no, i’m not implying that. it would also be fine if you did. depends on the day and topic.
“To be truly critical in an honest manner (which Marxists are, all the time, among ourselves)”
lol XD it’s saying shit like this that tells me you’re not connected to reality.
even so, i hear what you’re saying. my feedback, as an outsider, is you’re overcompensating. imo, it would go a long way to start with presenting a fair view of a couple pros and cons, acknowledging the concern of your interlocutor. what i see instead, almost universally, is kneejerk defense of AES and leaders, and just telling non-Leftists that they’re wrong, stupid, propagandized.
You’ll find me critical of AES all the time, but I won’t cede ground for what I know to be false just for optics. I take a rigorous approach to rhetoric, I cede no ground that isn’t rooted in fact, and I do my best to encourage accurate critique. When you see me defending AES and seemingly not critiquing them as much, it’s usually in the context of someone repeating the same bog-standard state department anticommunist mythos that have existed for decades, and thus should be treated as such.
Go ahead and ask me for critiques of AES, and I can do so, but I won’t lie about them either.
i wouldn’t say it’s for “optics,” but you have to know your interlocutor. if the person is nervous about legitimate abuses in AES, acknowledging failures openly is more honest and real than dancing about to make excuses for them. owning failings is human, and would be a distinct departure from capitalism, that’s for sure.
but i get you, capitalism as a system is unironically constantly using force to extinguish you. i get it. it’s not an enviable position.
If the person is nervous about legitimate abuses in AES, then I do my best to make sure those abuses are accurately highlighted. Here’s an example of me doing just that. I’m not going to pivot the conversation to a different area just to highlight unrelated flaws, though, that’s off-topic and rhetorically bad. Surely you can see that, right?
Like, yes, Stalin outlawing gay marriage was bad, indisputably. Bolsheviks that were pro-gay marriage like Kollontai should have been listened to. I don’t need to insert that or other critiques into every comment, though.
no, i’m not implying that. it would also be fine if you did. depends on the day and topic.
“To be truly critical in an honest manner (which Marxists are, all the time, among ourselves)”
lol XD it’s saying shit like this that tells me you’re not connected to reality.
even so, i hear what you’re saying. my feedback, as an outsider, is you’re overcompensating. imo, it would go a long way to start with presenting a fair view of a couple pros and cons, acknowledging the concern of your interlocutor. what i see instead, almost universally, is kneejerk defense of AES and leaders, and just telling non-Leftists that they’re wrong, stupid, propagandized.
You’ll find me critical of AES all the time, but I won’t cede ground for what I know to be false just for optics. I take a rigorous approach to rhetoric, I cede no ground that isn’t rooted in fact, and I do my best to encourage accurate critique. When you see me defending AES and seemingly not critiquing them as much, it’s usually in the context of someone repeating the same bog-standard state department anticommunist mythos that have existed for decades, and thus should be treated as such.
Go ahead and ask me for critiques of AES, and I can do so, but I won’t lie about them either.
that’s good. don’t lie, have standards.
i wouldn’t say it’s for “optics,” but you have to know your interlocutor. if the person is nervous about legitimate abuses in AES, acknowledging failures openly is more honest and real than dancing about to make excuses for them. owning failings is human, and would be a distinct departure from capitalism, that’s for sure.
but i get you, capitalism as a system is unironically constantly using force to extinguish you. i get it. it’s not an enviable position.
If the person is nervous about legitimate abuses in AES, then I do my best to make sure those abuses are accurately highlighted. Here’s an example of me doing just that. I’m not going to pivot the conversation to a different area just to highlight unrelated flaws, though, that’s off-topic and rhetorically bad. Surely you can see that, right?
Like, yes, Stalin outlawing gay marriage was bad, indisputably. Bolsheviks that were pro-gay marriage like Kollontai should have been listened to. I don’t need to insert that or other critiques into every comment, though.