I have no idea whether or not what is shown in the OP is an op. But the way I took it, is that if it is, it's not so much that they're genuinely pushing a pro-Putin agenda so much as poisoning the leftist well, so to speak. It's about optics and making sure leftists look ridiculous especially to anyone who might otherwise be receptive. "Look at those batshit lefties, pretending to stand for equity and social progress but actually supporting reactionaries like Putin."
If that guy is who people say he is, he's done a lot worse to poison the well (patriotic socialism, US imperialism as a tail-wagging-the-dog plot, bizarre sexual pathology towards Luna), but hand-wringing about Putin helps no one. The imperialist argument is "Putin's policies are indefensible, and that's why the US needs to intervene." You are only building the case for them , and worse, tying anyone hurt by Putin's policies to the imperialist cause. Instead, leftists should be clear that Putin's problems are for Russians alone to worry about.
In the context of US imperialism and Russia I was expecting the leader of some socialist party that was banned from elections or some bit of history I wasn't aware of.
And speaking of making leftists look ridiculous...
Edit: Ok, I thought that reply was just gibberish (from an account with a total of 3 comments all made today - rather sus), so I dismissed it out of hand. But if you're not just a wrecker/troll .... I don't know who you're accusing in your first sentence of being "that guy." RNAi?! Tf are you talking about? And I honestly can't make sense of the rest of your comment as it relates to mine. Are you saying calling Putin a reactionary is "building the case for [US imperialists]"? First of all, I wasn't even calling him one, the sentence in quotes in my first comment was a hypothetical. That said, I am now; Putin is a reactionary. And secondly, that's still a ridiculous take.
It's a sus account, but it's pretty clear from the context that "that guy" refers to "Infrared", not RNAi.
He seems to be saying that focusing on Putin's misdeeds in a public context only helps manufacture consent for imperialism, which is a point that has some merit depending on the specific context. Putin is, of course, reactionary. We all know that.
Ok, am I blind? What's the context that makes it clear he's referring to someone never even mentioned in this thread?
As for the rest...
I disagree. Refusing to call a spade a spade for the sake of optics, in public or otherwise, only undermines your own authenticity. What's worse is actively pretending it's not a spade.
Refusing to call a spade a spade for the sake of optics, in public or otherwise, only undermines your own authenticity.
That's why I said specific context. It would, for example, not be productive to rant to liberals about how Putin is evil. That's clearly manufacturing consent for imperialist aggression. In any context where people might support aggression against Russia, you should make efforts to avoid encouraging that. That doesn't mean ignoring that Putin is a reactionary, just being careful about how you discuss it. As for here, we are on a socialist forum, clearly in this context that's not really a concern.
What’s worse is actively pretending it’s not a spade.
Good thing I absolutely am not. I said "focusing" on Putin's misdeeds can be dangerous in certain contexts, that's all. It's like how focusing on Iran's misdeeds can very easily manufacture consent for aggression in that region. This is a very, very ordinary anti-imperialist take.
Then there should be no controversy here.
There isn't. I'm also thinking we shouldn't take anyone with this user's... particular username very seriously (BeriaInocenceProject).
Uh, that wasn't posted until well after the comment where he was making the accusation. And honestly, it's still not clear context, since you have to go read a twitter thread that has absolutely nothing to do with anything else here. I'm perfectly happy to admit I'm just totally missing something obvious, but seriously... what does that link, posted long after the fact, have anything to do with the rest of this thread?
specific context.
Ok, here's the specific context of this conversation, BeriaInocenceProject was claiming that either what I was saying in my comment, or what RNAi was saying originally, (I don't know which is the case, this whole conversation is a little surreal imo) was aiding US imperialism. I counter that as being ridiculous, which it is, and it sounds like you agree. But then it seems like you come in with a "well ackshually" response for me.
I agree, it would not be productive to walk into a room full of liberals and start ranting about Putin. But that highly specific context is nowhere to be seen. That is not what was happening anywhere. If instead, someone is glorifying Putin as "based" I think in any following context, it would not be a negative thing to say "No. Putin is bad." I think this is all the more the case if the Putin-praising was being done in a leftist space. And that is what was happening in the original image.
