the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
One word is not an answer in these kinds of discussions - if you say the party doesn't support that stance, say what the party's stance actually is.
But I'm not using one word though.
You didn't ask for the party's stance and the party's stance is obvious.
This is ableist and offensive.
I am explaining my answers but you're not giving me much to go on, barely any hyperlinks or anything to debunk, besides what you can do through a quick search of cpusa.org or even a Google search. And it seems you didn't watch any of the speeches too.
"so you're just coming across as a troll."
That's on you.
You can call it ableist, but either you, like me, are autistic, and don't, like I didn't, understand why people are frustrated by your answers, or you are being a troll like I am when I give unhelpful answers now.
You are being presented with statements, based on people's interpretations of the OP link, that you are negating without informing. You're here claiming the CPUSA doesn't hold the stance that users have concluded they hold from their statements, but are not stating what the actual stance is, instead claiming it should be obvious, or we can just go on the website, but we're responding to statements from the party. Like literal things the party leader said with his mouth.
You can choose to clarify by clearly stating what the stance is or that the party doesn't have one at all, but "every branch has its own stance" isn't informative about the party stance. You came in to correct what you claim is a misinterpretation, but it's taking people repeated questioning just to get information on what the correction actually is. If you want to provide a correction, make sure you actually provide the corrected information, don't just tell people they can go find it themselves. Looking for it themselves is what got them the incorrect interpretation in the first place.