I wouldn’t mention the latter occasionally because you’re still using lemmy, so you can’t see my «Politics» label.
I sat down to review all your historical assertions without a single citation. Meaning, I won’t cite back if you don’t.
Are there Achtundvierziger today, or similar vanguard parties?
Godric maybe projecting the trends a sees from camp threadiverse comments & posts, but do we even have a contemporary vanguard party doing praxis? PSL legitimately doesn’t count, so if you bring them as an example, we have nothing further to discuss. You can also work with Godric to end campist rhetorizing moving forward. Whenever you both see campism, hold them accountable. I believe all of us🧵 want to end campism. I in particularly want to see Dengism邓理论 gone forever.
Be aware that I use this instance exactly because I have given up on 习 . So honestly don’t bring it up.
Yeah, what in the ever living fuck are you talking about? This AI listicle-ass comment is genuinely illegible to me. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say
I totally skimmed what you had written as it was pretty inchoherent. If your politics have become so esoteric that Lemmy users can’t parse them, that’s a ‘you’ problem and you might want to examine it.
Like, the barrier to entry of Lemmy filters users here such that: most people here tend to have above average intelligence and reading comprehension.
So, you’re either posting AI crap, or have gotten so twisted on some kind of propaganda that you can’t meaningfully comminciate with others. If you’re actually human you shoild probably unplug from your political ideology source and talk to an old wise hippy or something.
1 and 2 pertain to the same topic. 2 even continues the same sentence.
4 and 5 should be grouped together, as 5 refers to 4.
6 and 7 should be grouped together. In part because they both are just regurgitation of propaganda made by y the same people that sold you on Nayirah’s testimony, Iraq WMDs and the like. (Also, have to chuckle at the “campism” but when you very openly engage in pro-NATO campism.)
Just using standard paragraphs and not an ordered list would be more readable, since you are not enumerating anything, nor is there a good case for referring to each of these items by the numbers outside of the conversation about how useless the ordered list is here.
Yes, but the way you separated them makes things less readable. They should be combined into the same sentence, not into two separate numbered list items.
I can def. combine4&5, but will SpookyBogMonster keep quiet about point 4 if 5 is the only choice?
Not clear what you mean here.
6&7 need to be separated, as 6 is my intersection for Godric’s plea to end campist rhetorics
Firstly, what do you mean by “intersection for a plea”? I suspect you think that the word “intersection” means something other than what it means.
Secondly, Godric isn’t making any pleas here. Godric is simply running propaganda for the most prolific invader in the world and hates on socialists.
whence?
I will assume you meant “where?”, and not “whence?”. I suspect that you think that those words are synonyms.
Like, for example, when you claimed that Salvador Allende did a genocide. Also, complaints about “campism” are usually just support for colonialism (highly doubt that that is not the case for you). I can find more examples.
It isn’t any more brief than using standard paragraphs, nor does it simplify referencing, as one would just use markdown quotation for that here anyway.
Not at all sure what you mean by “value” here.
Your chosen way of formatting texts just makes them less readable.
Godric is simply running propaganda for the most prolific invader in the world and hates on socialists.
Then you can see why i made distinctions for points 1,2,5,6&7.
Whence.
you claimed that Salvador Allende did a genocide.
Whence?
Also, complaints about “campism” are usually just support for colonialism (highly doubt that that is not the case for you).
They aren’t, since I made points 1,2,5&7 pretty clear. Unless you think PSL abused antidengist black anarchists are colonists.
I can find more examples.
For yourself, a narrative, my question, anticolonialism, anti PRC, anti PSL, kittenzrulz123/emberkitty, Chileans, slavers, campists, or?
Your chosen way of formatting texts just makes them less readable.
I already essayed the former reply just for you, and applied your recommendations. SpookyBogMonster, kittenzrulz123, and you can mostly reread and address it if you want.
I am not OP but a Black anarchist vanguard.
I wouldn’t mention the latter occasionally because you’re still using lemmy, so you can’t see my «Politics» label.
I sat down to review all your historical assertions without a single citation. Meaning, I won’t cite back if you don’t.
Are there Achtundvierziger today, or similar vanguard parties?
Godric maybe projecting the trends a sees from camp threadiverse comments & posts, but do we even have a contemporary vanguard party doing praxis? PSL legitimately doesn’t count, so if you bring them as an example, we have nothing further to discuss. You can also work with Godric to end campist rhetorizing moving forward. Whenever you both see campism, hold them accountable. I believe all of us🧵 want to end campism. I in particularly want to see Dengism邓理论 gone forever.
Be aware that I use this instance exactly because I have given up on 习
. So honestly don’t bring it up.
I am open for anything else.
Yeah, what in the ever living fuck are you talking about? This AI listicle-ass comment is genuinely illegible to me. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say
You’ve never seen an ordered list?
Want me to essay it?
I totally skimmed what you had written as it was pretty inchoherent. If your politics have become so esoteric that Lemmy users can’t parse them, that’s a ‘you’ problem and you might want to examine it.
Like, the barrier to entry of Lemmy filters users here such that: most people here tend to have above average intelligence and reading comprehension.
So, you’re either posting AI crap, or have gotten so twisted on some kind of propaganda that you can’t meaningfully comminciate with others. If you’re actually human you shoild probably unplug from your political ideology source and talk to an old wise hippy or something.
The ordered list in that comment serves no purpose, as the items are not even properly grouped. It just hurts readability.
They are grouped by topics 1 respondent, 2 politics, 3 literacy confirmation, 4 thesis, 5 warning, 6 intersection check, 7 commentary, 8 openness to dialogue
So, at the very least:
1 differentiates from op, 2 outlines my politics which may also differ from op. Continued sentences is something everyone does, no?
I can def. combine4&5, but will SpookyBogMonster keep quiet about point 4 if 5 is the only choice?
6&7 need to be separated, as 6 is my intersection for Godric’s plea to end campist rhetorics, not my personal antidengist praxis.
whence?
brevity, citation, referencing, value, formatting, etc…
I’ll edit an essay format you then.
Yes, but the way you separated them makes things less readable. They should be combined into the same sentence, not into two separate numbered list items.
Not clear what you mean here.
Firstly, what do you mean by “intersection for a plea”? I suspect you think that the word “intersection” means something other than what it means.
Secondly, Godric isn’t making any pleas here. Godric is simply running propaganda for the most prolific invader in the world and hates on socialists.
I will assume you meant “where?”, and not “whence?”. I suspect that you think that those words are synonyms.
Like, for example, when you claimed that Salvador Allende did a genocide. Also, complaints about “campism” are usually just support for colonialism (highly doubt that that is not the case for you). I can find more examples.
It isn’t any more brief than using standard paragraphs, nor does it simplify referencing, as one would just use markdown quotation for that here anyway.
Not at all sure what you mean by “value” here.
Your chosen way of formatting texts just makes them less readable.
Then you can see why i made distinctions for points 1,2,5,6&7.
Whence.
Whence?
They aren’t, since I made points 1,2,5&7 pretty clear. Unless you think PSL abused antidengist black anarchists are colonists.
For yourself, a narrative, my question, anticolonialism, anti PRC, anti PSL, kittenzrulz123/emberkitty, Chileans, slavers, campists, or?
I already essayed the former reply just for you, and applied your recommendations. SpookyBogMonster, kittenzrulz123, and you can mostly reread and address it if you want.