Some libs need to be insulted in order to push them out of a comfort zone that gets any form of change to occur in them. Strongly disagree with any “no insults” rules, certain things can be problematic but the overall function of any kind of tone-policing is that it suppresses working class voices that “don’t speak right” which inevitably moves speech towards a middle-income style of liberal and accepted ways of communicating.
The function of tone policing in suppressing anyone that doesn’t speak right is that it has a liberalising effect on communities. Suppress people for what they say not how they say it.
I am a big proponent of the fact that some liberals are just absorbomorphs. You can not move them with reasoning.
Their entire thing is “uphold the status quo”. This is the position of pretty much every single politically illiterate liberal who really doesn’t understand what any ideology actually is. They change their shape in order to fit themselves into whatever the existing social paradigm is.
This is why LGBT people got absolutely nowhere with liberals until they literally bullied them with riots and pride parades saying a big visible fuck you to everyone that ever tried to make them invisible. They could not be asked to change, they had to be bullied and forced. Once the social paradigm is changed they then accept it.
This is why anger and cancelling on twitter became a thing. It functions to bully liberals into new social paradigms. It works on liberals and therefore it organically became a thing liberals do a lot.
This is why it also works for dirtbag leftists.
And this is why the liberals also picked up guns and shot at whoever the nazis told them to shoot at. Not because they were true believers. But because mussolini or hitler and every other fascist simply bullies the liberals into a new social paradigm… and once the paradigm is changed they accept it.
Liberals are absorbomorphs. Their ideology is absorbomorphism.
With this in mind, you do have to bully some of them. You have to make them uncomfortable in their current position, you have to push them out of their comfort zone and force them to want to change their position in order to be in a more comfortable place. They want to be comfortable, they will change their beliefs in order to be comfortable if you make them uncomfortable. This of course has to be carefully judged, and you need awareness of the tipping point where you’ve generated enough discomfort to be able to give them the carrot. The stick needs to be put down at a certain point in favour of the carrot.
Copy-pasting this from yesterday, because its the same stuff.
This “we must be as uncivil and annoying as possible” is completely antithetical to spreading communism. You almost always hear this line from the self-described dirtbag left and chapos, and never from actual communists earnestly and patiently trying to win people over to communism.
Listen to Comrade Huey:
We need to earn the trust of the people by acting like Malcolm X, Huey, or Fidel when it comes to engaging with liberals and reactionaries. Not act like angry youtube manchildren, twitter radlibs, or brooklyn podcasters.
Being polite and patient (when dealing even with reactionaries like Malcolm X had to), in a public space, is just as much if not more about convincing spectators and third parties that communists are cool, level-headed, trustworthy, and want to serve the people.
Treat dealing with reactionaries as an opportunity to educate them and everyone watching the discussion about the issue. This is what I did yesterday with that liberal.
This is an awkward and shitty point to make, but shouldn’t we measure Huey’s theoretical lines carefully?
Its not just him, but Mao, Malcolm X, Fidel, uncle ho, Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Some of these figures could occasionally get snarky but that was the exception, not the rule. Their patient education of the masses by weighing in to public debates and topics is what won people over.
It’s like how you act around close friends vs how you going to act when around new people you want to have a good impression with. It’s fun to rip on ppl and act dumb around fellow comrades but when it comes time to debate and argue your points you gotta buckle down. Its, imo, another big distinction between communists and anarkiddies. Be the adult in the room.
This isn’t to say be tolerant however. But you gotta learn how to be passive aggressive and demeaning without coming off like a prick. As I said in another comment. Gotta work on the finesse. Destroy their argument and shit on their ego.
Yes I’ve seen this dozens of times in the past. It doesn’t change the fact that you DO need to cut through the bullshit of some liberals by giving them a negative experience.
When the liberal is not engaging you in a productive and useful way you need to find a way to create that productive and useful interaction. By creating an exceedingly negative experience for the unproductive interactions while providing a positive experience for the productive interactions you break down this wall.
If you try talking nicely to people that are not engaging you in a productive way you are literally wasting your time.
And in some cases it isn’t about the one single interaction. We are a movement as a part of a wider field of interactions. One comrade’s actions do not occur in a vacuum. If I give a liberal an extremely negative experience for their utter bullshit on one given day that opens the door for a more positive experience that the liberal aims for when they speak to a different comrade on another day. Sometimes this can not be avoided due to moods, timing, grumpiness, etc, as the exact conditions of any given interaction can differ wildly with luck.
I promote the “never stop explaining” mindset of Sankara. But if the liberal is not listening you should not be explaining, you should be working on ways to make them listen. The negative experience for not listening or engaging in a way that lets us get through is a necessary tool in the toolkit of getting through.
I agree some of them are obvious trolls, but being respectful isn’t only or even necessarily to benefit the two parties, but also everyone else who is watching the interaction. Third parties will be much easier swayed to communism when they realize its defenders are respectful, level-headed, disciplined, and people they wouldn’t mind meeting in-person.
