Quotes

To add on: I hate it when people don't have definable ideological throughlines.

I'm not saying you need to have a online brainrot "I'm a Marxist-anti-engels-maoist-Hu Jintaoist-Hoxcaist with Turkish characteristics," but simply having a theoretical backing to what you're talking about.

I'm mainly referring to people here who are basically Marxist, maybe...? Like...I think they are, but they don't dicuss their theory, their marx and their philosophy of praxis. They'll critique things but don't really present how those critiques fit into their dialectical worldview.

A couple examples off the tip of my head would be 1dime, Hasan [don't watch too much, correct me if I'm wrong], and maybs rguably Orwell (idk, he was just vaguely a socialist. I know he liked Catalonia a lot but was he a full fledged anarchist? Idk, thats my point)

Let's add "stop being so goddamned credulous".

Reports of 15k people per day killed in Iran when the IOF couldn't post even half those numbers while bombing refugee encampments with white phosphorous.

If you read something, and it makes a claim, use some critical thinking skills instead of just thinking it must be true because the vibes feel right to you.

In my experience*, vibes-based politics can have a distinct western form (which is not to say it's exclusive to westerners).

Repeating patterns I see look something like:

• Giving an answer even if one does not have a well-investigated answer to provide (being afraid of looking ignorant, uninformed, or incapable of doing political analysis and/or feeling a need to demonstrate one's intellect for the sake of it).
• Being quick to be judgmental, hateful, or dismissive toward those in other countries (racism), or the flip side of this, toward those in western countries (self-hating).
• Elevating debate as having intrinsic importance that it doesn't have and acting out debate as a game of winner/loser with elation for the winner and humiliation for the loser (rather than viewing debate as a means of testing and sharpening perspectives from the same side).
• Getting caught up in "pet issues" over a more holistic perspective on change. Whatever one feels most passionate about becomes the driver rather than an analysis of contradictions (which can be difficult to do, to be fair, and may require multiple people to work out properly along with experimental practice to understand better - and that's if you understand dialectical materialism in the first place, which itself may not be straightforward).
• Assuming universality of things that aren't universal (such as faulty views on "human nature" that leads people astray).

*Part of it's from me, now or in the past, and part of it's from looking at patterns in others. Not excluding myself from being susceptible to this.

I always hate writing anything like this because I don't want it to come across like I'm trying to be holier-than-thou judger person (which goes back to the third point and how winner/loser perspective can cause so many problems). But anyway, that is what comes to mind when I reflect on the subject.

Reading the manifesto in a vacuum has to be the worst advice ever.

I dunno know man your ruining vibes

i'll stop my vibes based politics when i stop being right about everything