You're viewing part of a thread.
Ah, got it, fair point. My point still stands; surely by the same logic, you shouldn't be criticizing Biden unless you're willing to spend enough time learning about the facts of his record to get a comprehensive factual view of what you're talking about?
I mean, I don't think it should work that way. I'm just pointing out that your logic seems like it would imply that it should work that way.
My belief is that first, in any constructive conversation, an establishment of what is being discussed, why, and in what context should be laid plain. On Lemmy, users tend to be leftists, especially Marxists and Anarchists, so being familiar serves as a sort of head start, so to speak.
Do you disagree with that?
Absolutely I disagree with that. Here's why:
If we ran the numbers, and discovered that the demographics have shifted and now most users on Lemmy tend to be liberals, would that mean that you need to read up and research on liberal thinking before it makes sense for you to talk? And, getting back to the earlier point, that you needed to phrase your arguments in terms that would be acceptable to liberals, so that you could appeal to them?
Bro just let people talk. They can be in majority or minority, and you might or might not agree, but variety of political opinion in a forum is a good thing. This whole lemmy.ml thing where it's like "hey I'm a leftist and therefore privileged in this forum, and you need to make you're acceptable to my philosophy before I even want to listen to you, because I've pretty much decided what the right answers are, and yours is definitely wrong unless it lines up with mine" is just a bunch of crap. In my opinion.
Actually, I already do phrase my arguments in different manners depending on audience. The way I speak with liberals is fundamentally different from how I speak to Anarchists, which is different from how I speak with Marxists, which is different from how I speak with Conservatives.
I agree, I should be well-read on liberal theory to speak with liberals. Thankfully, this is easier, as I was raised in a liberal society.
I didn't quite mean theory; I meant more the thinking of someone who would support Biden's domestic record so far. Reading theory sometimes isn't a good way to judge a politician because a lot of times (most of the time) the actions don't match the theory.
I meant more, you're well versed in the details of Biden's actions during his first term, in order to speak on his record -- impact of the infrastructure bill, the CHIPS act, details of how marijuana legalization played out, major labor actions and how his changes at the NLRB impacted the actions at the UAW, Starbucks, Amazon, and the writer's strike. Things like that?
Theory and practice are one and the same, if they divert then the theory or practice is wrong.
Correct. How will you determine if they're the same if you don't examine the practice?
Why would it even make sense to decide that Biden's a liberal, if you haven't analyzed his actions and determined that they match with liberal theory? Maybe he's a fascist. Maybe he's neither. How would you know which one?
We do examine the practice, under Biden Imperialism is getting worse and Capitalism is crumbling.
In what ways? Like how has Biden worsened imperialism? I'm genuinely asking; I feel like I've said enough at this point about some of the good things that Biden has done in my viewpoint.
A salient issue is his continued hawkish support of Israel, which is done to solidify US interests in the Middle East. He has also protected US megacorps with recent tariffs, which continues this global exploitation.
Again, I have said that by allowing Capitalism to continue to Fester, he has allowed Imperialism to continue to worsen.
Interesting
I think I am largely done, I'm not trying to go back and forth with you forever.
To me, it seems like this definition of imperialism doesn't match with what you were saying earlier (being mainly about economic exploitation of the global south)... I mean, unless do you count China as part of the global south? Certainly sending weapons to Israel isn't a good thing, but it's not really an explicitly economic one, and he's done more to break away from the US's longstanding alliance with Israel than any other recent president. IDK, not that any of that excuses sending them a bunch of fucking weapons and providing them cover at the UN.
I don't think the recent tariffs on China are at all the most noteworthy thing Biden has done global-trade-wise. I feel honestly like you're just including that because it's been in the news recently. Probably Biden's most impactful action on megacorps overall was the 15% minimum corporate tax which e.g. practically doubled Amazon's taxes, which revenue he used to boost domestic manufacturing, all of which is the exact opposite of imperialism as you previously defined it.
IDK man. Like I say I sorta lost my motivation for the back and forth. I was just curious about your viewpoint and I enjoy a certain amount of this type of debate / discussion.