this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
47 points (98.0% liked)

GenZedong

5056 readers
123 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Welcome again to everybody, and happy anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of Vietnam . Make yourself at home and pay your respects to Ho Chi Minh. In the time-honoured tradition of our group, here is the weekly discussion thread.

Matrix homeserver and space
Theory discussion group on /c/theory@lemmygrad.ml
Find theory on ProleWiki, marxists.org, Anna's Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 4 hours ago

They may be gish galloping you:

Gish gallop (sometimes gish gallop or Gish/gish galloping) refers to a rhetorical technique or strategy by which a debater puts forth too many false arguments for their opponent to be able to refute in the allotted amount of time.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/slang/gish-gallop

The important thing to remember is that outside of strict debate club rules or something, there aren't really any rules of debate. You aren't obligated to respond to any given claim/point a person makes, much less take it seriously. Some people will try to use this against you, as in, "You're ignoring what I said, you refuse to, blah blah" but too bad. They're just trying to get you to adhere to an invisible scheme of debate rules that are to their advantage.

So for example, when they say "if communism is so great why did it fail everywhere", you can shrug and continue to talk about ML ideas. Or you can go "idk what you're talking about. anyway..." Or you can flip it around on them and go "according to what sources? the nazis? or perhaps the people who were barely through with owning slaves when they started saying communism is evil?"

In other words, set the terms you are willing to tolerate. People like this are leveraging talking points they (usually) don't even understand that are designed to put you on the defensive for explaining things the average person would have a hard time being an expert in. So, figuratively speaking, recognize the CIA propagandist behind their words and argue with them rather than the propagandist.