I don’t think I missed your point. But we have shifted the goal post. Your comment was about very specific points related to criticism of China and labor conditions and why something like that would get you banned.
My reply attempted to be more general around those specifics. I was attempting to give you a perspective on why “stating facts” would be considered bad faith in a certain perspective. Hence the analogy I gave.
So I may have misdirected the conversation unintentionally. That wasn’t my intention.
I am not even necessarily defending .ml specifically. I don’t spend a majority of my time on that instance. You can see my post history. So, l can concede to being too defensive there. I should say I’m more defending what .ml means for ML (Marxist Leninist). I personally have mostly encountered cridge posts (usually hyperbolic) with good comment discourse there.
My intention was to explain the perspective of a literal Marxist Leninist and why the examples you gave in your original comment would be considered, in any leftist circle, a bad faith argument based on the INTENTION of them. The point of the statistics is to not ask “why are labor conditions like this” but to CONCLUDE that China is some corruption of leftism and “not real socialism”. It’s not meaningful in why it’s being brought up.
No ML is worried about addressing the labor conditions of China. But we aren’t interested in someone bringing up labor conditions in China who’s only reason to discuss is to reach a conclusion that is in favor to the narrative that is the larger problem of American Imperialism and pro capitalist propaganda.
I don’t think I missed your point. But we have shifted the goal post. Your comment was about very specific points related to criticism of China and labor conditions and why something like that would get you banned.
My reply attempted to be more general around those specifics. I was attempting to give you a perspective on why “stating facts” would be considered bad faith in a certain perspective. Hence the analogy I gave.
So I may have misdirected the conversation unintentionally. That wasn’t my intention.
I am not even necessarily defending .ml specifically. I don’t spend a majority of my time on that instance. You can see my post history. So, l can concede to being too defensive there. I should say I’m more defending what .ml means for ML (Marxist Leninist). I personally have mostly encountered cridge posts (usually hyperbolic) with good comment discourse there.
My intention was to explain the perspective of a literal Marxist Leninist and why the examples you gave in your original comment would be considered, in any leftist circle, a bad faith argument based on the INTENTION of them. The point of the statistics is to not ask “why are labor conditions like this” but to CONCLUDE that China is some corruption of leftism and “not real socialism”. It’s not meaningful in why it’s being brought up.
No ML is worried about addressing the labor conditions of China. But we aren’t interested in someone bringing up labor conditions in China who’s only reason to discuss is to reach a conclusion that is in favor to the narrative that is the larger problem of American Imperialism and pro capitalist propaganda.