Don’t know why he wastes time criticizing him since JT doesn’t do anything wrong. Also really funny that him and other commenters are complaining about The Deprogram being like Chapo.
Upon deeper research, it turns out Day used to post on the subreddit to dunk on BadEmpanada, which is funny since Day himself has strong BadEmpanada vibes.
Dont really want anymore pings over this
Day did not insist on having the conversation on Twitter that I had seen. Perhaps I missed where he did, in which case, would you mind pointing it out to me?
However, you will notice that Poverty of Philosophy was not, in fact, a letter written privately to Proudhon, but was published and distributed to the public so that the people who read Philosophy of Poverty could read Marx’s rebuttal of it. Refuting a public figure in private is not a very useful practice.
To my knowledge, Day insisted only that the response be public and not on the specific medium where JT happened to respond initially, and if JT said he’d, I don’t know, make a video or write an essay of his own or whatever, Day would accept that just as readily.
Dont really want anymore pings over this
The issue with this strategy that should be most immediately apparent is that bad faith can be difficult to evaluate and we’ve had well over a decade of perfecting how to string someone along in DMs indefinitely. A hypothetical Prudent and Polite Roderic Day can see JT publishing and popularizing reactionary hogwash, try to engage in DMs, and be stuck at that step for a week or a month because JT drags his feet responding, insists on tediously litigating minor points, misinterprets Days’ assertions, etc., and if Day pulls the trigger at any point, JT can go “Woah, hey, what happened Rod?! We were having a private discussion and then you just publish it because I have a work schedule that I also need to keep up with? Are we communists or drama-mongers here?” just like he did anyway with the public statement. JT was already responding in bad faith in the two tweets we already saw (“passive aggressive”, etc), how much should Day bank on JT behaving in an upstanding way if things are already going this poorly for The Discourse between them?
Dont really want anymore pings over this
Dont really want anymore pings over this
Whether JT (or anybody for that matter) is intentionally or unintentionally promoting imperialism shouldn’t matter. It is good to criticize a bad idea even when the person putting it forward has a good track record.
No worries about the double reply. I think maybe after combing through enough of JT’s oeuvre he could come to that conclusion but, not to put too fine a point on it, a lot of what JT says is reasonably mistakable for being “and then we have peaceful welfare co-ops”-style social-chauvinist pablum that doesn’t adequately oppose the exploitation by nordic-style states.