I’ve already got my stances all clear and out in the open, from my stances on the Soviet prison system to what “authoritarian” even means in practice. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, again my opinons are fairly standard for Marxist-Leninists. Again, who are you doing this for?
If it’s for yourself, then you would do well to engage more with the arguments, rather than dismiss them outright. The point of the dialectical method is to come to a higher understanding by engaging with opposition, not avoiding it.
I mean, I’ve made it clear that I think those have all applied to you thus far, yet I’ve still played my part in the game because I know it’s more useful for onlookers to see the arguments than just dismissing the opportunity. If you truly believe me to be deluded and full of shit, bad-faith, etc, and know you’re on a thread where more people will agree with me than disagree, then the only way your strategy works is if you engage with the arguments and win so thoroughly that they have to be acknowledged.
In the absence of pushing back against my arguments, all you’ve done thus far is give me a free platform to share my views, and good sources for those who wish to see them.
Both of us are ideological, whether that ideology be easily labeled or not. The truth is coming out, in my opinion, my point is that it’s better accomplished when both sides engage equally.
I’ve already got my stances all clear and out in the open, from my stances on the Soviet prison system to what “authoritarian” even means in practice. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, again my opinons are fairly standard for Marxist-Leninists. Again, who are you doing this for?
this is coming up better in the other thread, so lets continue to focus there.
as for who i do this for, it’s always for the pursuit of and elucidation of truth, for myself and for any who may find it useful in their own lives.
If it’s for yourself, then you would do well to engage more with the arguments, rather than dismiss them outright. The point of the dialectical method is to come to a higher understanding by engaging with opposition, not avoiding it.
Either way, I answered the other thread.
i would but i already don’t trust you from our last attempt at this. that needs to be addressed first.
I fail to understand how trying to come to a better understanding through opposed argument works if you reject making arguments, but you do you.
i’m not going to overly commit if i think you’re full of shit, deluded and/or acting in bad faith.
I mean, I’ve made it clear that I think those have all applied to you thus far, yet I’ve still played my part in the game because I know it’s more useful for onlookers to see the arguments than just dismissing the opportunity. If you truly believe me to be deluded and full of shit, bad-faith, etc, and know you’re on a thread where more people will agree with me than disagree, then the only way your strategy works is if you engage with the arguments and win so thoroughly that they have to be acknowledged.
In the absence of pushing back against my arguments, all you’ve done thus far is give me a free platform to share my views, and good sources for those who wish to see them.
except i’m not trying to do any of what you seem to be accusing me?
the whole point is to get more of the truth out, wherever it lands.
i’m not the ideological one. you are.
this is nothing more than a social interaction.
Both of us are ideological, whether that ideology be easily labeled or not. The truth is coming out, in my opinion, my point is that it’s better accomplished when both sides engage equally.