What's a gladio scheme? I've vaguely heard of the Unabomber but I don't really keep tabs on crimes that happen in America. There are too many mass casualty events for me to acknowledge at this point.
Honestly to me it essentially just means big centralized governments that run a country and have things like police, armies, civil servants, and so on. That and a badly used concept from computer science - no google a Chromebook isn't stateless it very much has state. If they try that again I will leave them in a right state.
The fact is that you haven't, so you should work to explore why that is.
Generally the same reason nihilistists, absurdists, and existentialists continue to exist. Heck even moral relativists (like most marxists I think) shouldn't technically have any reason to do anything by this line of reasoning. Humans are fickle creatures that don't need concrete, logical reasons to do anything. Heck logic and facts never provided a motivation to do anything ever, they provide the means and the method. If anything things like nihilism and solipsism can be used to point out how absurd trying to use logic to understand motivation is.
You don't know the difference between solipsists and sophists do you? It's okay to admit you don't know something rather than invent words that don't exist.
Marxists do, for the most part, understand Marxism. There are some particularly online Marxists who I think have a more tenuous grasp on the subject and probably shouldn't be talking about it in public or attempting to be public luminaries, but most people who claim to be Marxist's grasp of the fundamentals (because they are supplementary to most people's lived experience as proletarians) is generally fine. That said, I am of the opinion that the Communist Manifesto should be ignored at least until you have a solid understanding of Engel's The German Ideology which is a treatise on materialism, and Marx's Capital and Critique of the Gotham Program, which are his more economic treatises, one a cumulative snapshot of capitalist economic operation, and the other a critique of the polices that would become social democracy. Also having a solid background on David Ricardo and Adam Smith will not hurt. Spouting propaganda without understanding the fundamentals of what you are propagandizing does not liberate anyone.
Unfortunately some I have talked with do not have this level of an understanding sadly including on lemmy.
I was also talking about all of the branches of marxism. I don't think it's realistic to have everyone have a perfect understanding of every branch.
That being said there are plenty of people here that will have a bad debate with you, mostly to call you names and watch you get red, mad and banned because moderation is not impartial around here. That said, the preference is for discussion.
Yeah. This is a lot of online forums. I had heard hexbear was somewhat infamous for this kind of bad behavior. How true this is I do not know. This thread as well as the admin of my own server has given me some more faith in hexbear than I previously held.
If you are 'debating in favor of a point of view you do not agree with for the sake of intellectual exercise', then you are a debate pervert, and I suggest you stop masturbating and actually engage with the world in a sincere and honest way. That is not intellectual exercise, it is the illusion of it.
To me this sounds like it would lead to entrenched beliefs. I generally am not a fan of entrenched beliefs. Removing those is something I am working on. Can you suggest a better way? A more healthy way?
I also don't really have a solidified ideology to be honest about. My understanding of politics isn't advanced enough to have a truly informed option if that's truly something one can ever have. I largely identify as a solipsist so for me truth is rarely absolute and more often relative.
A debate pervert is someone who worships debating in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ as an universally acceptable, and mandatory moral method to reach truth and consensus.
I agree on this point right here. The marketplace of ideas does have a use but it doesn't always give the technically correct or morally correct answer a lot of the time. Some of this is because people have fundamentally different morals. Insert something here about moral relativism and nihilism.
I have to say I do not know what the M-C-M cycle is either. I will have to do some research into that.
It's interesting you say terms and definitions have to be agreed upon before hand. I have had problems with this before where me and a friend who is an accelerationist found ourselves arguing about basic terminology with regards to marxism. I should point out since neither of us are committed marxists neither of us 100% understand all marxist ideologies (do most marxists even?). I think sometimes it can be tricky to determine if your definitions match up before hand as it's rarely something people think to check.
I am not sure it's possible for number 2 to ever fully happen. Nobody has read or researched exactly the same things as everybody else. I think debating can be a way to learn about new sources of information or ideas when done correctly. It forces you to deal with concepts you might not have seen before of fully understood before. I think there is a use for debate as an intellectual excercise and a way to understand broader perspectives especially when arguing from a position you don't believe in. Like I regularly defend ideologies I don't support, and attack ones I could support one day.
I think 3 and 4 are very rarely present in online debate, so I can understand why some people refuse to deal with it. I suppose this is the difference between comradely debates vs ones done with the public.
Unlike if we were in an actual leftist political party, it is a privilege, not an obligation that we explain our reasoning and position to you.
It's almost impossible to convey tone well through text. Just because you read a tone into something doesn't mean you actually know what the author intended or what they actually felt. This is why explicit markers like emoji, tone indicators, and so on were invented. They actually improve communication when used correctly. I can't ever see why that would be a bad thing especially in a medium like text. Funnily enough tone indicators are an accomodation for neurodivergent people that ended up being helpful for neurotypical people. It actually seems to be a problem that societal norms have, they get written by people with too many subtleties that even the average person struggles with, then some autistic dude comes over realizes it's stupid and it gets replaced by actually clear, good communication.
I also know people who say things like cringe and based out loud and I actually think it works for that person. They don't take stuff seriously and it goes well with that vibe. It wouldn't suit someone like me though. People used phrases meaning similar things long before the Internet was invented, it's just more global now instead of local. Slang has always existed and it's a very important part of language. To belittle that just because it came from the Internet is pretty much juvenoia at best or just plain anti-internet conservatism. So pretty cringe if you ask me 🤣.
·4 months ago
·4 months ago
·10 months ago
Could honestly try a virtual machine or an emulator at that point. Would be worth a shot.