I’ve been trying to find a good Marxist instance, but Lemmygrad and Hexbear are widely hated. Why is that? Are there any good leftist instances?
I’ve been trying to find a good Marxist instance, but Lemmygrad and Hexbear are widely hated. Why is that? Are there any good leftist instances?
Not really.
In most communities you can at least entice some robust discussion, hexbear just seems sp aggressively intolerant of alternative views.
What are these alternate views? Not supporting Palestine? Claiming there was Uyghur genocide? Ukraine good Russia bad? USA good China bad? voooooote to solve your problems? Any country that NATO hates is a genocidal totalitarian dictatorship? White man great everyone else is subhuman horde?
Love how at the very idea of somebody disagreeing with you, you start throwing up all sorts of topics you know are hot buttons just so you can preemptively slam anyone who has a different perspective than you. Rather than taking a second to teach a single thing about the topics you claim to care about you just flash them like political merit badges to prove you’re in the in-group, and anybody who doesn’t know exactly what one of those things are, or what you think is the truth about it, is worth dismissing out of hand. It’s just a secret handshake that if people don’t parrot it back to you they’re not worth debating. You were never here for healthy debate though. You don’t care about convincing anyone or advancing your causes or ideas. You’re here for the badges.
@[email protected] your assessment of @TheAnоnymоuseJо[email protected] is spot-on, highlighting behaviors indicative of a fragile ego and a need for superiority. This individual frequently deflects from central topics, especially when their views are challenged, revealing an inability to handle opposing viewpoints. It’s normal to have differences in opinion, but for TheAnоnymоuseJоker this seems to be an act of war, a mindset that is immature and counterproductive for meaningful online interactions.
Psychologically, it’s a common fallacy for some individuals to oversimplify complex social interactions, reducing them to mere players in the game of their subjective perception. This viewpoint often ignores the nuanced realities of human behavior and interaction.
Recognizing these behaviors — deflecting, causing dismay, dismissing, denying, deceiving — is essential in understanding the underlying motivations and responding appropriately to maintain the integrity of the discussion.
Best not to analyse me psychologically.
You are engaging in a deflective, ignorant and intellectually compromised behaviour when you talk about me without knowing the context of the discussion. You have reactionary, immature behaviour and gaslighting personality traits, a sign of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
Recognising the pseudointellectual hipsters of society is very important in order to shutdown their contextless liberal rants and libel.
The context of the discussion is socialist left geopolitics, and it is funny your account is exclusively made 8 hours ago to smear me, having just 5 comments, all targeted towards me. You are sent by GrapheneOS/Daniel Micay to do this, to manufacture unsubstantiated drivel about me, even though the discussion is regarding geopolitics, when that clown called me a “Chinese government paid agent” and “CCP agent” on Reddit and Twitter.
Analyzing me psychologically? That’s an interesting deflection, TheAnonymouseJoker. You claim I’m engaging in deflective and ignorant behavior, yet here you are, quickly labeling and dismissing my points without addressing their substance. It’s quite telling that instead of engaging with the critique, you resort to calling out my account’s age and my supposed affiliations. This tactic of yours, focusing on personal attacks rather than the discussion at hand, really highlights the earlier point about your tendency to dismiss and belittle differing opinions. It seems like any perspective that doesn’t align with yours is automatically considered ‘contextless liberal rants and libel.’ Isn’t that, in itself, a form of intellectual compromise? Let’s stick to the actual content of the discussion, shall we?
Here is an advice. CRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ME A RIVERRRRRR T_T
See, this is why people have problems with ML and hexbears. How will you ever bring the revolution when you can’t stop screeching? Nobody wants that. Nobody wants to be around it. You’ll be a revolution of one because nobody can take being around such an abrasive asshole long enough to even listen to their points, much less realize they might be right.
Imagine somebody walking down the street. They see a poster on the wall of the store they pass. It’s a Starbucks. “Looks tasty, I’m cold” they say. Suddenly, you’re there, shrieking about labor rights and fair trade. You are without a doubt correct, but you’ve scared the person and now they’re annoyed. One of those drones inside with the green hats comes out and sees the situation. They ask the customer to come inside where they’re safe from you, and now they’re buying overpriced drinks from exploited workers produced by exploited farmers etc.
