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.
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.
Then either you’re a fool with no idea how these documents are used and you’re looking for it to openly say “anticapitalist sentiment is a valid reason to open an investigation”, or you’re being disingenuous. Second paragraph on page 41 in the first document, I’ll leave the second as an exercise for the reader.
Which is a different thing than using anti-capitalist views alone to arrest someone.
That’s not what I said they did, but the difference is largely academic. Once an investigation is opened a pretense for arrest can be manufactured easily at any time.
We have this problem because of people like you, who confuse strategic action with boot licking.
No, we have this problem because of people who confuse supporting Neoliberal ghouls who are polite about it over Neoliberal ghouls who are in your face and arrogant about it with harm reduction. Had the party you’re scolding people for turning on not spent damn near half a century gleefully helping the other half of the uniparty gut the working class and force people into serfdom, Trump would never have gotten on the ballot in the first place. Sonyesz you are absolutely advocating for people to continue doing exactly what created the problem, and scolding people who won’t join you in that because you don’t understand the problem, nor how to solve it. And you never will as long as you accept the narratives about the problem that are pushed by the people who benefit from the problem not being solved.
Yes, that was the one reference to capitalism which I referred to. It doesn’t say what you’re implying it does.
That’s not what I said they did
No, but that is what the current administration is doing. So yes, there is a difference.
Had the party you’re scolding people for turning on not spent damn near half a century gleefully helping the other half of the uniparty gut the working class and force people into serfdom, Trump would never have gotten on the ballot in the first place.
Hard disagree.
you are absolutely advocating for people to continue doing exactly what created the problem, and scolding people who won’t join you in that because you don’t understand the problem, nor how to solve it.
Again, no, that’s you. Your suggested actions won’t work, and you’re scolding people for damage mitigation. No one here is supporting neo-liberals, they’re fighting fascists. The fact that you’re intent on demonizing damage mitigation for a delusional fantasy where you sway 150 million people is all the proof I need that you’re not a serious adult worth continuing this conversation with. Come back after you’ve spent some actual time in the real world, and get some context for how social change works.
Can you find me a single example in history of fascism arising in a Democracy without the working class being under extreme enough pressure to make fascist strongman rhetoric appealing?
Or are you arguing that the Democrats don’t have a track record of hard Neoliberalism, or that that Neoliberalism isn’t the cause of the working class pressure that led to Trump?
Come back after you’ve spent some actual time in the real world, and get some context for how social change works.
Ten years in the trenches working for Progressive Democrats’ campaigns and seeing how the party functions from the inside was the real world. You should try it. Go volunteer for your local DSA. More importantly, start showing up to local Democratic Party meetings. See who weilds power there and how they do it. With the way things are going, it won’t even take you ten years to realize how utterly futile it is to expect the Democratic Party to fight fascism in any effective sense.
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.
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.
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.
Then either you’re a fool with no idea how these documents are used and you’re looking for it to openly say “anticapitalist sentiment is a valid reason to open an investigation”, or you’re being disingenuous. Second paragraph on page 41 in the first document, I’ll leave the second as an exercise for the reader.
That’s not what I said they did, but the difference is largely academic. Once an investigation is opened a pretense for arrest can be manufactured easily at any time.
No, we have this problem because of people who confuse supporting Neoliberal ghouls who are polite about it over Neoliberal ghouls who are in your face and arrogant about it with harm reduction. Had the party you’re scolding people for turning on not spent damn near half a century gleefully helping the other half of the uniparty gut the working class and force people into serfdom, Trump would never have gotten on the ballot in the first place. Sonyesz you are absolutely advocating for people to continue doing exactly what created the problem, and scolding people who won’t join you in that because you don’t understand the problem, nor how to solve it. And you never will as long as you accept the narratives about the problem that are pushed by the people who benefit from the problem not being solved.
Yes, that was the one reference to capitalism which I referred to. It doesn’t say what you’re implying it does.
No, but that is what the current administration is doing. So yes, there is a difference.
Hard disagree.
Again, no, that’s you. Your suggested actions won’t work, and you’re scolding people for damage mitigation. No one here is supporting neo-liberals, they’re fighting fascists. The fact that you’re intent on demonizing damage mitigation for a delusional fantasy where you sway 150 million people is all the proof I need that you’re not a serious adult worth continuing this conversation with. Come back after you’ve spent some actual time in the real world, and get some context for how social change works.
Can you find me a single example in history of fascism arising in a Democracy without the working class being under extreme enough pressure to make fascist strongman rhetoric appealing?
Or are you arguing that the Democrats don’t have a track record of hard Neoliberalism, or that that Neoliberalism isn’t the cause of the working class pressure that led to Trump?
Ten years in the trenches working for Progressive Democrats’ campaigns and seeing how the party functions from the inside was the real world. You should try it. Go volunteer for your local DSA. More importantly, start showing up to local Democratic Party meetings. See who weilds power there and how they do it. With the way things are going, it won’t even take you ten years to realize how utterly futile it is to expect the Democratic Party to fight fascism in any effective sense.
I do.
Good thing I don’t expect that. You’ve misunderstood my point really, really badly.
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.