54
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
54 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15896 readers
294 users here now
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
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
There is a huge difference between "public debate" and "defend your position in public [by writing what you think I'm wrong about or why you're right]". Day writes a ton of theory and is outspoken about his views and wants people to either take them seriously by challenging or engaging with them. The bullshit of "agree to disagree" gets us nowhere. I think publicly posting is fine as a medium for such
Debate shit is when you wanna do a quick fire bullshit thing. Day wants JT to write out where he disagrees so they can resolve or one be shown to be in error. That is good. Resolving differences has to happen.
And yet he doesn't really write out any thoughtful critique of his own to start such a good faith conversation. He simply comes off like he is offended at the mere mention of MMT (something I also fucking hate talking about because it's bullshit but that is neither here nor there).
If he truly wanted to engage with the content he is complaining about it would be better done in an actual article and not on twitter of all places. Especially Musk's twitter.
I found the descriptions he gave and references to other works handling similar positions plenty to begin the conversation. I found it to be plenty good enough to dismiss MMT, too, though I already had my issues with it. JT should defend it if he finds those not enough to dismiss MMT, and make that argument then. I don't think MMT deserves the time for expanded dismissal if Marx handled similar shit centuries ago well enough
I do think though that I agree about twitter being not great, but a public place to handle such things doesn't exist with as wide of reach unfortunately. Go and write articles in Jacobin or International, but who reads that anymore? We have to deal with that at the moment, and writing articles on your own site and referencing it on twitter seems the best option I've seen so far. And that's what Roderic does
Dont really want anymore pings over this