Yeah and I think that's where the struggle part of the session came in, but I feel like that's on them. I'm not denying the presence of any of those things on a broader societal level and I feel like that would be part of a productive discussion, but it's not productive to present ones interpretation and what one infers from the text as if it were the text itself.

If people would interpret my argument as denying those broader realities despite me making it very clear what I am arguing about and from, then I feel like that's an issue of those people, not me. At the very least I would hope they would operate with doubt about my position instead of certainty, when I don't directly dismiss those larger structures as existing. That's not the impression I got from the thread, I got the impression a sunset of the user base had half-read the post, made up their mind that they were right, and then went in with the notion that since they were leftists and have read some theory or other, then everyone disagreeing with them is, at best, uneducated/unknowing.
That's the broader impression I got from the session at large, which is me making a lot of assumptions about a large group of people. It's also something I've seen happen a bunch of times on here.

[–] MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

then went in with the notion that since they were leftists and have read some theory or other, then everyone disagreeing with them is, at best, uneducated/unknowing

One of the biggest downsides to the "don't talk to them, dunk on them" approach to dealing with chuds is that it's easy to fall into the same pattern when disagreeing with other leftists. It's also easy to dig in on that approach if someone points out you're being an ass to people who are on your side, which often leads to the extremely productive "oh well if they disagree on [increasingly irrelevant dispute] they're no comrade of mine."

[–] Aru@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

With the other leftist critic here is that I felt people where not willing to engage in the "both sides are right/wrong" thing because they're used to centrism being a right wing option, this is not really a political problem unless you go deeply into systematic reasons, it's a relationship issue.

[–] Egon@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago

And not even that they both have to be right, but that they both could be. Not even that really, because people seem to agree that he overreacted, but just that they understand how he interpreted it as he did.

I think you're right that people have a reflexive apprehension towards anything that strikes them as "centrist". It's a good way to put it.