All because instead of talking to someone like a human, you had to be edgy and witty. You treat real humans the way tv characters talk to each other. On TV the wittiest oneo-liner wins. In real life you have to show a little human compassion, even if you’re faking it or else you alienate who you’re talking to and are left in an echo chamber, alone, or in the case of our imagined scenario the employees may call security or police (agents of oppression, and they’ll probably buy coffee too) on a person harassing potential customers.
His tendency to dismiss and belittle differing opinions aligns with the behavior of making jokes at someone else’s expense, a red flag of his intention to demean rather than engage. This approach not only stifles productive discourse but also exposes their inability to appreciate the nuances in complex issues. The mark of a first-rate intelligence is holding two opposed ideas while still functioning, *a capacity *TheAnоnymоuseJоker seems to lack. He demonstrates an inability to see a world where an idea can be both right and wrong, as seen in his black-and-white arguments.
Ironically, and I quote him:
Furthermore, the consistent denial and projection of his biases onto others underscore his low self-esteem and desire to control and influence the narrative. This manipulation, characterized by deceiving and creating misleading narratives, aligns with the observation that the most argumentative people rarely persuade anyone. Persuasion is an art that requires observation, listening, and inquiry, not blunt force.
Nobody wants to listen to fucking individualist capitalist dronies who cannot summon a critical thought of their own, or have any awareness or empathy for society, or prosperous desires for all.
Go watch some fantasy TV show or movie, maybe Marvel will give you hope of Amerikkka making the world a great place, as they continue to feed you with McDonalds burgers, Coke, fries and free Netflix and Amazon Prime vouchers. Keep lovin’ and livin’ the good ol’ bread and circus in ignorance.
The only way leftist will win any political ground is by winning allies
Screaming down every person who you have a disagreement with politically will only solidify their dislike for the people you claim to represent
It’s funny to me seeing you claim that the other people lack awareness and empathy when you seemingly fail to grasp that people don’t enjoy the way you are portraying your political views
I think I have a lot better grasp of the amount of shit I should give for Anglos, considering USA and UK tried to nuke India back in the 70s and Russia saved us. Also, I have Syrian and Palestinian friends, thanks to whom I actually know how devilish Europe has been. Studying Chinese history of Opium Wars I and II was just cherry on top of the cake. Did I forget to mention Asian countries continue to have border conflicts with each other, because genocidal British colonisers decided to draw lines on map in certain ways?
You know what we call it when you take an ethnic group and act like all its members are the same?
What’s stopping them from redrawing their borders at the negotiating table?
You’re honestly hilarious.
That’s a very mature response
It’s also crucial to consider the source of advice or criticism. TheAnоnymоuseJоker’s attacks are reminiscent of those who criticize yet have never built anything themselves. Their actions seems more about garnering attention than offering constructive criticism. One cannot be offended by someone they do not respect. It’s important to take advice from those you respect and who contribute positively, not from those who seek to destroy. TheAnоnymоuseJоker should address the need for maturity and constructive engagement rather than dismissive or sarcastic remarks.
I always take into consideration maturity of the person I am talking to. Gotta be careful, not too edgy. :D
It’s vital to approach such an individual with compassion.
You’re are likely trapped in a cycle of negative thoughts and might not see the error in your ways. Holding grudges only leads to bitterness, so it’s noble to leave the door open for forgiveness and change.
Your account is exclusively made 8 hours ago to smear me, having just 5 comments, all targeted towards me. You are sent by GrapheneOS/Daniel Micay to do this, to manufacture unsubstantiated drivel about me, even though the discussion is regarding geopolitics, when that clown called me a “Chinese government paid agent” and “CCP agent” on Reddit and Twitter.
