend there weren't already obvious counterexamples. Your claim doesn't even have clear relevance or validity regarding the premise.
This does not follow. If every state is American (and therefore settler-colonial), racist, sexist, it cannot be any different? You clearly don't fucking get around a lot, because there are areas (and states) where it's a lot more dangerous to be gay or black or socialist than others, including Texas. You are failing to understand qualitative vs. quantitative differences, which is the whole basis of a materialist analysis: the qualitative emerge from the quantitative, with significant gaps developing prior to recognizing a qualitative distinction. Seattle is still racist but it's a hell of a lot less racist, and less dangerous to e.g. black people than, massive swaths of Mississippi. And, if one were to pick a geographical divide, it would be more rural vs. urban than anything else, with TX having a larger rural (and suburban) reactionary population than states where the cities are absolutely dominant. i.e., the organization of underlying political forces need not be at the state level to be reflected by it and therefore reasonably targeted by state-level interventions.
Anyways I'm explaining too much. The logic you presented does not follow.
I have said nothing like either thing and you are now telling stories again. Though the latter does provide insight into why your points are so bad - you're believing some of your own storytelling about what I'm saying.
pissbaby: 12
Do not confuse my treatment of you in a conversation where you bring no good faith with you jumping in to be shitty to comrades coming up with ideas for action.
Believe it or not, restating your conclusion in a slightly different way doesn't fill in the gaps.
You're right, it's a lot easier going in the US vs. being a black South African in the 60s. And the SA boycott campaign had to pick up steam in a Thatcherite UK, in contrast to vaguely left-liberal/leftist American cities outside of TX where people are already used to the idea of consumption as advocacy, conflicted as it is as a general tool.
Though you'd have to actually state things clearly for me to do much more without trying to fill in gaps on your behalf.
Does it? Because it's just a random person's idea for a post and has no specifics. I'm highlighting the absurdity of your insulting pushback against all kinds of nonexistent specifics.
What issues? What is OP referring to? We don't even know. If I were to think of what TX has done most recently, it's to try and challenge federal protections for oppressed peoples (women, black, gay) established by the Supreme Court, and to have some success doing so. TX is not alone in this, but it is also in no way uniform, instead being restricted to states run by right wing parties. In addition, TX has a much better time with this due to its resources and near-total control by committed reactionaries. You're also falling for your own trap of not understanding quantitative vs. qualitative differences. And don't even get me started on the fact that you can mobilize people even if you think they are hypocrites or inconsistent.
But again, you'd need to actually ask OP some questions in good faith to have this conversation. You're dismissing a phantom.
Am I? Quote me saying so.
pissbaby: 13.