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
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