Why do you try to attack an identity you’re assuming that I hold, rather than addressing my actual arguments? Could it be because you’re incapable of actually successfully arguing against the points I’m making?

And no, I’m not an “ultra”, though it’s quite a vaguely defined term, I’m not opposed to all of the structures that ultra-leftists are traditionally opposed to. Keep guessing, though. You’ll probably get it eventually. The world is a nuanced place and you shouldn’t try to shove everything into a convenient box to make it easier to deal with. That’s lib behaviour. You should know better.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Your argument seems to be that we should oppose all sides equally, regardless of context.

Do you even support anything?

[–] mashbooq@infosec.pub 7 points 10 months ago

Are you more interested in categorizing ideologies or in actual material conditions?

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

My argument is that neither side should invade the other and that they should peacefully coexist. I support peace, balanced reconciliation, and the end of capitalism.

[–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You said appeasement.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes, my comment included the word appeasement. What’s your point?

[–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Seem contradictory to use charged language like 'appeasement '. And then to say you want everyone to coexist peacefully. It seems to advocate for containment which isn't peaceful coexistence.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Would you explain what the contradiction is between a desire for peace and an opposition to imperialism?

If “containment of x” means “making it harder for x to invade” then yes, I am advocating for that so long as the ends justify the means, and yes, that is peaceful coexistence. If you have a personal problem with that, then I don’t care. But it’s a perfectly coherent philosophy.

[–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 13 points 10 months ago

The contradiction is saying that allowing a country to defend/enforce its borders is appeasement. The implications is that to do so is aggression.

[–] NormalC@hexbear.net 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How was the sex with that CPC party member like? Did he fuck the goodness into you?

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Pretty good, actually! Thanks for asking. I don’t want to get into too many details, but let’s just say that the roles were reversed from what you’re imagining. He was a lovely guy, it’s a shame that he was so inflexible with his beliefs, we got along really well because we shared a lot of common ground. I think the India/China thing was the first thing we actually disagreed on, and that was enough to end our relationship. Which is absolutely fair, but it took me a bit by surprise at the time.

[–] NormalC@hexbear.net 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

New hexbear tagline lmao. Also he probably broke up with you because you keep saying "CCP" instead of "CPC" and he realized you were a sinophobic racist lmao.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He called it CCP himself lmfao you guys are so fucking funny. Love that being in a relationship with a Chinese guy meant that I was sinophobic. This is literally the most amusing thread I’ve ever created, I’m so glad I wrote my comment.

[–] NormalC@hexbear.net 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ive never thought in all my time I would face a liberal whose source is "I fucked a communist and we broke up."

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 4 points 10 months ago

Don’t worry, you still haven’t. Not a liberal.