I think it’s more that you agree that Capitalism isn’t the way, but haven’t put forth the same amount of effort into reading leftist theory so it comes off as condescending yet unearned. Maybe open with questions, and try to understand first, before listing your own opinions?
I was setting out to talk about the election, nothing about capitalism. You brought capitalism into it, I think. I actually think capitalism constrained by a very strong democratic government is the best system (historically) in terms of good quality of life and free environment for people inside and outside the country, that I’m aware of, but I don’t really know.
I don’t think it’s fair to ask me to read a bunch of leftist theory before I have an opinion either on the election or on economics. I have my opinion on it and maybe it comes across as lecturing sometimes, but genuinely I’m just saying what I think.
I think I’ve been asking a bunch of questions, in general, trying to understand. No?
You’d be wrong then. Capitalism “working well,” such as in the Nordics, depends on Imperialism and internal exploitation. Socialism would be far better both in and out.
It’s fair to ask that you read theory if you wish to debate it.
I wrote about Biden, and you started debating me. Is it fair for me to ask you to read a few thousand words about what Biden’s done, if you wish to debate me about his record? I can find some extensive summary and send it to you. That’s way less than you’re asking me read before I debate you about communism.
Ah, got it, fair point. My point still stands; surely by the same logic, you shouldn’t be criticizing Biden unless you’re willing to spend enough time learning about the facts of his record to get a comprehensive factual view of what you’re talking about?
I mean, I don’t think it should work that way. I’m just pointing out that your logic seems like it would imply that it should work that way.
My belief is that first, in any constructive conversation, an establishment of what is being discussed, why, and in what context should be laid plain. On Lemmy, users tend to be leftists, especially Marxists and Anarchists, so being familiar serves as a sort of head start, so to speak.
If we ran the numbers, and discovered that the demographics have shifted and now most users on Lemmy tend to be liberals, would that mean that you need to read up and research on liberal thinking before it makes sense for you to talk? And, getting back to the earlier point, that you needed to phrase your arguments in terms that would be acceptable to liberals, so that you could appeal to them?
Bro just let people talk. They can be in majority or minority, and you might or might not agree, but variety of political opinion in a forum is a good thing. This whole lemmy.ml thing where it’s like “hey I’m a leftist and therefore privileged in this forum, and you need to make you’re acceptable to my philosophy before I even want to listen to you, because I’ve pretty much decided what the right answers are, and yours is definitely wrong unless it lines up with mine” is just a bunch of crap. In my opinion.
Actually, I already do phrase my arguments in different manners depending on audience. The way I speak with liberals is fundamentally different from how I speak to Anarchists, which is different from how I speak with Marxists, which is different from how I speak with Conservatives.
I agree, I should be well-read on liberal theory to speak with liberals. Thankfully, this is easier, as I was raised in a liberal society.
I think it’s more that you agree that Capitalism isn’t the way, but haven’t put forth the same amount of effort into reading leftist theory so it comes off as condescending yet unearned. Maybe open with questions, and try to understand first, before listing your own opinions?
I was setting out to talk about the election, nothing about capitalism. You brought capitalism into it, I think. I actually think capitalism constrained by a very strong democratic government is the best system (historically) in terms of good quality of life and free environment for people inside and outside the country, that I’m aware of, but I don’t really know.
I don’t think it’s fair to ask me to read a bunch of leftist theory before I have an opinion either on the election or on economics. I have my opinion on it and maybe it comes across as lecturing sometimes, but genuinely I’m just saying what I think.
I think I’ve been asking a bunch of questions, in general, trying to understand. No?
You’d be wrong then. Capitalism “working well,” such as in the Nordics, depends on Imperialism and internal exploitation. Socialism would be far better both in and out.
It’s fair to ask that you read theory if you wish to debate it.
I wrote about Biden, and you started debating me. Is it fair for me to ask you to read a few thousand words about what Biden’s done, if you wish to debate me about his record? I can find some extensive summary and send it to you. That’s way less than you’re asking me read before I debate you about communism.
Actually, you started debating me first, if you return to the top of the comment chain.
Ah, got it, fair point. My point still stands; surely by the same logic, you shouldn’t be criticizing Biden unless you’re willing to spend enough time learning about the facts of his record to get a comprehensive factual view of what you’re talking about?
I mean, I don’t think it should work that way. I’m just pointing out that your logic seems like it would imply that it should work that way.
My belief is that first, in any constructive conversation, an establishment of what is being discussed, why, and in what context should be laid plain. On Lemmy, users tend to be leftists, especially Marxists and Anarchists, so being familiar serves as a sort of head start, so to speak.
Do you disagree with that?
Absolutely I disagree with that. Here’s why:
If we ran the numbers, and discovered that the demographics have shifted and now most users on Lemmy tend to be liberals, would that mean that you need to read up and research on liberal thinking before it makes sense for you to talk? And, getting back to the earlier point, that you needed to phrase your arguments in terms that would be acceptable to liberals, so that you could appeal to them?
Bro just let people talk. They can be in majority or minority, and you might or might not agree, but variety of political opinion in a forum is a good thing. This whole lemmy.ml thing where it’s like “hey I’m a leftist and therefore privileged in this forum, and you need to make you’re acceptable to my philosophy before I even want to listen to you, because I’ve pretty much decided what the right answers are, and yours is definitely wrong unless it lines up with mine” is just a bunch of crap. In my opinion.
Actually, I already do phrase my arguments in different manners depending on audience. The way I speak with liberals is fundamentally different from how I speak to Anarchists, which is different from how I speak with Marxists, which is different from how I speak with Conservatives.
I agree, I should be well-read on liberal theory to speak with liberals. Thankfully, this is easier, as I was raised in a liberal society.