Whoops, I misread the reply chain pretty severely, you can ignore the edit. You were picking a fight, but not along the lines I wrote there.

I don't they've expressed any liberal sentiments here at all.

Neoliberal is a subset of liberal (in the traditional philosophical sense, not American vernacular), and there is a very clear divide in the thread between neoliberal and socialist.

I legitimately don't care either way tbh.

With due respect, you're just a little Not Mad, but let's not belabor the point. I've been Not Mad too, it's not a sin.

All this does is once again reinforce the idea that leftist spaces on the Internet are hostile to anything besides a very narrow set of ideas which makes up a very small and myopic subset of leftist thought

There are a bunch of things wrong with this, starting with that the article was misleading dogshit and deserves to be mocked. Beyond that, the cultural clique of Hexbear can be myopic, but I think that it does not compare negatively to modern neoliberals in this respect. It is much more interested in international perspectives rather than the perspective of the "international community" (i.e. the EU + the Anglosphere + the most convenient elements of Taiwan, Japan, and SK). They quite frequently read neoliberal writing and listen to neoliberal speeches and so on, while neoliberals are usually content to hear about anything to do with their opposition exclusively through second- and third-hand reporting by their own media.

Which leads me into my next point, that "tankies" etc. are readily called fringe by liberals on the internet, but internationally represent a very common set of opinions (or a strong overlap therewith). It is itself myopia to dismiss the opinions of Chinese and many other people in the imperial periphery and consider only the opinions of the imperial core when evaluating what people think and what "leftist thought" consists of. You could not serious believe, for example, that the Collected Writings of Chairman Mao are important to only a "small subset of leftist thought," right? Sure, you are unlikely to know anyone -- or even to have ever met anyone in your real life -- who regards such a thing positively, but your personal experiences are not the world.

As an aside, the "bot" rhetoric that the liberals so often display is not really helping your case about the tankies being especially closed-minded.

I am not here to cure anyone's ignorance.

Do you see how most people would not be interested in talking with someone who says things like this? That level of condescension rarely produces anything other than scorn.

"You are being condescending to me too!"

Sure, I don't think that's an unreasonable view (though not my intention), but I am nonetheless explaining and substantiating my differences rather than merely denouncing what you say as "ignorant," and even if we nonetheless accept my fault, that just results in a criticism towards both of us rather than solely towards me.

I am engaging earnestly with you because you are actually making an effort to converse instead of just posting literal pig shit.

I would not have replied at all if I didn't recognize your username. You hadn't been saying anything in this thread that someone would normally think merits a serious response. You were derisive right out of the gate. To act this way and then complain about other people not turning the other cheek and speaking patiently to you is silly.

I promise you that if you make an alt (preferably with a different username in case people are grumpy with the interaction here) and post a thread on asklemmygrad or askchapo to the effect of "Hey, I'm a [whatever you call your flavor of liberalism], but I want to learn about what you believe on various topics and what you think of certain criticisms . . ." you will get mostly responses that are earnest. If you expect people to be polite and unassuming towards you when you begin by being aggressive and presumptuous, you will almost exclusively be disappointed, and I don't just mean that for interacting with commies.