I was not accusing you of anything, I was talking about replies like this one:

https://hexbear.net/comment/7484530

If you are saying that in order to metaconversationally reject this kind of rhetoric as not being a valid or productive objection, I also need to provide a detailed and compelling case in support of one conclusion or another in the conversation itself, then I can't really help you.

The vast majority of the time I deliberately try to stick to very narrow claims that I think are clearly provable or else are so one-sided that there is no meaningful counterargument because, among several other things, I actually don't like the idea of being on here all day writing essays about stuff that I'm not very certain about, and furthermore I believe that an individual claim can stand on its own merits without some sort of social performativity about how to be a Good Communist. No one in the fucking world should take how to be a Good Communist from me "modeling" it, and I'll leave the "why" up to the reader, but I still have the ability to argue on the merits of a specific point and so that's what I do. This is likewise not false humility but an earnest belief.

Insofar as you presented actual arguments, I respect your position even if I don't share your optimism, and what you said falls outside of the scope of my objection. If I miscommunicated on this point, I apologize.