Have you ever seen them together in the same room?

from emphatically saying killing clergy is an objective to going “violence will be necessary in some cases to politically marginalize them” like the least convincing attempt at a motte-and-bailey that I’ve ever seen

Thank you for pointing this out. I had the strange feeling of arguing with a shifting target when I was writing some of my replies in this thread. When I read it all again to double-check, I realized that that was what was going on, but it’s nice to see someone else point it out explicitly.

I mean, besides that Mossad is the Top and CIA is the bottom?

If anything, this is probably backward, though I don’t think “top and bottom” is a particularly good analogy either way.

CIA has atrophied alot since the end of the cold war where as Mossad is still in top shape and has a much higher focus on undercover human assets.

This I think is probably true, though.

They’ve published enough chauvinism and social-democracy that I no longer take them seriously in general.

If we can light up a high school gym, we can light up the country!

Any “leftist” should probably hate Jacobin, TBH. They’re so bad they were even defending Platner.

lmao. Everything old really IS new again.

I’m so tempted to drop this in the comments over there.

The OP might surprise you, they’re saying in the comments that it’s “historically speaking, a safe bet” to expect to be run over by ICE and not the PLA and explaining that the Tank Man wasn’t harmed (true).

Pretty famously, he climbed directly up on the tank and chewed out the driver, then got back down and continued to block the tank. Others in the crowd pulled him away back down the street. The tank didn’t try to run him over, he was never reported captured, and as far as we’re aware he’s alive to this day.

Imagine an American climbing onto the hood of an ICE van or stubbornly maneuvering in front of a vehicle.

There are always events which trigger this.

It actually does kind of look like a 4-panel comic of a dog being sprayed with water and blown dry.

Live Cowbee reactions.

Top left: you just told him communism is red fascism.

Top right: POG, he likes your comment/post.

Bottom left: he is chilling (this makes the fedichuds mad).

Bottom right: you told him “Israel” has a right to exist.

Copying (with some edits to clarify) my edit above replying to your edit above.

You are eager to learn from the mistakes of maybe being a little too eager to pursue secularisation, but the greater mistake here tends more towards not being more anti religious.

We’re not discussing in a vacuum here, we’re talking about someone asserting that protesters should wait until after the revolution to burn down mosques because doing so before would alienate supporters. I disagreed with that (to be clear, because I don’t think revolutionaries should lie to people to get their support and then burn down their places of worship) and your response was that there should always be a plan to kill the clergy. These assertions are not compatible with building popular movements in parts of the world where most people are religious.

excessive anti-religiousness.

No such thing.

If you won’t consider the idea that it’s ever possible for an organization to be too anti-religious for a popular movement when there are many places in the world where the large majority of people are deeply religious, I don’t think this discussion is going anywhere and I’m going to respectfully agree to disagree with you.

Edit: you removed the portion of your comment I actually replied to, and added the last line.

You are eager to learn from the mistakes of maybe being a little too eager to pursue secularisation, but the greater mistake here tends more towards not being more anti religious.

We’re not discussing in a vacuum here, we’re talking about someone asserting that protesters should wait until after the revolution to burn down mosques. Your response to this was that there should always be a plan to kill clergy. These assertions are not compatible with building popular movements in parts of the world where most people are religious.

Yes, I think the strategy of “lie to religious people, get into power, and kill the priests” (even if it weren’t a betrayal of the peoples’ trust) would not only fail in the Muslim world, but make it very difficult for another revolution to follow anywhere in the Muslim world for decades afterwards.

@Cowbee@hexbear.net discusses and debates with the people of the fediverse with infinite patience, and many libs slander him for it. This is an apology form for those libs to fill out.

@Cowbee@hexbear.net discusses and debates with the people of the fediverse with infinite patience, and many libs slander him for it. This is an apology form for those libs to fill out.

I don’t think it’s good analysis to say that because the USSR marginalized clergy politically and this sometimes required force, “As soon as you seize power you have to think about how to kill the clergy.”

The USSR also wasn’t perfect and sometimes alienated people (especially Muslims) through excessive anti-religiousness. The revolution will look different depending on the conditions of where and when it emerges.

You should always have a plan to kill the fucking priests.

So you should lie to religious people to get them on your side during the revolution and then massacre their leaders which they respect afterwards? In the context of this thread of comments, this is what you’re saying - we’re discussing a negative response to the statement “Come on, burn the mosques after the revolution, doing it before is just dumb, you’ll lose the religious supporters”.