If I give a liberal an extremely negative experience for their utter bullshit on one given day that opens the door for a more positive experience that the liberal aims for when they speak to a different comrade on another day.
People don’t realize that by doing this, in a public space like the net, it makes things miserable for third parties too. By “dunking” rather than politely educating, we alienate observers who are potential comrades.
I remember many years ago on /r/communism, the posters were so combative and rude to newcomers, it turned a lot of ppl off to communism. Even though I was starting to consider myself a communist, I never wanted to meet them or other communists because of how rude I thought they were. It took me a while to realize the “dirtbag”-method is not the way communists actually act in public.
I agree some of them are obvious trolls, but being respectful isn’t only or even necessarily to benefit the two parties, but also everyone else who is watching the interaction.
It’s never just one interaction though. There’s others in the thread whenever this happens, and those others typically have good faith people in them. Those sections of the thread produce something completely different.
I’m not going to be respectful to people engaging in unproductive and bad faith ways. They are not being respectful, that deserves calling out and dismantling. Standing around and respectfully allowing someone to run their bullshit all over you results in giving the impression to third parties that the things they say are deserving of respect. And given that most of the time this is gish gallop lists of communist crimes and supposed genocides giving people the impression they deserve respect is a poor move with an observing audience. You just resign yourself to a situation in which you’re individually examining one massacre after another explaining why it is or is not bad and get caught up in time wasting bullshit instead of doing anything productive.
I’d like to ruin the lib assumption that just because they have opinions, those opinions have merit and should be debated. Or maybe I just like being mean, idk
Like the good book says, ‘no investigation, no right to speech’. And much like a lib asshole, when a lib opinion is presented, the best method of dealing with it is planting the toe of your boot directly in it.
It’s also generally important to slap some of them around a bit or they dump gish gallop on you with 30 different examples of nazis being owned as if that’s a bad thing.
It’s true. 😕 Arent we not just the most cynical and black pilled liberals to the point that we may as well spit theory and being hardcore tankie because we now know that if such a position is a damned position, so is it also true that being a regular lib is damned.
The least any of us can do is be unapologetic commies online. Give the libs something to be worried about.
I didn’t know this, but I read both accounts as Adoraism-catraism, and saw the Stalinism as silent letters, knowing it just implied Stalin behind a keyboard with the help of a little Juche magic.
deleted by creator
Some libs need to be insulted in order to push them out of a comfort zone that gets any form of change to occur in them. Strongly disagree with any “no insults” rules, certain things can be problematic but the overall function of any kind of tone-policing is that it suppresses working class voices that “don’t speak right” which inevitably moves speech towards a middle-income style of liberal and accepted ways of communicating.
The function of tone policing in suppressing anyone that doesn’t speak right is that it has a liberalising effect on communities. Suppress people for what they say not how they say it.
deleted by creator
I am a big proponent of the fact that some liberals are just absorbomorphs. You can not move them with reasoning.
Their entire thing is “uphold the status quo”. This is the position of pretty much every single politically illiterate liberal who really doesn’t understand what any ideology actually is. They change their shape in order to fit themselves into whatever the existing social paradigm is.
This is why LGBT people got absolutely nowhere with liberals until they literally bullied them with riots and pride parades saying a big visible fuck you to everyone that ever tried to make them invisible. They could not be asked to change, they had to be bullied and forced. Once the social paradigm is changed they then accept it.
This is why anger and cancelling on twitter became a thing. It functions to bully liberals into new social paradigms. It works on liberals and therefore it organically became a thing liberals do a lot.
This is why it also works for dirtbag leftists.
And this is why the liberals also picked up guns and shot at whoever the nazis told them to shoot at. Not because they were true believers. But because mussolini or hitler and every other fascist simply bullies the liberals into a new social paradigm… and once the paradigm is changed they accept it.
Liberals are absorbomorphs. Their ideology is absorbomorphism.
With this in mind, you do have to bully some of them. You have to make them uncomfortable in their current position, you have to push them out of their comfort zone and force them to want to change their position in order to be in a more comfortable place. They want to be comfortable, they will change their beliefs in order to be comfortable if you make them uncomfortable. This of course has to be carefully judged, and you need awareness of the tipping point where you’ve generated enough discomfort to be able to give them the carrot. The stick needs to be put down at a certain point in favour of the carrot.
What is absorbomorphism?
basically just absorbing status quo opinions for politics. Thats at least what Im gathering.
Like a jelly blob that just consumes and reshapes itself into whatever it comes into contact with.
Copy-pasting this from yesterday, because its the same stuff.
This “we must be as uncivil and annoying as possible” is completely antithetical to spreading communism. You almost always hear this line from the self-described dirtbag left and chapos, and never from actual communists earnestly and patiently trying to win people over to communism.
Listen to Comrade Huey:
We need to earn the trust of the people by acting like Malcolm X, Huey, or Fidel when it comes to engaging with liberals and reactionaries. Not act like angry youtube manchildren, twitter radlibs, or brooklyn podcasters.
deleted by creator
See my other response below.
