• hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
    ·
    4 years ago

    It's easy: criticize someone's take all you want, but give the actual take itself, not some third-hand recollection of it.

    • Speaker [e/em/eir]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I mean, the take was "people do Food Not Bombs after they lose, because they failed to bring about mass revolutionary change", which is not exactly a far cry from "Food Not Bombs is for losers".

      • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        That's entirely different from "FNB is for losers."

        "X is for losers" means if you do X, you're a loser. You suck. I'm laughing at you and your pathetic hobby. "People do X when they fail to bring about their primary goal" means X is a backup plan, or an attempt to at least do something good when you can't accomplish a comprehensive solution. Someone who tries, fails, and tries something else is looked at far more positively than a loser.

        This is why we shouldn't paraphrase critiques of other leftists. Look at the PSL article on dual power quoted elsewhere in this thread -- see how they critique other leftists.