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 didn’t quite mean theory; I meant more the thinking of someone who would support Biden’s domestic record so far. Reading theory sometimes isn’t a good way to judge a politician because a lot of times (most of the time) the actions don’t match the theory.
I meant more, you’re well versed in the details of Biden’s actions during his first term, in order to speak on his record – impact of the infrastructure bill, the CHIPS act, details of how marijuana legalization played out, major labor actions and how his changes at the NLRB impacted the actions at the UAW, Starbucks, Amazon, and the writer’s strike. Things like that?
Correct. How will you determine if they’re the same if you don’t examine the practice?
Why would it even make sense to decide that Biden’s a liberal, if you haven’t analyzed his actions and determined that they match with liberal theory? Maybe he’s a fascist. Maybe he’s neither. How would you know which one?
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.
I didn’t quite mean theory; I meant more the thinking of someone who would support Biden’s domestic record so far. Reading theory sometimes isn’t a good way to judge a politician because a lot of times (most of the time) the actions don’t match the theory.
I meant more, you’re well versed in the details of Biden’s actions during his first term, in order to speak on his record – impact of the infrastructure bill, the CHIPS act, details of how marijuana legalization played out, major labor actions and how his changes at the NLRB impacted the actions at the UAW, Starbucks, Amazon, and the writer’s strike. Things like that?
Theory and practice are one and the same, if they divert then the theory or practice is wrong.
Correct. How will you determine if they’re the same if you don’t examine the practice?
Why would it even make sense to decide that Biden’s a liberal, if you haven’t analyzed his actions and determined that they match with liberal theory? Maybe he’s a fascist. Maybe he’s neither. How would you know which one?