• libscratcher@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    All Shea writes about now is polemics against the active anti-imperialist movement in North America because they didn’t endorse a Libertarian Party “anti war” rally headlined by Tulsi Gabbard. I agree with him on 90% of things but even 100% analytical agreement is pointless if they’re counterproductive to organizing.

    Not a call for you to be banned at all though, your posts are good and you’re one of the few active users here. It’s specifically about Shea, and if you read him for long enough he’ll pass you off too.

    • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And yet the points he makes about the active or passive support of much of the western left for Nazism and imperialism have still not been addressed by his critics who instead simply dismiss him using guilt by association and slapping derogatory labels on him that have never been demonstrated to be true.

      I am not saying there isn’t legitimate criticism that can and should be made of the “united front” strategy that he endorses, but i find it very disappointing that so far the dismissals of his articles that I have seen from some comrades here have been superficial, lacking in substance or argument and based in ad hominems.

      I expect a higher level of discourse on this platform.

      • Neptium@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not exactly relevant to this article you sent here specifically, as I usually scroll by new comments since the most interesting and knowledgeable responses often come from aged posts, but when you say:

        I expect a higher level of discourse on this platform.

        I feel the same.

        Especially since the article I sent on Islamic Leftism was prematurely downvoted, with the substance of the author’s arguments never properly addressed.