Remember, poor people rely on you to gatekeep the movement. Think about how people struggling with medical bills will feel if they find out you let a non-vegan help. Not on my watch.
purity progressives: “I mean yea, he wants universal healthcare, ending wars, abolishing ICE and the police, investing in schools and the arts, social safety nets and taxing the rich… but… he called RFK jr an r-word one time… so, he’s basically a nazi and I hope he dies”
Absolutely not, I will only work with people I 100% agree with, and I will happily throw the people I 75% agree with to the people I 0% agree with if I don’t get my way!
Just don’t ask them why Stalin, who first got the idea of calling socdems “social fascists” and declaring them to be the enemy, was so cozy with actual nazis up until 1941. 🌝
Yeah you’ll get a whole ass wall of text that would be an education in history and mid 20th C geopolitics if if you bothered to read it but you won’t bcs then it would be harder to go “lol, commies bad, Molotop Ribbletribble, Tinyman^2, muh US State Dept narrative!”
Dude… it was the comment that caused me to block the entire .ml instance months ago. I’m not even sure I can see it anymore, because I blocked the instance. You’re welcome to look through my history and look at replies to a comment from me that said something along the lines of: “I’m open about who I am and what I believe, it’s all right there in my profile.” And them posting that my profile says SocDem and from there on it escalates until I suddenly stop responding, because I have registered that they are arguing in bad faith and that I have simply had spend enough time talking to a wall that had no interest in listening to anything I had to say and just wanted to demonize me.
So go look if you want, but I haven’t got the time and I don’t think I can see that string of comments without unblocking .ml.
Man I wish I lived in your parallel reality where those where the deal breakers preventing anti-fascist coalitions from forming. Rather than, you know, imperialism and genocide.
Yeah it sucks. But, y’know, if the imperialism and genocide is invariant between the options, I’m still gonna vote for the one doing fewer other terrible things 🤷🏼
Obviously I’m also going to do everything I can to get to a point where I don’t have an imperialist, genocidal government. Mutual aid, canvassing for leftists in the primaries, political organization, developing community, taking over small municipalities, labor organization, etc.
All of which is gonna be a lot harder now that this side has declared antifascists to be a terrorist organization, and arrests people for pamphlets.
That’s a point we can debate (not that I feel like doing so right now, but it’s at least connected to reality enough to be worth debating). My problem is with the parent commenter, who’s acting like all the “purity tests” are about trivial minutae and not how many children each candidate wants to bomb to death.
But that just doesn’t happen on a scale relevant to American politics. The informal progressive coalition is basically solid. If there’s a place where this is supposed to be relevant, I don’t know about it.
But, y’know, if the imperialism and genocide is invariant between the options, I’m still gonna vote for the one doing fewer other terrible things 🤷🏼
What’s the worst that could happen if I let the democrats know that not even genocide will cost them the election? What’s the worst that could happen by further entrenching the oligarchic uniparty? Surely the democrats won’t ever put me in the camps!
Obviously I’m also going to do everything I can to get to a point where I don’t have an imperialist, genocidal government. Mutual aid, canvassing for leftists in the primaries, political organization, developing community, taking over small municipalities, labor organization, etc.
No critique here, glad to see at least one blue dog understands there’s other tools.
All of which is gonna be a lot harder now that this side has declared antifascists to be a terrorist organization, and arrests people for pamphlets.
As opposed to the other side who also arrested peaceful protesters on bogus charges. Who also beat up protesters. Who also broke up strikes. Who also hounded leftist organisers.
The difference is that the media is more critical of it now. People are much more agitated under Trump. Organizing is easier in many ways.
if I let the democrats know that not even genocide will cost them the election
I keep seeing variations on this, and no one has been able to explain to me how that communication vector works. When has that ever worked? They just double down or shift right to try impotently to scoop “moderate Republicans”. If they really are a uniparty, do you think they really care that much about winning or losing anyway? They’re gonna keep supporting genocide no matter how many times they lose.
The point isn’t to try to persuade the DNC (by doing literally nothing), the point is to slow the bleeding while we build what comes next.
glad to see at least one blue dog understands there’s other tools.
Those are the main tools. Voting is the “other” tool. But it’s an easy tool, and it scales well with community organization. Seriously, take over a small municipality.
As opposed to the other side who also arrested peaceful protesters on bogus charges. Who also beat up protesters. Who also broke up strikes. Who also hounded leftist organisers
Exactly. "Also"s don’t matter when you make the choice. The things that are the same are gonna be the same either way. What matters are the differences, and there are obvious differences. Like labelling “aintifa” a terrorist organization.
People are much more agitated under Trump. Organizing is easier in many ways.
Of course, on the backs of already marginalized people. I don’t have the stomach to knowingly increase the suffering of others for political gain.
