Nah, this shit is broken on mobile and I can't see the context of my own comments for some reason. Sometimes when I hit context it shows me random comments under the same parent.

But bro you are on the same website having the same conversation I am lmao.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Most socialists are people in the global south. Their projects that "tankies" support are actually being done. Most of this "you're a tankie" shit stems from western chauvinist white man's burden shit. Call us when you've done a successful socialist revolution, until then we're going to be emulating the ideologies of successful socialist projects.

Edit: because lol "the US did a revolution" , read "the counter revolution of 1776"

[–] socsa@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So engaging in violence is the determining factor for determining who can have opinions?

That's great news, because Marx drew pretty heavily from the French and US revolutions when discussing his own revolutionary framework. Where do I pick up my badge?

Edit - Just do a revolution! No not that way!

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So engaging in violence is the determining factor for determining who can have opinions?

No, you are free to engage in revolutionary violence that results in a socialist society with a communist ruling party or elect your way into a socialist society with a communist ruling party. Plenty of socialists did the latter, they just didn't live for long. If you do that I'll gladly listen to you.

[–] socsa@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wow that kind of seems like a very narrow view of who can have a voice. It seems to exclude any socialist tradition which is skeptical of revolutionary praxis, or any statecraft which is not based on democratic centralism. Do I have that correct? You only find Orthodoxy and Leninism valid and are not interested in any forms of libertarian or democratic socialism?

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Do you think only the successful revolutions have been orthodox marxist or orthodox ML?

You are free to follow the example of libertarian socialists and electoral socialists, but I'd prefer if you didn't get yourself killed. Why do you only like ideologies that aren't successful?

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How about you go fuck yourself instead? That's all you can do anyway. We're not going anywhere and we outnumber you.

[–] fishtacos@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like a threat. Fuck off.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Sounds like you need to get the last word to win something, and you'll prove that you need the last word by running your mouth again. Here, go ahead:

[+] yogthos@lemmy.ml -9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you don't like it here then feel free to go somewhere else. Lemmy was a community of sane people who were capable of having civilized discussion, and then a bunch of reddit chuds flooded here and started acting like you own the place. Get over yourself.

[–] DauntingFlamingo@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Bahaha look at you. "Everyone who disagrees with me is a bootlicker/troll/westerner."

Edit for the bootlicking troll below: Ahem A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

You don't understand what a straw man is.

You're really bad at this. You even tried to copy my comment and failed miserably! Congratulations, you're stupid in two languages!