I was of the opinion after the first few struggle sessions that we were pretty much out of things to criticize for now and just had to hold out til more dropped or the campaign was done. He was either a shitlib or not, and people had already drawn their lines in the sand with the evidence on hand. Recently more compelling evidence has come out that shitlibness is confirmed so I think this is a convo worth having again.
it’s irrelevant what his “true power level” is. The entire strategy of using the DSA to endorse democrats and opportunists is a dead end failure. It’s like saying “let’s hold out to see this yeast’s true rising power” while making your bread with just water and yeast. You’re doing the process wrong, you’re missing ingredients, the “true yeastiness” is irrelevant.
I know his true power level is irrelevant, people that think it is were going to continue to do so though until the failure of the methods were made apparent.
Using your bread example, you’ve pointed out that they are missing ingredients, they deny that is a relevant factor. You are essentially arguing with a brick wall at that point until the bread doesn’t rise. The initial comment was made, and it is useful to remind them when the bread that should’ve rose has not, but before that they’ll just say, “This bread will rise.”
With the bread not rising, some will reasonably realize they are using a failed recipe book. Should the fact there is evidence the recipe is failed before something that should be enough, yes? But if they were listening to that, they wouldn’t be insisting it will rise at all. If they didn’t know at all and were open to reason without having to watch it fail real time, the moment you said they were missing ingredients, they would have asked what you meant and would adjust what they believed, meaning the reiteration is unneeded because this group would already convert after the initial providing that trying to make bread this way failed every other time.
You: There is a complete lack of revolutionary potential in this particular group and thus they will pursue endless reformist attempts with a rotating cast of opportunists
Me: Then try to convince other people and groups that do have revolutionary potential as trying to convert that group is pointless if they are stoutly dedicated to reformist apologia.
i’m just japing. some small percentage of them will grow out of it, they just need to be given a kick on the butt. It only seems eternal because there’s always new children coming of age who haven’t learned how politics works yet
Gotcha, I was really confused for a minute, actually sat there for like 5 minutes with paper trying to see what I was missing trying to square the circle. Most the Mamdani stans I know were literally too young for Obama, Bernie, and AOC, and no one reads Lenin (I’m only being slightly hyperbolic) so basically aren’t going to learn this lesson until they’re smacked in the face with it.
I was of the opinion after the first few struggle sessions that we were pretty much out of things to criticize for now and just had to hold out til more dropped or the campaign was done. He was either a shitlib or not, and people had already drawn their lines in the sand with the evidence on hand. Recently more compelling evidence has come out that shitlibness is confirmed so I think this is a convo worth having again.
it’s irrelevant what his “true power level” is. The entire strategy of using the DSA to endorse democrats and opportunists is a dead end failure. It’s like saying “let’s hold out to see this yeast’s true rising power” while making your bread with just water and yeast. You’re doing the process wrong, you’re missing ingredients, the “true yeastiness” is irrelevant.
I know his true power level is irrelevant, people that think it is were going to continue to do so though until the failure of the methods were made apparent.
Using your bread example, you’ve pointed out that they are missing ingredients, they deny that is a relevant factor. You are essentially arguing with a brick wall at that point until the bread doesn’t rise. The initial comment was made, and it is useful to remind them when the bread that should’ve rose has not, but before that they’ll just say, “This bread will rise.”
With the bread not rising, some will reasonably realize they are using a failed recipe book. Should the fact there is evidence the recipe is failed before something that should be enough, yes? But if they were listening to that, they wouldn’t be insisting it will rise at all. If they didn’t know at all and were open to reason without having to watch it fail real time, the moment you said they were missing ingredients, they would have asked what you meant and would adjust what they believed, meaning the reiteration is unneeded because this group would already convert after the initial providing that trying to make bread this way failed every other time.
No all they learn is that this one batch of yeast was flawed, not yeasty enough, and go back to try it again with a new batch of yeast. Forever.
Then no need to argue with them at all because its pointless to try to make them a baker.
???
i’m just japing. some small percentage of them will grow out of it, they just need to be given a kick on the butt. It only seems eternal because there’s always new children coming of age who haven’t learned how politics works yet
Gotcha, I was really confused for a minute, actually sat there for like 5 minutes with paper trying to see what I was missing trying to square the circle. Most the Mamdani stans I know were literally too young for Obama, Bernie, and AOC, and no one reads Lenin (I’m only being slightly hyperbolic) so basically aren’t going to learn this lesson until they’re smacked in the face with it.