Sent by… Mate, that’s delusional paranoia at this point…
Focusing on the age of my account and concocting theories about who sent me? That’s a classic move, TheAnonymouseJoker. Rather than addressing the points raised, you’re choosing to spin a narrative about conspiracies and smear campaigns. It’s a neat way to sidestep the actual discussion, but it doesn’t really hold up. Accusing someone of manufacturing ‘unsubstantiated drivel’ without engaging with the substance of their comments? That’s avoiding the real conversation. Let’s get back to the geopolitics discussion and deal with the actual topics at hand, instead of getting sidetracked by who’s saying what.
ref.1
Sorry I don’t side with imperialism.
Ukraine wants to not be invaded by it’s neighbor, and Russia did so to conquer it in direct contradiction to a treaty it signed when Ukraine gave it’s nukes to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. On multiple occasions.
Russia is not conquering Ukraine though. Has Russia done this in the course of over one year? On the other hand, Blackrock is selling and buying Ukrainian land for some mysterious reason. Somehow, a private USA company is conquering Ukraine’s land.
I call bullshit on your claims and credibility.
Did Russia not invade Ukraine’s sovereign territory?
That’s a pretty big rock you’ve been living under to miss that.
Your claim, not mine. Do not change goalposts.
If Ukraine wasn’t offered vast assistance they would have likely been swallowed by Russia by now.
Russia invaded. Russia was the aggressor, with some eye rolling cliché reasoning to boot.
Never play chess with pigeons. History is cliché for clowns.
Great, now fuck off pigeon.
Do you actually believe these things or do you just say them to try to get a rise out of people because I’ve never been able to work that one
Those are not just hot button topics, but also a litmus test for covertly hiding fascists in liberal sheep skin.
It’s evident that the your not interested in a genuine exchange of ideas or healthy debate. By rapidly switching topics and using them as shields rather than points of discussion, you’re clearly employing tactics like deflecting and deceiving. These types of methods serve to derail the conversation and assert dominance rather than contribute meaningfully.
Classic case of using hot-button issues not to educate or enlighten but to create an ‘in-group’ and outcast those who question or differ. This approach isn’t just unproductive; it’s an attempt to manipulate the discourse for personal gratification rather than collective understanding.
Recognizing these tactics is the first step in not falling victim to them and maintaining the integrity of the discussion
Best not to analyse me psychologically.
You are engaging in a deflective, ignorant and intellectually compromised behaviour when you talk about me without knowing the context of the discussion. You have reactionary, immature behaviour and gaslighting personality traits, a sign of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
Recognising the pseudointellectual hipsters of society is very important in order to shutdown their contextless liberal rants and libel.
The context of the discussion is socialist left geopolitics, and it is funny your account is exclusively made 8 hours ago to smear me, having just 5 comments, all targeted towards me. You are sent by GrapheneOS/Daniel Micay to do this, to manufacture unsubstantiated drivel about me, even though the discussion is regarding geopolitics, when that clown called me a “Chinese government paid agent” and “CCP agent” on Reddit and Twitter.
TheAnonymouseJoker, your quick attempt to diagnose me with “a sign of” narcissistic personality disorder is intriguing yet notably speculative, especially given the absence of clinical credentials. Your use of the term NPD, while it carries a semblance of authority, comes off as more titular than substantively medical. It’s a bit tautological to emphasize ‘NPD’ so explicitly, as it seems redundant in this context.
In the realm of professional psychology, NPD is far from being a mere collection of observable behaviors. It’s a complex condition that involves a deep-seated pattern of grandiosity, a sustained need for admiration, and a notable lack of empathy. This encompasses traits like exaggerated self-importance, fantasies of extraordinary success and power, a belief in one’s uniqueness, an unquenchable desire for admiration, and an exploitative approach in interpersonal relations. These are not surface-level traits but ingrained patterns evident across various contexts.
Your confident stance in assigning such a diagnosis without professional backing seems to reflect the very characteristics of NPD – a sense of overinflated authority and a propensity to exploit diagnostic terms for personal gain in an argument, especially in a discussion that’s meant to be about geopolitics. This approach of using psychological analysis as a tool to discredit others doesn’t contribute to the topic at hand. Ironically, this behavior mirrors some of the core symptoms of NPD itself, leading to a reflective moment where one must consider if this projection is not an unconscious self-reflection of one’s own potential disorder.
ref.1 ref.2