1 year ago
How many of you are actually prophetic?
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
131 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15918 readers
7 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sorry this wasn't a dunk on you, I even brought it up because I myself was on the fence about Brand.
I just thought it was funny
I still think the same way about his whole shtick tbh. Just that these accusations are also very believable unfortunately.
I dunno I kinda feel like he was grifting but who knows. part of me just thinks: show me someone who commits a SA and I will show you someone who isn't a revolutionary leftist but idk
I think some of Stalin's allegations make this a difficult position to maintain.
those allegations are so baseless even the anti-tankie crowd doesnt mention it much. could it have happened? sure. but the evidence is shaky at best and rests on one historians word, Simon Sebag Montefiore. Plus Kruschev was on an anti-Stalin speedrun.
I know this is such a lib line, but the validity doesn't matter to her point. I think Stalin probably didn't do it, but in the future there certainly will be some important revolutionaries who commit SA because that's something that, sadly, people in positions of power do that with alarming frequency. We're gonna have to figure out how to reconcile that very effective revolutionaries can sometimes be terrible people.
protecting abusers in the name of the revolution is doing the work of the feds for them. no single person is so important that it's worth protecting them while jeopardizing the whole movement - it's precisely our urge to protect abusers that feds use to infiltrate, divide, and destroy.
You're right, if we're talking about active people then yes, we gotta root out abusers. I was thinking more in cases where it's uncovered afterward, but didn't qualify it in my comment.
ahh got it. that makes more sense.
It's a nice sentiment that'll blind us to reality. What will actually differentiate us from our enemies is how we will respond when leftists do it. I don't care if he says the right things.
Sure but his spin isn't the same as others using that word, he uses the rightwing language but his takes are more of an anti rainbow-capitalism and pink-capitalism approach. I reckon he believes he can appeal to those people and drag them left by doing so, now you might consider that a futile waste of time and I'd be inclined to agree with you but his content has a distinct difference to theirs.
To be honest though at the moment I don't really care that much for arguing over what he is, and don't really see it as mattering. I do care about seeing these allegations get the proper airing they deserve and with any luck seeing a court room.