I keep seeing variations on this, and no one has been able to explain to me how that communication vector works. When has that ever worked?
Pretty simple. If I am doing a genocide, and you vote for me, it makes it clear you are at least apathetic about genocide.
The point isn’t to try to persuade the DNC (by doing literally nothing), the point is to slow the bleeding while we build what comes next.
Voting for the DNC does not slow the bleeding. Voting for the DNC makes it harder to build anything else.
Those are the main tools. Voting is the “other” tool. But it’s an easy tool, and it scales well with community organization. Seriously, take over a small municipality.
Depends on your analysis on electorialism in modern day America. I think it has some value locally, and in bigger elections its only positive use is to build momentum for leftist parties.
"Also"s don’t matter when you make the choice. The things that are the same are gonna be the same either way. What matters are the differences, and there are obvious differences. Like labelling “aintifa” a terrorist organization.
So not exactly, because I am arguing there is not practical difference between the two. I suppose the republicans are more overt, which is a positive, since it makes even liberals reel.
I don’t have the stomach to knowingly increase the suffering of others for political gain.
Sure you do. That’s what you do by voting for democrats.
If I am doing a genocide, and you vote for me, it makes it clear you are at least apathetic about genocide.
That doesn’t imply the converse, it doesn’t mean that not voting communicates any information about your stance on genocide, it just makes it clear that you’re apathetic in general.
Voting for the DNC makes it harder to build anything else.
How? The GOP is actively arresting people trying to build anything else. Attempts to co-opt a movement isn’t harder to overcome than prison.
I suppose the republicans are more overt, which is a positive, since it makes even liberals reel.
Again, they are causing additional suffering. You think it’s a positive because you’re not one of the additional people suffering. My empathy won’t allow me to ignore the additional suffering caused by my action, or lack thereof. I can’t just take an ideological stand when I know it will increase the suffering of others.
Constant suffering I’ve learned to cope with, since I’d be catatonic otherwise. But the people only on one list? I can’t just stand by, I have to at least save them. I don’t know how you can do it, my body physically revulses at just the thought of standing by even if the difference is only one person. I don’t think I’d feel human.
Of course, on the backs of already marginalized people. I don’t have the stomach to knowingly increase the suffering of others for political gain.
And yet you vote for the austerity party instead of going for any of the various left wing parties and devoting your energy there. You’re here scolding people who held to their principles and voted for what they want instead of against what they feared, as if continuing the exact course of action that made Trump a viable candidate on the first place gives anyone an inch of moral high ground.
If you’re not gonna firebomb a Wal-Mart (which would be a stupid and pointless thing to do), then can you at least quit actively endorsing the status quo?
Hey. Remember when the Biden Administration listed “anticapitalist views” as a good reason to suspect someone of being a domestic terrorist?
No, and the documents you linked don’t either. “Capitalism” only appears once, and while violent anti-government/anti-authority action is referenced, being anti-capitalist is not in itself started to be a cause for suspicion. They only talk about the targets violent anti-capitalists might choose.
And yet you vote for the austerity party instead of going for any of the various left wing parties and devoting your energy there
I spend my energy supporting a left wing party. I vote for that left wing party in Democratic primaries, when available. But voting for a third party in the general election helps no one except the fascists.
You’re here scolding people who held to their principles and voted for what they want
What they want doesn’t matter if they don’t have the ability to get it. If we had ranked choice voting or something, you’d have a point. But we don’t, so voting for what you want is mathematically worse than voting against the worst outcome.
can you at least quit actively endorsing the status quo?
If you think I’m endorsing the status quo, you haven’t paid attention to a single word I’ve said. I’m very much not endorsing the status quo, I’m endorsing a specific action within the status quo to mitigate damage until we have the organized power to dismantle the status quo, and dismantling the status quo is in fact what I’m endorsing. But that takes time, and until then our best electoral action is voting for leftists in the primary, and voting against the far right in the general. Luckily, we’re reaching a point where leftists are winning more primaries, so hopefully in a few cycles we won’t have to vote lesser evil anymore. But I’m not going to pretend we’re closer to that than we are.
Well if you’re just going to lie about shit then there’s really no point in continuing the discussion, is there?
Both of those documents list anticapitalist views among warning signs of domestic terrorism. The existence of those documents gives Federal Authorities permission to use anticapitalist views as a reason to open an investigation into someone who isn’t even accused of doing anything else.
And since I now know you’re definitely being either disingenuous or completely illiterate, I’m not going to waste any more time in your servile, cowardly bootlicking. Keep doing the thing that created the problem on the first place, some day it will solve the problem (by starving us all to death so we don’t have any more problems).
Both of those documents list anticapitalist views among warning signs of domestic terrorism.
Prove it, because I looked and couldn’t find it.
permission to use anticapitalist views as a reason to open an investigation into someone who isn’t even accused of doing anything else.