In the context of what's actually happening and being discussed here, to me it seems pretty weird to come in with "they have a point" in defense of someone arguing that it's wrong to call Putin a reactionary. But I dunno. Whatever. I realize we're pretty much in agreement. This whole thing just strikes me as... odd.
Uh, that wasn’t posted until well after the comment where he was making the accusation. And honestly, it’s still not clear context, since you have to go read a twitter thread that has absolutely nothing to do with anything else here. I’m perfectly happy to admit I’m just totally missing something obvious, but seriously… what does that link, posted long after the fact, have anything to do with the rest of this thread?
My bad, when you added your edit to your comment, it replaced the first time stamp, so I didn't realize the order of comments.
Yeah, I agree that the image in the OP is ridiculous. Putin is not "based", and there's absolutely no sense in saying so. I just wanted to make the point that there are contexts in which focusing on criticisms, even if they are true, is still harmful.
In the context of what’s actually happening and being discussed here, to me it seems pretty weird to come in with “they have a point” in defense of someone arguing that it’s wrong to call Putin a reactionary.
Yeah, agreed. I initially read that user's comment as directed in general and not at you/RNAi specifically, but I think in retrospect that may have been too charitable a reading.
IDK, you're probably right that I picked the wrong place to make my point here. Sorry for any confusion I caused.
Ok, am I blind? What’s the context that makes it clear he’s referring to someone never even mentioned in this thread?
The context is I replied to your post where you mention him and talk about how he's poisoning the well and possibly an op. Which terminally online creep people say he is isn't important, but to clear up the confusion: I meant Wide_Cust4rd (the person you were talking about) is Infrared.
I don't even know who that is, let alone did I mention him.
Edit: The person I was referring to was Wide_Cust4rd in the OP image. But I didn't even look at that username until just now. And I wasn't even saying that person was poisoning the well (maybe they are, I don't know), just explaining what I took the OP to mean.
I have no idea whether or not what is shown in the OP is an op. But the way I took it, is that if it is, it’s not so much that they’re genuinely pushing a pro-Putin agenda so much as poisoning the leftist well, so to speak.
What's shown in the OP? Who's the "they" you're talking about?
You shouldn't have been banned but also I don't think the CIA is pushing pro-Putin narratives.
Nah, my point is "Putin good cuz US libs mad" is a childish understanding that does nothing but poison the well or however you wanna call it
I have no idea whether or not what is shown in the OP is an op. But the way I took it, is that if it is, it's not so much that they're genuinely pushing a pro-Putin agenda so much as poisoning the leftist well, so to speak. It's about optics and making sure leftists look ridiculous especially to anyone who might otherwise be receptive. "Look at those batshit lefties, pretending to stand for equity and social progress but actually supporting reactionaries like Putin."
If that guy is who people say he is, he's done a lot worse to poison the well (patriotic socialism, US imperialism as a tail-wagging-the-dog plot, bizarre sexual pathology towards Luna), but hand-wringing about Putin helps no one. The imperialist argument is "Putin's policies are indefensible, and that's why the US needs to intervene." You are only building the case for them , and worse, tying anyone hurt by Putin's policies to the imperialist cause. Instead, leftists should be clear that Putin's problems are for Russians alone to worry about.
Who?
Host of this YouTube channel about socialism in Vietnam. Here's a link to the drama, if you really wanna do that to yourself.
In the context of US imperialism and Russia I was expecting the leader of some socialist party that was banned from elections or some bit of history I wasn't aware of.
Not some random youtube blogger.
And speaking of making leftists look ridiculous...
Edit: Ok, I thought that reply was just gibberish (from an account with a total of 3 comments all made today - rather sus), so I dismissed it out of hand. But if you're not just a wrecker/troll .... I don't know who you're accusing in your first sentence of being "that guy." RNAi?! Tf are you talking about? And I honestly can't make sense of the rest of your comment as it relates to mine. Are you saying calling Putin a reactionary is "building the case for [US imperialists]"? First of all, I wasn't even calling him one, the sentence in quotes in my first comment was a hypothetical. That said, I am now; Putin is a reactionary. And secondly, that's still a ridiculous take.
