the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
Dont really want anymore pings over this
Day did not insist on having the conversation on Twitter that I had seen. Perhaps I missed where he did, in which case, would you mind pointing it out to me?
However, you will notice that Poverty of Philosophy was not, in fact, a letter written privately to Proudhon, but was published and distributed to the public so that the people who read Philosophy of Poverty could read Marx's rebuttal of it. Refuting a public figure in private is not a very useful practice.
To my knowledge, Day insisted only that the response be public and not on the specific medium where JT happened to respond initially, and if JT said he'd, I don't know, make a video or write an essay of his own or whatever, Day would accept that just as readily.
Dont really want anymore pings over this
The issue with this strategy that should be most immediately apparent is that bad faith can be difficult to evaluate and we've had well over a decade of perfecting how to string someone along in DMs indefinitely. A hypothetical Prudent and Polite Roderic Day can see JT publishing and popularizing reactionary hogwash, try to engage in DMs, and be stuck at that step for a week or a month because JT drags his feet responding, insists on tediously litigating minor points, misinterprets Days' assertions, etc., and if Day pulls the trigger at any point, JT can go "Woah, hey, what happened Rod?! We were having a private discussion and then you just publish it because I have a work schedule that I also need to keep up with? Are we communists or drama-mongers here?" just like he did anyway with the public statement. JT was already responding in bad faith in the two tweets we already saw ("passive aggressive", etc), how much should Day bank on JT behaving in an upstanding way if things are already going this poorly for The Discourse between them?
Dont really want anymore pings over this
Dont really want anymore pings over this
Whether JT (or anybody for that matter) is intentionally or unintentionally promoting imperialism shouldn't matter. It is good to criticize a bad idea even when the person putting it forward has a good track record.
No worries about the double reply. I think maybe after combing through enough of JT's oeuvre he could come to that conclusion but, not to put too fine a point on it, a lot of what JT says is reasonably mistakable for being "and then we have peaceful welfare co-ops"-style social-chauvinist pablum that doesn't adequately oppose the exploitation by nordic-style states.