Which is a different thing than using anti-capitalist views alone to arrest someone.
Keep doing the thing that created the problem on the first place, some day it will solve the problem
You’re the one doing that. How many decades of protest voting, and what has it accomplished? We have this problem because of people like you, who confuse strategic action with boot licking. Without people like your, we would’ve gotten Gore in 2000, and we wouldn’t be in this situation.
Delude yourself well you like, but don’t try to moralize your foolishness.
Remember, poor people rely on you to gatekeep the movement. Think about how people struggling with medical bills will feel if they find out you let a non-vegan help. Not on my watch.
purity progressives: “I mean yea, he wants universal healthcare, ending wars, abolishing ICE and the police, investing in schools and the arts, social safety nets and taxing the rich… but… he called RFK jr an r-word one time… so, he’s basically a nazi and I hope he dies”
The ability to form political coalitions with people on an issue by issue basis
… is the ability to govern
Absolutely not, I will only work with people I 100% agree with, and I will happily throw the people I 75% agree with to the people I 0% agree with if I don’t get my way!
/s
Great piece of political wisdom:
“Never say no to a small piece of pie right now. There is time for more pie later.”
Very well said. Take a piece quick, instead of bitching you don’t have your fair share, pieless!
Let’s work with the fascists that we don’t 100% agree with /s
Yeah, but that sounds quite liberal, and things “liberal” are a big no-no on this website 🗿(even if we’re talking socdems or demsocs).
I have been told by .ml users right out that socdems are basically Nazis and therefore I am the enemy.
Just don’t ask them why Stalin, who first got the idea of calling socdems “social fascists” and declaring them to be the enemy, was so cozy with actual nazis up until 1941. 🌝
Yeah you’ll get a whole ass wall of text that would be an education in history and mid 20th C geopolitics if if you bothered to read it but you won’t bcs then it would be harder to go “lol, commies bad, Molotop Ribbletribble, Tinyman^2, muh US State Dept narrative!”
deleted by creator
Your Uncle who was 12 in 1991 and describes the horrors of the rise of neoliberalism as the fault of communism?
deleted by creator
Source?
Dude… it was the comment that caused me to block the entire .ml instance months ago. I’m not even sure I can see it anymore, because I blocked the instance. You’re welcome to look through my history and look at replies to a comment from me that said something along the lines of: “I’m open about who I am and what I believe, it’s all right there in my profile.” And them posting that my profile says SocDem and from there on it escalates until I suddenly stop responding, because I have registered that they are arguing in bad faith and that I have simply had spend enough time talking to a wall that had no interest in listening to anything I had to say and just wanted to demonize me.
So go look if you want, but I haven’t got the time and I don’t think I can see that string of comments without unblocking .ml.
Man I wish I lived in your parallel reality where those where the deal breakers preventing anti-fascist coalitions from forming. Rather than, you know, imperialism and genocide.
Yeah it sucks. But, y’know, if the imperialism and genocide is invariant between the options, I’m still gonna vote for the one doing fewer other terrible things 🤷🏼
Obviously I’m also going to do everything I can to get to a point where I don’t have an imperialist, genocidal government. Mutual aid, canvassing for leftists in the primaries, political organization, developing community, taking over small municipalities, labor organization, etc.
All of which is gonna be a lot harder now that this side has declared antifascists to be a terrorist organization, and arrests people for pamphlets.
That’s a point we can debate (not that I feel like doing so right now, but it’s at least connected to reality enough to be worth debating). My problem is with the parent commenter, who’s acting like all the “purity tests” are about trivial minutae and not how many children each candidate wants to bomb to death.
To be fair, the original post is about leftist infighting, not liberals. A lot of the leftist infighting is about trivial minutae.
But that just doesn’t happen on a scale relevant to American politics. The informal progressive coalition is basically solid. If there’s a place where this is supposed to be relevant, I don’t know about it.
You’re on it. Lemmy is rife with leftist infighting.
Until Lemmy declares independence and starts holding elections, it’s not politically relevant. The stuff that matters happens, you know, in real life.
What’s the worst that could happen if I let the democrats know that not even genocide will cost them the election? What’s the worst that could happen by further entrenching the oligarchic uniparty? Surely the democrats won’t ever put me in the camps!
No critique here, glad to see at least one blue dog understands there’s other tools.
As opposed to the other side who also arrested peaceful protesters on bogus charges. Who also beat up protesters. Who also broke up strikes. Who also hounded leftist organisers.
The difference is that the media is more critical of it now. People are much more agitated under Trump. Organizing is easier in many ways.
I keep seeing variations on this, and no one has been able to explain to me how that communication vector works. When has that ever worked? They just double down or shift right to try impotently to scoop “moderate Republicans”. If they really are a uniparty, do you think they really care that much about winning or losing anyway? They’re gonna keep supporting genocide no matter how many times they lose.
