Allright having looked at it again:

You come into this with an ahistorical “point” about famines. There is no humility or invitation to an open dialogue, you are clearly being condescending and smug.
Your “point” gets argued by me in the way that I point out that famines were eliminated. Instead of engaging with this argument, you once again choose condescention talking vaguely about “if the dead could argue their case” and then vague speak of looking at past tragedies. I engage with this point and agree, which leads me to reiterate my argument - One famine once is better than constant famines. Once again you choose smugness and condescention instead of engaging with the argument. You the try to change the discussion to one of food aid? Instead of relating to the one that was present. This is so far typical bad-faith behaviour. You once again return to the question of starvation.

I then once again point out how historically famine had been an issue, and it was eliminated. I then point out how famine and starvation is still an issue in capitalist countries. You do not engage with this point, instead handwaving “there are a lot of problems” and you try to downplay the achievement by writing a lie (famine has been solved) which also still doesn’t answer any of the questions I’ve asked. So far you’re still being condescending, I’ve yet to call you a name.
I respond to every one of your arguments and point out how you are going against historical consensus on what happened in the soviet union wrt the famine in the soviet union. I refrained from pointing out how you’ve engaged in “double genocide theory” which was pushed by nazis to downplay the holocaust. I am however tired of your condescention and your tired arguments, so I am curt and I finish off with a rude picture.
You have yet to respond to this post, yet you continue the same argument elsewhere with both me and other users. It is clear you are not interested in a good-faith discussion. If you were you would have answered my questions, related to the arguments and asked questions where you were unsure. You didn’t.

Elsewhere someone points out your absurdity and idiocy by responding your condescending ahistorical “famine” comment with a “gottem”. You ask if that’s a joke - thereby implying you think your comment in any way deserved to be validated, despite the fact that we’ve now all seen that it was right to disregard you and your opinions.
I point this out and I refer to your type of person with a derisive name - Indirectly calling you a name. This then becomes the crux of your new argument, instead of - once again - actually engaging in the arguments put forth in the discussion you’re having. It is clear you are not willing to engage in an exchange of knowledge of opinions, instead looking for quick and easy ways to post smug and condescending comments.
Now we are here, you will have learned nothing. You will at best engage with the name calling or - once again - me making “assumptions” about you. Assumptions that have so far been proven true.

With this behaviour you’ve engaged in, why do you think you deserve anything other than ridicule?

Tell you what, you’ve come across as snide, dismissive smug and completely uninterested in an actual discussion, instead maintaining the superiorty of your own belief, and purely working towards convincing me on what is right.
But I’ve been in this thread quite a bit, I’m a bit on hair trigger, so I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and come back to you in a little while.
You’re right, I called you a name last time and I’m sorry. That completely invalidates all the arguments put forth.

You and some other hexbears seem to throw around the term “libs” as an insult whenever someone doesn’t agree with you, and often prematurely.

Rehashing the same tired debunked argument time and again does get tiring. “Reverting” to calling you a lib is a way of highlighting the many thought-terminating cliches being spit out as a result of being uncritically enmenshed in propaganda.

I also think that you have developed your own “common knowledge” in relative isolation, and often have trouble explaining/justifying it outside of the hexbear community.

My experience is quite the reverse. Every time I interact with one of your opinions you revert to the same tired arguments using the same tired long-debunked “facts” - When you actually use facts. Most of the time you refuse to engage with the arguments put forth in the discussion you’re having. Instead you choose condescenstion. You do this because you believe yourself to be correct and me to be misinformed - I simply haven’t heard of the holodomor or whatever. I was once like you, but then I started investigating the things I thought I knew about. Consider wether you might be misinformed about things you consider to be true. Consider why you are misinformed on these things. Consider who misinformed you. Consider what you can do to work against this misinformation. Consider why you react as you do with people whose beliefs stride against your perception of reality. Consider why those people have those beliefs despite us all learning those simple things you hold to be true.

My experience of hexbear is that of a vibrant community sharing knowledge and critiquing each other when that knowledge is lacking or wrong. This leads to a community that shows humility towards learning new things, as well as staying critical towards that which it believes to “know”. You do not experience this humility because you come in as an outsider expecting your tired long-since-debunked beliefs to somehow have any relevance or novelty. They are not new, they are not insightful and they have been shown time and again to be wrong. Which is fine - we’re all wrong. The “bad habit” you experience is people being sick of arguing with obviously wrong libs that refuse to engage with new knowledge.
Asking questions is good, but posturing as if you are the purveyor of divine knowledge to be shared (and that knowledge being wrong) leads to you meeting the attitude you’ve met

I will continue to encourage people to explain or argue their case. I will also continue trying to be open and inclusive, and advocating for dialogue.

I am glad to hear that that is what you think you are doing. I would encourage you to investigate how you interact with those you disagree with, and reconsider how you are creating dialogue