( the above comment was edited by "OBJECTION!" and mine was a response to the original)

the national identity is their tie to their local oppressors, they are not close to it one bit There is nuance in many things, even dead ends

My bad. I stand corrected. Not english. I just go to London from time to time.

Totally different then. The train cops aren't bad because train good. Barefoot wine? Trash. Insult to the Napa valley. Barefoot wine on Amtrak cafe car? Majestic depths of flavor you couldn't comprehend. So train cops? They're the good cops. We finally found them! ACAB(ETC)

Turning every leftist community into a siloed circlejerk is great if all you want is a glorified (and self-enshittifying) social club - but you're not going to be doing anything that can be called counter-propaganda with a straight face.

The latter actually requires engaging with people who will actively try and find the weak spots in your narratives while you are doing the same to theirs in a place where others can actually witness it and gain understanding through social osmosis, which, to be clear, text-based social media is really great for.

Come now, be honest... how much did you actually learn that way?

Its def true what you say about online spaces. And sorry to hear that exposure to these conditions have lead to you putting your "walls up". Sorry if I was too quick to judge, its so easy to forget that a lot of well-meaning leftists feel really threatened online, esp from aggressive ultralefts, "Tankies", etc.,

I'm not real concerned with ideological struggle, my reading of history is that this stuff works itself out as conditions become more clear and the class becomes more organized. Like, I def try to educate people, and I think people who are so severely "radicalized" are usually stuck in online echo chambers, which conditions people to experience an ick response when encountering this or that talking point. I think its probably unhelpful to associate everyone who glazes the CCP as a Russian agent or whatever, esp since doing so is a structural advantage to the ruling class capitalists, as it divides workers along lines that are, imo, pretty abstract.

the best way to get people to chill is ask about what kind of work they are doing IRL, like are they in a book club, or a political sect/party, do they go to protests, etc., that will usually tell you whether someone is actually salvageable or not. I know so many people who started off having a lot of "Tankie" sympathies, myself included, who eventually chill, and its because they start doing work in their communities. A random young person who decided that "more left = more good" isn't doing as much harm as certain youtubers and streamers who have hundreds of thousands of followers and who are basically paid to be left opportunists.

I'm very adamant that ideas don't spread like "memes", in the Richard Dawkins sense, like person to person. Most people dont get infected with bad ideas by just being exposed to them. Ideas spread via hegemony, which means people with political and economic power control the systems in which ideas spread, and exert indirect control over the masses via these social structures. So attacking/banning some random tankie online does very little. The fact is, social media algos identify people with left-wing sympathies and then feed us deranged, ultraleft content creators, while the algos also identify political moderates and feed them right wing punditry. People believe ideas that validate their own lived experiences, and the fact that peoples experiences are validated by ultraleftism/Stalinism/left authoritarianism is a structural problem that stems from lack of political education and hegemony.

So imo its better to try and connect with people, which can be hard cuz some people are hostile no matter what, but in that case we just move on and try educating someone else, and try to keep it cool. If someone has a spicy "take," it could be partially because they, as I think we all tend to do, get some kind of stimulation/validation from having people argue with them. Its usually better to ask questions, take notes, and do a little research. But like you said, this is easier in real life organizing than online where attention spans are nil.

I do think its more interesting to be like "why do you believe that?" Ask for some evidence, and if they provide it, maybe ask where they first encountered it

I believe that a miniscule minority of these ultralefts/Tankies are actual bad actors. There is plenty of valid reason to adhere to certain ideas -- some people are a little contrarian, the soviet union and ccp amassed a great deal of influence, both direct and indirect; as well as so many intellectuals who can be very convincing with their arguments. Most tankies are just referencing arguments of Rockhill/Furr/Losurdo, and if you've never encountered these academics their ideas can seem totally bonkers. But if you read them, even if we criticize them, and we should criticize everyone and everything, especially ourselves, its clear why their ideas have so much purchase among ultralefts and apologists. imo the key isn't to win a debate, although I love a good debate, but to initiate new avenues of criticism for people to begin questioning our own ideas.

Or at least thats my take