Dialectical materialism. I look at material reality, analyze it within context and as it changes over time, where it came from and where it’s headed. I am certainly confident in my research, as I’ve done extensive reading on the subject. Your rejection of facts is what points at dogmatism.
You aren’t critiquing anything, you’re using non-sequitors and metaphysics to try to dodge making actual points, to cover for your dogmatism and chauvanism.
I bet you would, but as long as you repeat common red-scare myths and insist on viewing history as something metaphysical and not something that progresses over time, you aren’t going to be able to get closer to the truth.
I never said history was metaphysical or wasn’t something that progresses. As long as you keep reading things into my statements you’re going to keep responding to arguments I never made.
It’s not a direct statement you’ve made, just your insistence on looking at snapshots in time instead of graphs and trajectories. When I suggested you look at what came before, you rejected it, saying you only care about the here and now. This is metaphysics, erasing history from analysis.
The direct statements I’ve made are directly against that. You’re arguing in bad faith if you’re going to put words in my mouth for me and insist I said what I didn’t.
I can have a discussion about the present without focusing on the past or future. Saying that it is metaphysics is a non-sequitur. Not everything has to be viewed historically.
What you’re doing is you’re using dialectical materialism as a veneer to deflect criticism here.
No, they don’t go against that. Trying to focus on a present snapshot rather than contextualize a process that exists as something constantly changing is metaphysics. Tomorrow, China’s queer rights will be a bit better than today, if we have the same conversation tomorrow but only view it as another snapshot then we will reach a point where you say “China good” and this will all have been forseeable had we analyzed it as something in motion, rather than static.
Dialectical materialism. I look at material reality, analyze it within context and as it changes over time, where it came from and where it’s headed. I am certainly confident in my research, as I’ve done extensive reading on the subject. Your rejection of facts is what points at dogmatism.
If my criticisms of your reasoning/the facts you provided appears as dogmatism to you, that is not my concern.
You aren’t critiquing anything, you’re using non-sequitors and metaphysics to try to dodge making actual points, to cover for your dogmatism and chauvanism.
I beg to differ.
Hey commies, you say I’m misinformed, but have you considered “Nuh uh”.
I bet you would, but as long as you repeat common red-scare myths and insist on viewing history as something metaphysical and not something that progresses over time, you aren’t going to be able to get closer to the truth.
I never said history was metaphysical or wasn’t something that progresses. As long as you keep reading things into my statements you’re going to keep responding to arguments I never made.
It’s not a direct statement you’ve made, just your insistence on looking at snapshots in time instead of graphs and trajectories. When I suggested you look at what came before, you rejected it, saying you only care about the here and now. This is metaphysics, erasing history from analysis.
The direct statements I’ve made are directly against that. You’re arguing in bad faith if you’re going to put words in my mouth for me and insist I said what I didn’t.
I can have a discussion about the present without focusing on the past or future. Saying that it is metaphysics is a non-sequitur. Not everything has to be viewed historically.
What you’re doing is you’re using dialectical materialism as a veneer to deflect criticism here.
No, they don’t go against that. Trying to focus on a present snapshot rather than contextualize a process that exists as something constantly changing is metaphysics. Tomorrow, China’s queer rights will be a bit better than today, if we have the same conversation tomorrow but only view it as another snapshot then we will reach a point where you say “China good” and this will all have been forseeable had we analyzed it as something in motion, rather than static.