/siberia/ - Off-topic

Sounds like a clear issue of emotional intelligence.

>>783181
if you're asking for a marxist critique of XYZ, how can they not know what your critique is? you aren't offering one, you're requesting one.

i was going to give an overview to your vaguepost but this elision has made me suspicious that instead of getting at a general problem, you're upset that nobody's giving you a vernier of marxist reasoning to hate feminists or gays or whatever. if i'm wrong, feel free to correct me. anyway: in that case the problem is that people are (correctly) smart enough to see through the game. if i am broadly sympathetic to feminism but have some specific critiques of bourgeois feminism, i'm not going to share them with an antifeminist who will only use them to deride feminism in general rather than to bolster the case for class conscious feminism. (if you don't like feminism as the example here, think of say, the USSR. you can gladly share criticisms of it with a fellow communist, but if you're talking to an ancap you'll probably defend it in spite of its flaws because it was - as rightists say - "directionally correct")

in the more general case (say, where you want a marxist critique of 1970s sweden and someone gets upset and informs you that it was paradise on earth) it's because politics has become an ersatz religion for most and you're messing up their vision of heaven when you ask where everyone will pee.

>>783195
Ironically, this response is exactly what my OP was about: instead of giving the person what they originally requested, the person who answers gives something completely different and then berates the original asker for even asking that to begin with.

>>783197
my internal explanation for why i did so constitutes my answer to their question: an apparent snag in the logic of one of the lines in their post gave the impression that they were not asking for what they were ostensibly asking for, and therefore should not be answered with what they were asking for. i invited OP to correct my error if this was the case and explained the general principles at play each way.

if a man who looks suspiciously like Alexander Kolchak comes into your pie shop and asks for blueberry, you are under no obligation to serve him.

>>783202
I'm OP, and I was only using the "Marxist critique of XYZ" to demonstrate a point. My original post is about this issue more broadly, that when you start a discussion asking a question in good faith the people who respond to you will respond to you by giving you something completely different from what you asked and then get defensive when you tell them that's not what you're asking.

Example:

Person 1: "Was there ever a time when you were ever given shit by a cop?"

Person 2: "No, but will tell you a time when I was HELPED by a cop. Are you trying to make all cops look bad? Why? Don't you know cops are good people?"

This kind of mentality is way too common in leftist spaces and it's becoming frustrating.

>>783202
>if a man who looks suspiciously like Alexander Kolchak comes into your pie shop and asks for blueberry, you are under no obligation to serve him.
That's the issue though: how do you know the person asking you for blueberry is Kolchak or just a rando who happens to look like him?

Likewise, how do you know people who ask questions like: "What would a Marxist critique of X be?" are asking that question in bad faith? It seems like everyone on the internet takes it for granted that everyone else on the internet is pulling their leg.

>>783203
Ironically, talking about leftists space, your exemple would be the exact opposite that's happening, where any mention of a cop doing something good will net you a sobriquet like "pigfucker"

>>783224
Again, just a random example. You're breeding too much into the examples I use and less into the point I'm trying to demonstrate.

>>783202
>if a man who looks suspiciously like Alexander Kolchak comes into your pie shop and asks for blueberry, you are under no obligation to serve him.
If you're fluent enough in leftist theory you would still be able to respond to these kinds of people though.

What's bean soup theory?

>>783238
if someone makes you bean soup ask them what time it is, if they cant answer theyre trying to put a spell on you

>>783238
An online phenomenon whereby people demonstrate Main Character Syndrome by demanding every post cater to their specific situation.

It's called Bean Soup Theory because a prominent example of this was a TikTok user posting a video on how to make bean soup. Many people in the comments posted things along the lines of: "Can you make this without beans?" or "What if I don't like beans?" or "I have a bean allergy and this will kill me, why are you making this?". All of this shows very low emotional intelligence and poor understanding of nuance. Like, NO ONE makes these posts thinking they're catering to everyone.

>>783203
Basically because more people are either asking in bad faith or genuinely stupid than are interested in having a real discussion. Plus everyone is aware that everyone is watching, so they're hypersensitive to optics. (To take an example from that LGBT community: a lot of online LGBT people try to police the weirder side of their community in the naive belief that if they could just keep the freaks in line, reactionaries would leave them alone.)

