Ah yeah actually that was me. I could have worded it better but I wanted to make clear that the revolution has to be violent. I decided to drop the whole conversation when they completely dismissed an article about indigenous people saying "don't vote" with "but me and my family need this" and then required the dems to implement ranked choice voting before they would do something.

https://lemmy.ml/post/48239454/26043637

[–] Kumikommunism@hexbear.net 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't think you said anything wrong. Even the "begins with you" is after a direction to join an existing organization. Obviously they aren't speaking in good faith.

[–] mathemachristian@hexbear.net 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yeah but you know how it is with these types of people that keep waffling on and on, they attach a meaning to certain phrases that are categorised as good or bad and if you trip such a phrase they will disregard everything before and after and only hear what that specific phrase means to them. For them "violent leftist action" is stuff like Mangione (allegedly) and they think that's bad for the obvious reasons but then don't go further to examine in what context it would have been good. So if you advocate for violence from a leftist perspective you're obviously just advocating for adventurism, coupled that with the "starts with you" sealed it. You have to be real precise not to trigger any boobytrap, it was something on my mind while writing it but disregarded it.

Phrases like "Where I’d push back on the liberal/socialist framing specifically" and "But here’s where your argument hits its ceiling for me." shows they can't really form a specific argument but still live in inconvienced brunchland where how you say something matters more than what you're saying.

It's not a big loss, just gotta keep piling on the contradictions.