electoralism

don't be shitty . . . don't be patronizing.

Glass houses

i obviously don't think that it's an argument, i'm saying that being dismissive is not worthwhile. i am clearly implying that one should make an argument about what should be done instead of complaining "now do communism" from an armchair. i am clearly saying that i think people should present an argument.

Then don't call it an argument and just say what you mean the first time. Speaking as though it was being presented as an argument just detracts from whatever point you might like to make about how it was actually presented.

assume that i'm half capable of thinking and at least somewhat well-read, if you don't mind.

I assume that everyone is capable of thinking, but sure, I guess I'll also specifically assume you're well-read. It doesn't seem especially relevant to the point but perhaps it will be.

it's called a turn of phrase purpleworm. you said "isn't exactly what you want" framing is only good for voteblue apologetics. i'm saying "do communism" only sounds good and not being a pathetic radlib if you're an ultra.

I genuinely appreciate the radlib-ultra horseshoe theory, but I'd really say this is more in the radlib/baby left rhetorical wheelhouse than specifically ultras because ultras would stereotypically be too busy attacking him for being the mayor in the first place or something like that.

you're right, the best time to discuss whether a certain form of agitprop is entryism or not is in front of a stadium full of libs. that'll totally not alienate people with a u.s. education and liberal brainworms

He literally does do this and I think both of us have sat through hours of him doing that. I mentioned him at all because you sounded like you'd be a fan of his and

or maybe the guy with the career in agitprop has opinions that aren't exactly what you seem to think they are, or that you can disagree on strategy without resorting to calling someone an entryist or a tailist.

There is is. Anyway, I think this line of defense is silly because I can just say the same about Kautsky (who I'm assuming you have read about, per your request) or any other opportunist or similar figure.

that's not what i'm saying at all. it's like you didn't even try to understand my point, so i'll walk us through it . . .

I appreciate the walkthrough, and I mostly agree in the situation you outline, but notice I said "yes and" is useful on a "contingent" basis, not no basis. What Mamdani did here was cool and we should exploit things like that, we agree there. The relevance of my comment to the point that it was responding to is that Mamdani has also done plenty of shitty things, sometimes with pseudo-progressive spin and sometimes not really bothering, and we can't be so caught up in trying to ride waves that we get carried away, if you'll forgive the turn of phrase.

i will genuinely stop responding to you with this kind of critique

I appreciate the offer, but you can keep criticizing me, it's fine.