Sorry I don't understand. What should I describe? (I don't believe MLs are revisionist, and Marx and Engels were obviously very much in favour of authority)

In case my statement was a little convoluted and misunderstood:

I expressed my opinion that there are tough ideological questions on both sides that the other side has answered for itself and that exploring ones own ideology through the eyes of the other is therefore beneficial. And to do that it takes an honest effort at (at least superficially) understanding it.

it can save you a lot of heart ache

*headache

Was probably what you meant

I understand getting tripped up when others chime in with varying intentions. Also my initial comment should have been clearer and did leave more room to read a pedophilia accusation into it than I intended.

I can see that you argue in good faith and I apologize for some reddit impulses that I haven't unlearned yet.

Personally I don't see the equation of leftism with defending CP in OPs post though.

The way I read it OP groups "meat-eaters" into categories with each being a drastic exaggeration (the "lvl 5 bloodmouth" is a straight up cannibal) so I think none of this can be taken seriously.

One "group" is the The "Leftist" meat eater. I expand the quotes to something like The pseudo-leftist meat eater who is then represented by Vaush. To me this is basically a 1 person group that might as well just be called "Vaush" but calling him The pseudo Leftist is just one more swing at him.

I am definitely both a leftist and not a vegan and I don't mind the post in fact I found it quite funny (but obviously very few ppl agree). I agree though that slapping the CP stuff under Vaushs pic is unfair to him, as some people will take it seriously, I have to say that humor was also not lost on me though

Call me buddy all you want but it doesn't change the fact that you are not good at making sense

Why are you jumping to conclusions so weirdly?

Case in point that complete second half is you responding to conclusions you've drawn up in your head. Re-read this thread, nowhere is it ever about ML or socialism. You think its accurate to call me ML because...?

This thread is about US propaganda on reddit, which I characterized by posting a fact that is affected by it with the goal of facricating consent for military action against another country.

You are the one dismissing anything which doesn't align with a very narrow ML head-cannon as indicative of being a US intelligence asset

An obviously completly untruthful rendition of my statement. I phrased it carefully so if you'd do me the favor and try harder to understand it.

I would appreciate it if you could refrain from purposefully misrepresenting my statements as you have done in every one of your comments so far

I see these arguments more rooted in contempt, less in reason.

Generally being doubtful of MLs ability to pass the dictatorship phase is valid though (if it refers to the rule of the party not one person)

Is it? You were completely right before, both in your assessment of the ML understanding of the necessity of a revolutionary state and in concluding that equating it with autoritarianism is not fair.

Authoritarianism is understood by most people in a similar fashion to "wishing a benevolent dictator would rise and clean up". Although some MLs might share that notion, an authoritatian revolutionary state doesn't need to be led by a dictator, as you pointed out yourself.

An "ism"s believes are defined by its scripture, famously Lenin devised what he called "democratic centralism" as decision making process. Ofc both in M and L it is concluded that authority is necessary but its still explicitly different from a dictator.

With a different understanding of authoritarianism one could call the attribution to MLs somewhat correct albeit still defamatory (since people understand it differently). However socsa made his definition explicit by talking about dictators.

So AFAIC his point "every dictator deemed his actions necessary" is not applicable to the conversation at hand especially when it is about how to correctly referr to MLs when it is at best a subset of authoritarianism.

As far as his second point goes: Having doubts that ML will get past the dictatorship phase is legitimate, however employing history as an argument isn't truthful. First and foremost: failed attempts of history are used by people to attest systemic failure to anarchism too, its just not a good argument. The 100 years too aren't honest as no ML government has ever gotten that old (btw how long did it take for lib-dem systems to establish the truths they hold "self-evident"?)

Then ofc there is a discussion to be had about how long an MLs countries dictatorship phase would need to be given attempts of foreign led coups and invasions and necessity to participate in global markets while protecting it from corruption by capital.

All in all I find their attribution of the word "authoritarianism" for ML more fueled by contempt, less by reason.

Nicht ganz unwichtig!

A big part of my gripe here is precisely the idea that one can engage in critical analysis of statecraft, while hand waving away inconvenient statecraft. Or worse - supporting broad censorship of inconvenient statecraft.

I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.

My gripe here is that nobody can have an informed opinion on foreign policy if they do not acknowledge the tons of pro US propaganda that surround them on EVERY issue in this category and dominate most of it.

It is important to call you out on your power-serving statements.

You tried to push critical thought out of the overton window when you painted it a kind of sacrilege ("make folk heroes out of tyrants") and everyone engaging in it someone that needs to be shunned by society (a "tankie").

Mind you all without addressing, let alone contesting, the facts.

With all due respect: As long as your actions are indistinguishable from those of a US intelligence social media asset, don't expect any good will engagement.

Have an open mind and start to reflect a little more

Thats hilarious

Thanks for the source, definitely gonna read it later.

when I researched I thought a couple of things were off curious what light the article shines on that

Sure thing

What do you mean by "browse" feature?

There is a way to see a feed of all Lemmy activity.

In jerboa you can see it after you click on on the burger menu in the top right corner of the screen and select "All".

Whish side were you on then? The correct side (emacs) or the wrong side (vim)?

Lol, what?

He is one of the richest oligarchs in the world, its people like him that the whole system caters to.

Nobody is controlling him, he can do whatever the fuck he wants and he just happens to want a lot of dumb shit.