that’s a good point, although if we’re talking about tactics internal consistency isn’t 100% necessary. more important that the rhetoric we choose resonates in the way we intend with the audience we’re engaging with

Is it really a good idea to try to build a coalition out of deliberately ideologically muddled who have no coherent idea of what they’re trying to accomplish, or agreement on even basic principles, but who are strictly aligned entirely on the basis of vibes & personal sentiments?

Except it does actually matter, because people are fighting on the basis of those questions every day, and you don’t overcome it by essentializing whiteness or labeling it an unbridgeable obstacle we can never change, because hey the racists imposed it, so what choice do we have but to identify with that imposition

Is your argument here supposed to be that you can abolish the concept of “Whiteness”, by getting “light-skinned people” to just stop calling/considering themselves “White”; and that this will work regardless of how anybody else considers, or interacts with them?

This seems like an extremely non-materialist take, and one that isn’t/wouldn’t even be supported by the majority of people of color.

Like, what is your position on what FDSignifier says in this video? Would your argument be that the most effective way to get people in “White America” to recognize that the American Carceral State also preys on them is to try to convince them that “they aren’t White”, or whatever? Or do you just write off that entire issue as a lost cause?

I don’t remember the exact wording of it, or where exactly it was; because I am admittedly not as well read as I would like to be, but I distinctly recall that Mao cautioned against being more ideologically advanced in your positions than what was necessarily appropriate for the actual conditions of the society you were trying to organize in, and unlike anybody on here he actually did successfully organize a Communist revolution.

For me it was having a bunch of MLs laugh at me and ridicule me that really got me thinking.

Well that one doesn’t work with me, if you laugh at me & make fun of me I’m gonna fight you even if I would normally otherwise agree with your point.

I mean, the thing is I like Huge Blue Men fighting Giant Purple Space Bugs, and so I am also predisposed to seeing things like Judge Dredd as “cool” from an aesthetic perspective.

This doesn’t change the fact that the actual substance of what he does is still vile, and absolutely not something to aspire to in Real Life.

Being in favor of free speech means allowing people you hate to talk too. If someone says something that’s factually incorrect, prove them wrong.

Well we don’t believe that “free speech” is a “basic right”. Now material rights to shelter, food, and productive participation in society are things we consider to be “basic rights”. Being a Fascist is not productive participation in society however, therefore in order to fulfill that basic right, they must be corrected.

MFW renewing my drivers license at the CCPMV:

That’s true, but he’s still right about the other statements.

Could you explain what the premise of the theory is?

I legit thought the joke was that you wrote out * removed externally hosted image * in your comment.

That’s a bit of a non-sequitur in this instance don’t you think? We’re not talking about what the name of a place is, but rather how the two countries’ citizenry feel about their respective governments.

No. I had an account when the instance was first set up, but I got banned for getting into an argument with a power-user. I wouldn’t say it’s always been like this, but this is definitely what it’s like normally.

We mutated out of a band of subreddit refugees from r/ChapoTrapHouse, but I feel like the current community doesn’t fully live up to what it used to be.

He was maybe an otherwise cool guy and might have been doing his genuine best to fulfill his obligations (unlike most landlords) but he was still taking money from you for the use of your home.

This is admittedly pedantry, but I’m going to make the minor objection that, as an apartment-dweller, I don’t think that an apartment is personal property. It is by it’s nature an article of collective property, with specific rights of personal use attached to it. Basically like a common field.

This isn’t an arguement in favor of landlordism (which should be obvious), I’m making the comment to make sure I am on the same page as everybody else.

And I’m not allowed to any of them. :/