Being polite and patient (when dealing even with reactionaries like Malcolm X had to), in a public space, is just as much if not more about convincing spectators and third parties that communists are cool, level-headed, trustworthy, and want to serve the people.
Treat dealing with reactionaries as an opportunity to educate them and everyone watching the discussion about the issue. This is what I did yesterday with that liberal.
Its not just him, but Mao, Malcolm X, Fidel, uncle ho, Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Some of these figures could occasionally get snarky but that was the exception, not the rule. Their patient education of the masses by weighing in to public debates and topics is what won people over.
deleted by creator
It’s like how you act around close friends vs how you going to act when around new people you want to have a good impression with. It’s fun to rip on ppl and act dumb around fellow comrades but when it comes time to debate and argue your points you gotta buckle down. Its, imo, another big distinction between communists and anarkiddies. Be the adult in the room.
This isn’t to say be tolerant however. But you gotta learn how to be passive aggressive and demeaning without coming off like a prick. As I said in another comment. Gotta work on the finesse. Destroy their argument and shit on their ego.
Yes I’ve seen this dozens of times in the past. It doesn’t change the fact that you DO need to cut through the bullshit of some liberals by giving them a negative experience.
When the liberal is not engaging you in a productive and useful way you need to find a way to create that productive and useful interaction. By creating an exceedingly negative experience for the unproductive interactions while providing a positive experience for the productive interactions you break down this wall.
If you try talking nicely to people that are not engaging you in a productive way you are literally wasting your time.
And in some cases it isn’t about the one single interaction. We are a movement as a part of a wider field of interactions. One comrade’s actions do not occur in a vacuum. If I give a liberal an extremely negative experience for their utter bullshit on one given day that opens the door for a more positive experience that the liberal aims for when they speak to a different comrade on another day. Sometimes this can not be avoided due to moods, timing, grumpiness, etc, as the exact conditions of any given interaction can differ wildly with luck.
I promote the “never stop explaining” mindset of Sankara. But if the liberal is not listening you should not be explaining, you should be working on ways to make them listen. The negative experience for not listening or engaging in a way that lets us get through is a necessary tool in the toolkit of getting through.
I agree some of them are obvious trolls, but being respectful isn’t only or even necessarily to benefit the two parties, but also everyone else who is watching the interaction. Third parties will be much easier swayed to communism when they realize its defenders are respectful, level-headed, disciplined, and people they wouldn’t mind meeting in-person.
People don’t realize that by doing this, in a public space like the net, it makes things miserable for third parties too. By “dunking” rather than politely educating, we alienate observers who are potential comrades.
I remember many years ago on /r/communism, the posters were so combative and rude to newcomers, it turned a lot of ppl off to communism. Even though I was starting to consider myself a communist, I never wanted to meet them or other communists because of how rude I thought they were. It took me a while to realize the “dirtbag”-method is not the way communists actually act in public.
It’s never just one interaction though. There’s others in the thread whenever this happens, and those others typically have good faith people in them. Those sections of the thread produce something completely different.
I’m not going to be respectful to people engaging in unproductive and bad faith ways. They are not being respectful, that deserves calling out and dismantling. Standing around and respectfully allowing someone to run their bullshit all over you results in giving the impression to third parties that the things they say are deserving of respect. And given that most of the time this is gish gallop lists of communist crimes and supposed genocides giving people the impression they deserve respect is a poor move with an observing audience. You just resign yourself to a situation in which you’re individually examining one massacre after another explaining why it is or is not bad and get caught up in time wasting bullshit instead of doing anything productive.
deleted by creator
Yes. Some comrades forget to use the carrot after they’ve gotten the stick out though.
deleted by creator
yeah, catra got this from one of the lemmy mods
Tone policing is the worst.
deleted by creator
Like the good book says, ‘no investigation, no right to speech’. And much like a lib asshole, when a lib opinion is presented, the best method of dealing with it is planting the toe of your boot directly in it.
It’s also generally important to slap some of them around a bit or they dump gish gallop on you with 30 different examples of nazis being owned as if that’s a bad thing.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
What is gish gallop?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
deleted by creator
Ooooh right, hope to see them when the ban ends
deleted by creator
Are they the same person or not? Never became clear to me
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yeah lmao, they even responded to eachother. What if there’s only three users on here and we’re all pretending?
deleted by creator
My secret, nooooooo
So most of this site is just Agent Jamie in an FBI office trying to get their own alt accounts to commit IRL crimes to make the tankies look bad.
At least I know now.
What if chapo was right and we are all just libs roleplaying?
It’s true. 😕 Arent we not just the most cynical and black pilled liberals to the point that we may as well spit theory and being hardcore tankie because we now know that if such a position is a damned position, so is it also true that being a regular lib is damned.
The least any of us can do is be unapologetic commies online. Give the libs something to be worried about.
I didn’t know this, but I read both accounts as Adoraism-catraism, and saw the Stalinism as silent letters, knowing it just implied Stalin behind a keyboard with the help of a little Juche magic.
who says its not?
maybe yes, maybe no
but yesn’t
Yes, they are
:)