Counterpoint: We (non-tankies) might read your post if it wasn't 5000 words long, sourced purely with tweets by people who make zines, and dripping with condescension.
I have a lot of tankie friends in real life, but on this website... damn you guys are tough to talk to. Probably helps that in real life people don't assume everyone else is a teenager who discovered "the left" through the Bernie 2016 campaign.
There is an upside though: on this internet of ours, is there any greater pleasure than replying "wow you seem mad" to a 10 page screed that someone clearly spent at least half an hour on?
Talking generally, meaning no offense to you in particular, I find that tankies often do a good job explaining how the NYT, WaPo, the guardian, etc. lied, but then stop there. That doesn't work for me: it's media criticism, not an example that can be used in any debate over "actually existing 'socialism'". Just 'cause mainstream media sucks, that doesn't mean the exact opposite of what they say is true all the time. As you say, there are tons of books on the facts of these matters: cite those!
Given my background, this particularly annoys me with historical stuff. For example, CIA history--you get a lot of folks coming out here and back on the reddit with a "I read the first few chapters of Legacy of Ashes" level of knowledge. It's a little cringe frankly. Not to say that there isn't plenty of other stuff that ya'll know way more about than me, but seeing some folks really embarrass themselves in one's bailiwick puts a kernel of doubt in one's head. One wonders "If they could be so wrong about this thing I know very well, what else are they wrong about?" And the next time someone comes along making declarative statements and citing the same people--you don't trust 'em.
I get that the academy, the media, and the money isn't on your (or really, our) side, but unfortunately thems the breaks. It means we've got to do more homework than everyone else. It takes work and reading, and then you have to express it concisely, link the books, and not be an asshole about how much reading you did! I know it's a big ask, I know it sucks, but it's the task to which you've set yourself.
Unfortunately, I have encountered quite a few folks on this website who clearly haven't done the reading, haven't done the work, and skip right to being a prick while citing the same handful of pet journalists. So even though I am (clearly) willing to write a long post in response to people who are engaging in good faith, I usually just have fun with it and troll.
For months the only debunking of the Uyghur genocide claims was pasting "Zenz bad" for pages in every thread it was mentioned. Criticising the medium isn't criticising the message.
He is literally, undeniably, fundamentally insane. No one should take him at his word. He can't even speak Chinese, for fucks sake. You want me to come in here and tell you all about what it's like in Italy, despite never having been there in my fucking life, and knowing so little of their language I couldn't even pull off an Italian accent?
Fucking hell how do you god damn anarchists have your lips surgically attached to the ass of whoever is currently being amplified by the state?
Addressing the origin of the source is basic debate culture, dumbfuck. You don't get to pull quotes from a literal cultist and expect to be taken seriously
I agree, my entire point not just in my comments to you but through the entire fucking post is that you anarchists are incapable of arguing beyond "ok red fash" or other assorted name calling. Not once do you ever provide a single point as to why Zenz should be taken seriously, or another source that does not base its work on his word
I did address if Zenz should be taken seriously, literally my ~~first ~~ second comment starts with "i know he's bad." You're not arguing with me here, we're agreeing in this. I was trying to shed light on how other radlibs or whatever you want to call them are going into these debates.
Counterpoint: We (non-tankies) might read your post if it wasn't 5000 words long, sourced purely with tweets by people who make zines, and dripping with condescension.
I have a lot of tankie friends in real life, but on this website... damn you guys are tough to talk to. Probably helps that in real life people don't assume everyone else is a teenager who discovered "the left" through the Bernie 2016 campaign.
There is an upside though: on this internet of ours, is there any greater pleasure than replying "wow you seem mad" to a 10 page screed that someone clearly spent at least half an hour on?
No, no there isn't. 😉
deleted by creator
Talking generally, meaning no offense to you in particular, I find that tankies often do a good job explaining how the NYT, WaPo, the guardian, etc. lied, but then stop there. That doesn't work for me: it's media criticism, not an example that can be used in any debate over "actually existing 'socialism'". Just 'cause mainstream media sucks, that doesn't mean the exact opposite of what they say is true all the time. As you say, there are tons of books on the facts of these matters: cite those!
Given my background, this particularly annoys me with historical stuff. For example, CIA history--you get a lot of folks coming out here and back on the reddit with a "I read the first few chapters of Legacy of Ashes" level of knowledge. It's a little cringe frankly. Not to say that there isn't plenty of other stuff that ya'll know way more about than me, but seeing some folks really embarrass themselves in one's bailiwick puts a kernel of doubt in one's head. One wonders "If they could be so wrong about this thing I know very well, what else are they wrong about?" And the next time someone comes along making declarative statements and citing the same people--you don't trust 'em.
I get that the academy, the media, and the money isn't on your (or really, our) side, but unfortunately thems the breaks. It means we've got to do more homework than everyone else. It takes work and reading, and then you have to express it concisely, link the books, and not be an asshole about how much reading you did! I know it's a big ask, I know it sucks, but it's the task to which you've set yourself.
Unfortunately, I have encountered quite a few folks on this website who clearly haven't done the reading, haven't done the work, and skip right to being a prick while citing the same handful of pet journalists. So even though I am (clearly) willing to write a long post in response to people who are engaging in good faith, I usually just have fun with it and troll.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
wow you seem mad
Wow, you mad too? Let's be mad together, in comradely fashion.
deleted by creator
Lmfao everyone's mad
cool, but yall freak out when I call you out for sucking off Adrian Zenz. Don't need 10 pages for that
For months the only debunking of the Uyghur genocide claims was pasting "Zenz bad" for pages in every thread it was mentioned. Criticising the medium isn't criticising the message.
Counterpoint:
orange manZenz is actually badHe is but everyone was aware of that for the first time. People still wanted to know what's going on in Xinjiang though.
So maybe find a non-zenz source and you don't get spammed with zenz bad? lmao
Or maybe address what is in the source?
He is literally, undeniably, fundamentally insane. No one should take him at his word. He can't even speak Chinese, for fucks sake. You want me to come in here and tell you all about what it's like in Italy, despite never having been there in my fucking life, and knowing so little of their language I couldn't even pull off an Italian accent?
Fucking hell how do you god damn anarchists have your lips surgically attached to the ass of whoever is currently being amplified by the state?
This has nothing to do with anarchism or anything lol. this is basic debate culture.
Addressing the origin of the source is basic debate culture, dumbfuck. You don't get to pull quotes from a literal cultist and expect to be taken seriously
Ok, have fun convincing anyone then, lol
I agree, my entire point not just in my comments to you but through the entire fucking post is that you anarchists are incapable of arguing beyond "ok red fash" or other assorted name calling. Not once do you ever provide a single point as to why Zenz should be taken seriously, or another source that does not base its work on his word
I did address if Zenz should be taken seriously, literally my ~~first ~~ second comment starts with "i know he's bad." You're not arguing with me here, we're agreeing in this. I was trying to shed light on how other radlibs or whatever you want to call them are going into these debates.
deleted by creator