Like, you come on in here saying that maybe Americans should lead a communist revolution, because they all think the same,

Never once said this.

even though that’s like, a lot of different cultures and everything, and when someone points out that’s kinda racist, your response was to explain communism harder and say that it wasn’t racist because you decided it wasn’t.

I never said that there weren’t a lot of cultures, my point was that those oppressed by present conditions most readily grasp the necessity of resisting them.

And I’ve tried multiple angles for days to see if you at any point would go “yeah that was a little fucked up of me” or even the minimum of “I could see how someone could see that”, and instead you humblebrag about how “no one else has had a problem with it with my many many friends”, and double down again.

You completely invented a point I never made, accused me of racism for said point, and then tried to tell me to apologize for the point you invented. No, I am not apologizing for something I never said.

So I’m pretty sure that wraps up this saga. I can’t get you to admit you did anything wrong because you think you’re perfect

Nope, I know I’m not perfect. I do know that one person inventing a point doesn’t mean I need to apologize for said invented point.

Knowing your type, you’ll probably insist of having the last word anyway, try to pull off that W in the Internet debate box, but I’m not above that either and maybe you’ll surprise me and end this charade.

I’m not going to stand for libel, you’re perfectly capable of admitting that you invented a point I never made. Asking me to apologize for a point you invented is absurd.

We aren’t coming to a deeper understanding together, you’re insistent that if I don’t agree with you that I’m in the wrong. I understand that people can misunderstand or misinterpret my point, and I clarified that I think it’s best to further explain points that are misinterpreted. You took deep offense to that and proceeded to have this back and forth for days with nothing constructive coming from it.

Can you elaborate on how Marxist-Leninists “use Marx’s name while rejecting his philosophy?” Lenin’s major advances on Marxism include analyzing imperialism as a higher stage of capitalism, something Marx lived to see only the very beginnings of, as well as organizational theory. Lenin represented a return to Marx, considering the Second International had at that point vulgarized Marx into a reformist. What part of Marxism does Marxism-Leninism reject? You specifically mention philosophy, but Marxism-Leninism affirms dialectical materialism, so I assume you mean something else.

Further, Marxism-Leninism is largely an ideology practiced in the global south, not so much the global north. Perhaps I’m misreading you, but you make it seem as though it’s largely western, and that this is why it “rejects” Marx. More common in the west are Trotskyists, who still uphold Lenin, or Eurocomms, who also uphold Lenin. The number of Marxists that reject Lenin, even if they disagree with AES countries, is extremely small, period, global north or south.

You compared me to someone refusing to apologize for a joke about SA, which I said I never made anything close to that. I didn’t say you said I made one. I really don’t think I should listen to what you have to say if you don’t actually care to read and understand what I say.

I never made anything close to a joke about SA or any racist statements, though, and you sound like someone trying to discredit a point by wielding this accusation like a club just because I don’t agree with you.

I listened, I just don’t agree.

I can acknowledge that you personally feel this way, but I don’t see it as a broader phenomenon because I don’t run into this problem. I was never being racist either.

Apology accepted. I understand that that’s what you percieve about me, but that just generally isn’t a common thing for when people talk to me. I don’t get that frequently, and I talk to a lot of people, online and offline. That’s why I don’t see it as a broader issue, but a smaller and particular one, which is why I focused on further explaining myself.

See, I do talk to people IRL (both about politics and non-political things) and you’re being patronizing by insinuating that I don’t. This is why I don’t really see why you’d be helpful for me.

I understand, but the fact that I don’t see it doesn’t mean that I haven’t been listening.

I appreciate your intent, but I don’t see the problem you’re seeing. I’m not being condescendng by saying so, I just fundamentally don’t see the problems with what I’m saying from an optics perspective that you claim to see.

Based on voting totals though, it seems most people understood me. I’m not telling anyone how to feel, and for the minority that misunderstood me, further elaboration helps clear it up. I’m not sure what you’re trying to add to that.

We will win!

Yep! You see it from time to time.

I think it’s fair to say that explaining my views more thoroughly when it’s clear that they’ve been misunderstood is important. Further, the original commenter misunderstood the post, thinking it accelerationist, which I tried to explain why it isn’t. None of that was me being condescending.

While not immune, moving to FOSS, federated social media helps by removing the profit motive.

I don’t really like the condescension in your tone, it leads me to believe your advice wouldn’t be very helpful in making people feel heard.

Socialist countries do exist. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.

Most people seem to have understood me, and for those who haven’t, I’ve clarified. I am listening, but also responding.

Agreed! They take issue more with the argument style to dismiss the substance.

It’s a real thing, for sure, but more often than not is used as a conversation terminator.