Or when you bring sources and they straight up ignore them entirely…
I understand not wanting to read or go through the entire Marxist-Leninist books I recommend, not everybody has the time for that, but a 5-20 minute article? You waste more time debating me after the fact than you would have just reading the article, at least do me the courtesy of skimming it and trying to engage with my points.
And their own sources are so heavily butchered or even lied about. I cannot count the amount of times people provided me with ‘sources’ that they claim were ironclad in their favor only for them to completely debunk their shit…
It’s called a “gish gallop” mixed with a disagreement about what this platform is, with a healthy mix of “ain’t nobody got time for that”. To some people this is a legitimate place of discussion, to others it’s a place to shit post. One thing that Reddit did get right was seperating the two groups from each other. Lemmy doesn’t do that as well unless you ask it to and for some people, they ain’t got time for that. That still leaves the people who are gish galloping but they’re not going anywhere so might as well adapt.
Perhaps peppering responses with links is counterproductive. Why not follow a more consistent strategy? Such an approach would for example summarize the opposition’s view in good faith, give a name to the fallacies in it, and respond not only by providing a link, but a short synopsis of what the link is and how it refutes those fallacies. This approach helps not only rebut the opponent, who may be unwilling to listen to reason, but everyone following the conversation in real time or in the future. For this reason it is also great to use archived versions of links, whenever you can.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I generally offer specific reading recommendations and explanations for why, the only time I “pepper” is if it’s to add supporting evidence that might be immediately disregarded otherwise. I don’t usually send a large reading list, usually it’s one article or book with an explanation of why it’s relevant. You can see my comment history for examples if you want.
Certainly. I try to do the same, in fact I craft my comments so that they are immediately useful to others. Nonetheless, this might be not enough. Trolls are there for a reason, and you have to accept that our comment-section skirmishes do not add up to much, especially when you consider state-sponsored trolling and mega-corporate push of the far right agenda, across all media outlets, including social media.
If you consider yourself a liberal and generally against AES like the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc, Blackshirts and Reds is a fantastic critical reexamination and reads very well. Nothing but constant truth bombs.
If you want to get into Marxism, I recommend The Principles of Communism followed by Socialism: Utopian and Scientific as well as Elementary Principles of Philosophy. An intro/FAQ of Communism, followed by the history of Socialism and how and why Marxism answers the problems with previous Utopian Socialists, and finally the best work on the philosophical aspect of Marxism, Dialectical and Historical Materialism.
No problem! If you finish them all and for some reason want more, I have plenty of other recommendations, and you can DM me if you have any questions. I personally really like reading the modern author I linked, they have a bunch of niche, specific essays like Dialectical Matetialism in the context of Quantum Mechanics (makes sense if you’ve read Elementary Principles of Philosophy) or Marxism vs Anarchism, or why Cooperatives aren’t Marxist (not a purity test! They are socialist but not Marxist). Have fun!
Or when you bring sources and they straight up ignore them entirely…
I understand not wanting to read or go through the entire Marxist-Leninist books I recommend, not everybody has the time for that, but a 5-20 minute article? You waste more time debating me after the fact than you would have just reading the article, at least do me the courtesy of skimming it and trying to engage with my points.
And their own sources are so heavily butchered or even lied about. I cannot count the amount of times people provided me with ‘sources’ that they claim were ironclad in their favor only for them to completely debunk their shit…
It’s called a “gish gallop” mixed with a disagreement about what this platform is, with a healthy mix of “ain’t nobody got time for that”. To some people this is a legitimate place of discussion, to others it’s a place to shit post. One thing that Reddit did get right was seperating the two groups from each other. Lemmy doesn’t do that as well unless you ask it to and for some people, they ain’t got time for that. That still leaves the people who are gish galloping but they’re not going anywhere so might as well adapt.
Perhaps peppering responses with links is counterproductive. Why not follow a more consistent strategy? Such an approach would for example summarize the opposition’s view in good faith, give a name to the fallacies in it, and respond not only by providing a link, but a short synopsis of what the link is and how it refutes those fallacies. This approach helps not only rebut the opponent, who may be unwilling to listen to reason, but everyone following the conversation in real time or in the future. For this reason it is also great to use archived versions of links, whenever you can.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I generally offer specific reading recommendations and explanations for why, the only time I “pepper” is if it’s to add supporting evidence that might be immediately disregarded otherwise. I don’t usually send a large reading list, usually it’s one article or book with an explanation of why it’s relevant. You can see my comment history for examples if you want.
Certainly. I try to do the same, in fact I craft my comments so that they are immediately useful to others. Nonetheless, this might be not enough. Trolls are there for a reason, and you have to accept that our comment-section skirmishes do not add up to much, especially when you consider state-sponsored trolling and mega-corporate push of the far right agenda, across all media outlets, including social media.
Such as? Need a book to read next.
Depends, how familiar are you with Marxism?
The very broad strokes (not red-scared).
You’ve got a bit of a choose your own adventure!
If you consider yourself a liberal and generally against AES like the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc, Blackshirts and Reds is a fantastic critical reexamination and reads very well. Nothing but constant truth bombs.
If you want to get into Marxism, I recommend The Principles of Communism followed by Socialism: Utopian and Scientific as well as Elementary Principles of Philosophy. An intro/FAQ of Communism, followed by the history of Socialism and how and why Marxism answers the problems with previous Utopian Socialists, and finally the best work on the philosophical aspect of Marxism, Dialectical and Historical Materialism.
If you want some quick reads, I love Why Do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” as well as Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. Modern analysis, 20 minute reads, based on what we currently know and not written back in the period of Marx.
Finally, if you consider yourself a Marxist already, The State and Revolution as well as Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism are both Lenin’s most significant works.
Really though, the modern works and Blackshirts and Reds are great primers before delving into Marx, Engels, and Lenin themselves.
Woah! Thanks for the tips!
No problem! If you finish them all and for some reason want more, I have plenty of other recommendations, and you can DM me if you have any questions. I personally really like reading the modern author I linked, they have a bunch of niche, specific essays like Dialectical Matetialism in the context of Quantum Mechanics (makes sense if you’ve read Elementary Principles of Philosophy) or Marxism vs Anarchism, or why Cooperatives aren’t Marxist (not a purity test! They are socialist but not Marxist). Have fun!
A cool book I like is This Soviet World. It shows the Soviet Union as experienced by the author in the 1930s.