t’s a detriment to helping people understand what socialism actually is, you are utterly misrepresenting the reach and influence of what is seriously just slop.

The one meme that brought the fall of Socialism. Schrodinger's slop. Both will detriment the cause and is misrepresented in reach and influence.

All you can do is deflect and shift around because you know that if “socialism” is a floating signifier

What the fuck am I deflecting and shifting? I have made my case clear and it very much fucking is even in scientific method of analysis.

“accept whatever bullshit I present to you or you’re the problem”.

I quite literally don't give a fuck what you accept or don't. Does that make it better?

Have you considered how little work it’s actually doing?

Have you?

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 3 points 4 days ago

This wasn't even posted on Reddit. Can I call someone a dunce?

You don't need to be on reddit to be a redditor. I believe you called me one just earlier, in fact.

don’t pretend that this is what’s raising consciousness in the masses.

When the fuck did I do that?

. . . in the bit that I quoted that that was responding to:

Man, yet these kind of memes off that page reach more people than you likely ever had so far. Weird, how that works. While you're over here mouthing off non-sense about puritan definitions of what "socialism" actually is instead of considering the context of what the meme, where it came from and how much work it's actually doing.

Moving on

The one meme that brought the fall of Socialism. Schrodinger's slop. Both will detriment the cause and is misrepresented in reach and influence.

Something can be a detriment while still having very little reach, that just means it's a smaller detriment. If the severity of my language seemed paradoxical to you, it's because this slop fits a broader pattern and I believe that broader pattern is a more meaningful detriment.

That's the more important part, but I would also say that there's a difference between "reaching people" versus getting updoots from a siloed audience, and misinforming a siloed audience is still bad even if you're simultaneously failing to reach people.

What the fuck am I deflecting and shifting? I have made my case clear

I mentioned an example just before, which was the "mouthing off" remark that I also requoted in this comment. You're deflecting from the question of if it's misleading by saying that it doesn't matter because it does numbers.

and it very much fucking is even in scientific method of analysis.

Could you explain? I've seen you use the word "scientific" a couple of times so far, but I haven't noticed you even purport to be engaging in a "scientific method of analysis" (quoting because that's a slightly confusing wording due to the set phrase "scientific method"). I easily could have missed something, since I've had to correct myself a few times already.

I quite literally don't give a fuck what you accept or don't. Does that make it better?

I assume then that you're arguing for the sake of other people reading this, which makes the significance clear again: You are asking them, the third party, to accept bullshit uncritically rather than engage in "puritanism" like I am. So no, your edgy disaffection does not make it better.