In the policing example: it is rational to infer whoever posed that question and whoever answers it will be hostile to the police. If you're probably police, you'll feel attacked and set out to provide a counterweight even if the question is actually posed by a pro-police poster who is thinking a step ahead and trying to identify ways of improving the reputation of the police. (Though this is partially doomed as with the LGBT example because some people - myself included - will always be instinctively hostile to such figures. Though there is of course more scope for legitimate complaints and for actually changing police behaviour)

>>783204
Often you have to play it by ear. Often, especially on /leftypol/, people just get it wrong and certain topics aren't really discussed. Most of the time people are drawn to these communities by factors outside their nominal purpose anyway (e.g. many Marxists really just like a non-lib non-evil alternative to the status quo and aren't really wedded to the particulars of Marxism except insofar as it makes them look good to other Marxists. This is true for everyone though - at least they're not rightists partaking in "the based ritual"/ trying to out-edgy one another)

>>783229
Yes, but why waste your time? The only reason is to convince undecideds, and you can better achieve that by directly attacking the social status of the other person. A neutral party might not be able to tell who has good theory and who is gish galloping, but people are very good at sensing high/low status and confidence.

Discussions are best held with friends or at least with non-enemies, debates are an inefficient way of humiliating enemies. Even for winning over smart people: why debate when you can do unilateral takedowns of wrong-thinking in essay form?

>>783244
I think OP is assuming that everyone in the space where these questions are being asked is a leftist. I don't think OP is talking about online trolls creeping into leftist forums for the purpose of sealioning or whatever. If someone asks for a Marxist critique of something, they're probably asking in good faith and are assuming other leftists will answer them in good faith, not throw their question back at them like WHAT DO YOU WANT A MARXIST CRITIQUE OF THAT FOR?.

>>783243
Can you explain it without mentioning TikTok? I hate that site.

It's probably going to come across as offensive and too blunt or straight forward, but personally what I find more commonly occurring is people commonly resort to gaslighting and using a strawman, illogical fallacies, pettifogging. What you might be experiencing is like what is portrayed in the Truman show. Whenever Truman comes close to the boundaries of the artificial reality he is stuck in, someone immediately tries to come and convince him to stay no matter what tactic it takes.

I can't find the scene online but it's in the movie.

There is a small spectrum of allowable debate that most often exists publicly. You are expected to stay within it's boundaries.

>>783181
Can you give me a marxist critique of your mom's pussy?

>>783247
That's where it originated but you see it on multiple social media sites.

Content creator: "Here's how to make some homemade bread."

Commenter: "OKAY BUT not everyone has the time or energy to make bread. Also have you considered some of us are deathly allergic to gluten and can't eat bread at all? Why are you even posting this? Everything on the internet needs to be about ME ME ME ME ME ME ME."

>>783248
Yeah what OP is describing sounds a lot like the groupthink you see emerging in leftist spaces. I'm so old I remember a time when you couldn't say anything negative about Noam Chomsky within a 10-mile radius of an infoshop or else the anarkids would eat you alive.

>>783202
> if a man who looks suspiciously like Alexander Kolchak comes into your pie shop and asks for blueberry, you are under no obligation to serve him.
This is just private discrimination.

Anarkid 1: "Got any book suggestions for anarchism and ecology aside from Murray Bookchin?"

Anarkid 2: "WHAT'S WRONG WITH BOOKCHIN?"

>>783227
>You're breeding too much into the examples I use
kek nice Freudian slip
thinking of having kids recently?

>>783256
Social media has destroyed people's ability to communicate overall. Zoomers have very poor social skills. They treat every person as a means to an end and don't bother being committed to others if those people don't serve them in some way. Young men especially seem to desire servants moreso than girlfriends.

>>783256
>comment sections used to be places of community

Stop the cap. This clip is basically a thinly veiled classicist rant complaining about people shitting on creators flaunting their wealth. 'The same miserable people you interact in real life', 'Innocent creators'. Yeah sure buddy.

>>783268
>Zoomers have very poor social skills. They treat every person as a means to an end and don't bother being committed to others if those people don't serve them in some way. Young men especially seem to desire servants moreso than girlfriends.

This is a stereotype
Zoomers are not any more amoral or antisocial compared to previous generations
Your last sentence is especially misandrist propaganda

>>783268
I remember they said the same about millennials fifteen years ago.
Also to accuse young men of wanting servants while excusing young women openly stating they want a bf to act like their dad

>>783268
this is so true dude
the internet has genuinely destroyed this generation, theyre completely apathic, emotionless and lack any kind of critical thinking skills

>>783248
Most discussion online is the same five topics asked in different wording all over again
And it’s not just leftist spaces
Lib and right are the same way

>>783275
This is the same accusation that was lobbed against Gen X and millennials

People like you say that the new kids are amoral or stunted or often just mad that they don’t conform or cater to your specific social preferences

>>783244
>Basically because more people are either asking in bad faith or genuinely stupid than are interested in having a real discussion. Plus everyone is aware that everyone is watching, so they're hypersensitive to optics. (To take an example from that LGBT community: a lot of online LGBT people try to police the weirder side of their community in the naive belief that if they could just keep the freaks in line, reactionaries would leave them alone.)