It's a sus account, but it's pretty clear from the context that "that guy" refers to "Infrared", not RNAi.
He seems to be saying that focusing on Putin's misdeeds in a public context only helps manufacture consent for imperialism, which is a point that has some merit depending on the specific context. Putin is, of course, reactionary. We all know that.
Ok, am I blind? What's the context that makes it clear he's referring to someone never even mentioned in this thread?
As for the rest... I disagree. Refusing to call a spade a spade for the sake of optics, in public or otherwise, only undermines your own authenticity. What's worse is actively pretending it's not a spade.
Then there should be no controversy here.
https://hexbear.net/post/148426/comment/1789445
Here's the context.
That's why I said specific context. It would, for example, not be productive to rant to liberals about how Putin is evil. That's clearly manufacturing consent for imperialist aggression. In any context where people might support aggression against Russia, you should make efforts to avoid encouraging that. That doesn't mean ignoring that Putin is a reactionary, just being careful about how you discuss it. As for here, we are on a socialist forum, clearly in this context that's not really a concern.
Good thing I absolutely am not. I said "focusing" on Putin's misdeeds can be dangerous in certain contexts, that's all. It's like how focusing on Iran's misdeeds can very easily manufacture consent for aggression in that region. This is a very, very ordinary anti-imperialist take.
There isn't. I'm also thinking we shouldn't take anyone with this user's... particular username very seriously (BeriaInocenceProject).
Uh, that wasn't posted until well after the comment where he was making the accusation. And honestly, it's still not clear context, since you have to go read a twitter thread that has absolutely nothing to do with anything else here. I'm perfectly happy to admit I'm just totally missing something obvious, but seriously... what does that link, posted long after the fact, have anything to do with the rest of this thread?
Ok, here's the specific context of this conversation, BeriaInocenceProject was claiming that either what I was saying in my comment, or what RNAi was saying originally, (I don't know which is the case, this whole conversation is a little surreal imo) was aiding US imperialism. I counter that as being ridiculous, which it is, and it sounds like you agree. But then it seems like you come in with a "well ackshually" response for me.
I agree, it would not be productive to walk into a room full of liberals and start ranting about Putin. But that highly specific context is nowhere to be seen. That is not what was happening anywhere. If instead, someone is glorifying Putin as "based" I think in any following context, it would not be a negative thing to say "No. Putin is bad." I think this is all the more the case if the Putin-praising was being done in a leftist space. And that is what was happening in the original image.
In the context of what's actually happening and being discussed here, to me it seems pretty weird to come in with "they have a point" in defense of someone arguing that it's wrong to call Putin a reactionary. But I dunno. Whatever. I realize we're pretty much in agreement. This whole thing just strikes me as... odd.
My bad, when you added your edit to your comment, it replaced the first time stamp, so I didn't realize the order of comments.
Yeah, I agree that the image in the OP is ridiculous. Putin is not "based", and there's absolutely no sense in saying so. I just wanted to make the point that there are contexts in which focusing on criticisms, even if they are true, is still harmful.
Yeah, agreed. I initially read that user's comment as directed in general and not at you/RNAi specifically, but I think in retrospect that may have been too charitable a reading.
IDK, you're probably right that I picked the wrong place to make my point here. Sorry for any confusion I caused.
The context is I replied to your post where you mention him and talk about how he's poisoning the well and possibly an op. Which terminally online creep people say he is isn't important, but to clear up the confusion: I meant Wide_Cust4rd (the person you were talking about) is Infrared.
I don't even know who that is, let alone did I mention him.
Edit: The person I was referring to was Wide_Cust4rd in the OP image. But I didn't even look at that username until just now. And I wasn't even saying that person was poisoning the well (maybe they are, I don't know), just explaining what I took the OP to mean.
What's shown in the OP? Who's the "they" you're talking about?