The point isn’t to try to persuade the DNC (by doing literally nothing), the point is to slow the bleeding while we build what comes next.
Those are the main tools. Voting is the “other” tool. But it’s an easy tool, and it scales well with community organization. Seriously, take over a small municipality.
Exactly. "Also"s don’t matter when you make the choice. The things that are the same are gonna be the same either way. What matters are the differences, and there are obvious differences. Like labelling “aintifa” a terrorist organization.
Of course, on the backs of already marginalized people. I don’t have the stomach to knowingly increase the suffering of others for political gain.
Pretty simple. If I am doing a genocide, and you vote for me, it makes it clear you are at least apathetic about genocide.
Voting for the DNC does not slow the bleeding. Voting for the DNC makes it harder to build anything else.
Depends on your analysis on electorialism in modern day America. I think it has some value locally, and in bigger elections its only positive use is to build momentum for leftist parties.
So not exactly, because I am arguing there is not practical difference between the two. I suppose the republicans are more overt, which is a positive, since it makes even liberals reel.
Sure you do. That’s what you do by voting for democrats.
That doesn’t imply the converse, it doesn’t mean that not voting communicates any information about your stance on genocide, it just makes it clear that you’re apathetic in general.
How? The GOP is actively arresting people trying to build anything else. Attempts to co-opt a movement isn’t harder to overcome than prison.
Again, they are causing additional suffering. You think it’s a positive because you’re not one of the additional people suffering. My empathy won’t allow me to ignore the additional suffering caused by my action, or lack thereof. I can’t just take an ideological stand when I know it will increase the suffering of others.
Constant suffering I’ve learned to cope with, since I’d be catatonic otherwise. But the people only on one list? I can’t just stand by, I have to at least save them. I don’t know how you can do it, my body physically revulses at just the thought of standing by even if the difference is only one person. I don’t think I’d feel human.
Hey. Remember when the Biden Administration listed “anticapitalist views” as a good reason to suspect someone of being a domestic terrorist?
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/22_1025_strategic-intelligence-assessment-data-domestic-terrorism.pdf
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-full-biden-administration-unveils-plan-to-combat-domestic-terror
And yet you vote for the austerity party instead of going for any of the various left wing parties and devoting your energy there. You’re here scolding people who held to their principles and voted for what they want instead of against what they feared, as if continuing the exact course of action that made Trump a viable candidate on the first place gives anyone an inch of moral high ground.
If you’re not gonna firebomb a Wal-Mart (which would be a stupid and pointless thing to do), then can you at least quit actively endorsing the status quo?
No, and the documents you linked don’t either. “Capitalism” only appears once, and while violent anti-government/anti-authority action is referenced, being anti-capitalist is not in itself started to be a cause for suspicion. They only talk about the targets violent anti-capitalists might choose.
I spend my energy supporting a left wing party. I vote for that left wing party in Democratic primaries, when available. But voting for a third party in the general election helps no one except the fascists.
What they want doesn’t matter if they don’t have the ability to get it. If we had ranked choice voting or something, you’d have a point. But we don’t, so voting for what you want is mathematically worse than voting against the worst outcome.
If you think I’m endorsing the status quo, you haven’t paid attention to a single word I’ve said. I’m very much not endorsing the status quo, I’m endorsing a specific action within the status quo to mitigate damage until we have the organized power to dismantle the status quo, and dismantling the status quo is in fact what I’m endorsing. But that takes time, and until then our best electoral action is voting for leftists in the primary, and voting against the far right in the general. Luckily, we’re reaching a point where leftists are winning more primaries, so hopefully in a few cycles we won’t have to vote lesser evil anymore. But I’m not going to pretend we’re closer to that than we are.
Well if you’re just going to lie about shit then there’s really no point in continuing the discussion, is there?
Both of those documents list anticapitalist views among warning signs of domestic terrorism. The existence of those documents gives Federal Authorities permission to use anticapitalist views as a reason to open an investigation into someone who isn’t even accused of doing anything else.
And since I now know you’re definitely being either disingenuous or completely illiterate, I’m not going to waste any more time in your servile, cowardly bootlicking. Keep doing the thing that created the problem on the first place, some day it will solve the problem (by starving us all to death so we don’t have any more problems).
Prove it, because I looked and couldn’t find it.
Which is a different thing than using anti-capitalist views alone to arrest someone.
You’re the one doing that. How many decades of protest voting, and what has it accomplished? We have this problem because of people like you, who confuse strategic action with boot licking. Without people like your, we would’ve gotten Gore in 2000, and we wouldn’t be in this situation.
Delude yourself well you like, but don’t try to moralize your foolishness.
The only big complaints I remember were about the Nazi from Maine
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Liberals and ableism, such a classic combination. Next do some homophobia or body-shaming.