Just like this place then

>>783203
Not an expert on Marxist thought but it seems to me people like to throw around Marxism “as a scientific rigor” to justify treating Marxism as a religion

>>783279
nope. just because a problem existed before doesnt mean it hasnt gotten worse over time, theres countless metrics we can use to prove that newer generations are objectively more antisocial

>>783310
A lot of the pathologization of the newer generations are more based off of aesthetic biases of older generations rather though.

>>783310
This Twitter pic is false.
Because it assumes that Trump has directly influenced Gen Z in general rather than indirectly.

>>783316
hes the fucking president of the most powerful country in the world

>>783341
I’m talking about his moral influence on young people.
He has pop cultural influence, yes but not any direct moral influence.


And all during Trumps reign we have had a lot of naysaying against him which Gen Z has witnessed and participated in.

Also, a lot of Trump sympathizers are often older people.

>>783181
Autism. The problem is clearly autism. Autistic people take shit super personally and don’t know how to respond when something goes against their set paradigms.

Giving you a slice of apple pie when you asked for blueberry and then throwing a tantrum when you object sounds exactly like what an autist would do.

>>783343
if one of the most powerful men in the world doesnt have direct influence on people then who has?

>>783357
Wanna know the answer?
No one.
Trip isn’t even the one calling the shots. He’s being guided by council. He was chosen because of his pop cultural repertoire.



>>783355
Wrong.
It’s both autists and allists.
Allists do get pissy about differing opinions.

I find the amount of criticism of "leftist spaces" masturbatory tbh. It's not materialist, it's all vibes and melodrama. If anything the amount of wasted energy does more harm than good.

>>783373
That’s how it is for all kinds of spaces in general

>>783373
Yeah, that’s what political slaves are like. Everyone in them is a drama magnet with loads of trauma and deeply polarized thinking.

>>783367
thats vague conspiratorial bullshit because you dont want to admit that people voted for and feel represented by a child rapist

>>783452
How is what I said vague conspiracy theory?
Trump won because of his pop cultural prescience. He has actually ran for president few times before 2016, but dropped out.

>>783355
I can see that. Now imagine leftist spaces where 2/3rds of the people in them are raging autists and can't compromise on anything because they can't think flexibly.

>>783611
People always say this but I see a lot of non-compromising allists who wanna go berserk that they have to dilute their opinions

>>783181
Sounds like a typical case of derailing an internet thread.

>>783780
Rigid thinking is part of the diagnostic criteria for autism.

>>783181
>Do people take their sacred cows so seriously that they feel the need to degrade anyone who even suggests that their sacred cows aren't immune to criticism?
Yes and no. On the one hand, people are tribal and emotional, so when they get attached to something, there are just certain tenets that they implicitly accept as true, which feed into their reverence of that thing. For instance, even if you get a MAGA to question the Trump administration's policies in both 2016 and 2024, and even get them to concede that he's made some dubious decisions that have a negative impact on this country, you probably won't be able to get them to agree that the Republican party is fundamentally flawed, or that Trump himself isn't a genius businessman who is working to fulfill his political promises. They'll do mental gymnastics to rationalize why XYZ is the case, because if they admitted those things were false, then some aspect of their identity would begin to unravel and cause enough psychic turbulence to trigger a mental breakdown or something of the sort.

On the other hand, it's not that people are incapable of coming to conclusions that are based in reality but that clash with their worldview, it's that the average person likes to think of himself as smart enough to navigate the world, so he'd like to be able to say he arrived at those conclusions by himself, after adequate study and soul searching, and after consulting people who he trusts intellectually. It really comes down to the idea that people don't like to be preached at unless it's from a "priest" who is selling a message for which he's already a member of the choir, if you catch my drift.
>You start a discussion by asking for one thing, someone gets obviously upset and gives you the opposite of what you asked for. Do people just not understand nuance and insist on personalizing everything?
Yes, everything is personalized. The internet you exist on isn't the same as the one I inhabit, because we're exposed to different sources of information and communities. That can be extended to your entire life, as if you took any given random set of two people from this very thread, chances are they'd be vastly different in circumstance and lived experience. That is to say that, yes, everything is personal, and this is only amplified by the algorithmic environment unto which we've been sacrificed such that we're fed this feedback loop of drip-fed content that exists to maximize engagement. It leads to a landscape of self absorbed cretins who are unable and perhaps unwilling to step outside the confines of the ego-driven memory palace that's been constructed for them and attempt to perceive any given artifact from the lens of another.

>>783181
>Do people in leftist spaces take their sacred cows so seriously that they feel the need to degrade anyone who even suggests that their sacred cows aren't immune to criticism?

Most people only become leftists because they won't compromise on major principles. Mainstream liberalism can't give them what they want so they become communists.