Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On June 05 2024 08:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It looks like Trump's Supreme Court is reversing decisions that protected against racial gerrymandering. In other words, they're perpetuating racial gerrymandering, and the racism and unfair elections that go along with it.
There are only 9 Supreme Court Justices, and Trump's 3 picks created a 6-3 Republican majority. First, Trump's Supreme Court attacked women's right to bodily autonomy; now it's perpetuating racism and racial gerrymandering. If Trump wins in November, where he might be able to appoint 1-4 additional SCJs (4 of them will be in their 70s... 2 are Democrats and 2 are Republicans), we could be seeing a 6-3, 7-2, or even 8-1 Republican majority that would last *for decades*. Say goodbye to gay marriage and fair elections. Say hello to more sexist and racist laws, and a *national* ban on abortions (the moment Republicans gain any control in Congress and the Presidency). If you want a balanced court (or a left-leaning / liberal / progressive one), then please vote for Biden and future Democratic candidates.
I believe you mean well and are sincere, but I have to call these veiled threats out for the drivel they are.
The Supreme Court is like the ICJ or ICC in that it doesn't actually have the capacity to enforce its rulings and can thus be ignored.
If the Supreme Court bans gay marriage/abortion or reinvigorates slavery with some interpretation of debt being a crime, or whatever else, New Jersey, Washington, California, New York, and any other Democrat state doesn't have to just strip their residents of their rights in order to accommodate Trump's Supreme Court.
Beyond the obvious threat of "Vote for Biden or else" is the implicit admission/acknowledgment that the speaker and their ilk are going to be "more devoted to order than to justice" should Trump entrench such a farce of a Supreme Court and that court decides to interpret away even more of people's rights. Moreover that they'll throw whomever they "have" to onto the tracks ahead of the trolly to make sure it isn't themselves. Today it's women's bodily autonomy, Palestinians, immigrants (+ Show Spoiler +
President Biden on Tuesday unveiled new executive action authorizing U.S. immigration officials to deport large numbers of migrants without processing their asylum claims, announcing what is arguably the most restrictive border policy by a Democratic president in recent history...
To the dismay of migrant advocates, the seismic policy change attempts to upend U.S. asylum law...
The American Civil Liberties Union said it will challenge Mr. Biden's actions in court. "We intend to sue. A ban on asylum is illegal just as it was when Trump unsuccessfully tried it,"
), etc. Tomorrow some other groups, and eventually anyone espousing this sort of dead-ender lesser evilism.
I feel like the mindset of "We can just ignore Supreme Court rulings that we don't like, so who cares if the Supreme Court stays super-conservative for the next 20+ years" is a very cavalier attitude.
To be honest, "6 dipshits decided women have no bodily autonomy so we're gonna just enforce that now" is also rather cavalier, don't you think? I don't agree with - or at least don't have a full opinion on - the full point GH is making. But there is an important observation that is part of his point: enforcing the SC's rulings is a decision. Dem states don't lose moral culpability for doing said enforcing because Thomas, Alito and friends said they should.
Is the system erosion from not enforcing the decision worse than enforcing the decision? I don't know, but there are real competing interests here. Always just following the court ruling with people like Clarence on it may very well be the greater evil in some cases.
No. Our country is structured such that enforcing what the Supreme Court decides is the default position, the null hypothesis. Following the Supreme Court's ruling is the status quo, as opposed to telling the Supreme Court to go fuck itself whenever they make a national ruling that some states don't like. This is obvious from the fact that when Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, we didn't have the governors of red states saying "Yeah no. Fuck Roe v. Wade. I'm permanently banning abortion in my state no matter what the Supreme Court thinks, and I'll keep enforcing this state ban." And if even Republican state leaderships don't have the audacity to undermine the law in this respect, given how frequently they undermine the law in other respects, then there's no way that Democratic state leaderships are going to suddenly find the nerve to do it.
It also definitely doesn't help protect the rights of people living in purple or red states. We'd be regressing as a country.
On June 05 2024 08:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It looks like Trump's Supreme Court is reversing decisions that protected against racial gerrymandering. In other words, they're perpetuating racial gerrymandering, and the racism and unfair elections that go along with it.
There are only 9 Supreme Court Justices, and Trump's 3 picks created a 6-3 Republican majority. First, Trump's Supreme Court attacked women's right to bodily autonomy; now it's perpetuating racism and racial gerrymandering. If Trump wins in November, where he might be able to appoint 1-4 additional SCJs (4 of them will be in their 70s... 2 are Democrats and 2 are Republicans), we could be seeing a 6-3, 7-2, or even 8-1 Republican majority that would last *for decades*. Say goodbye to gay marriage and fair elections. Say hello to more sexist and racist laws, and a *national* ban on abortions (the moment Republicans gain any control in Congress and the Presidency). If you want a balanced court (or a left-leaning / liberal / progressive one), then please vote for Biden and future Democratic candidates.
I believe you mean well and are sincere, but I have to call these veiled threats out for the drivel they are.
The Supreme Court is like the ICJ or ICC in that it doesn't actually have the capacity to enforce its rulings and can thus be ignored.
If the Supreme Court bans gay marriage/abortion or reinvigorates slavery with some interpretation of debt being a crime, or whatever else, New Jersey, Washington, California, New York, and any other Democrat state doesn't have to just strip their residents of their rights in order to accommodate Trump's Supreme Court.
Beyond the obvious threat of "Vote for Biden or else" is the implicit admission/acknowledgment that the speaker and their ilk are going to be "more devoted to order than to justice" should Trump entrench such a farce of a Supreme Court and that court decides to interpret away even more of people's rights. Moreover that they'll throw whomever they "have" to onto the tracks ahead of the trolly to make sure it isn't themselves. Today it's women's bodily autonomy, Palestinians, immigrants (+ Show Spoiler +
President Biden on Tuesday unveiled new executive action authorizing U.S. immigration officials to deport large numbers of migrants without processing their asylum claims, announcing what is arguably the most restrictive border policy by a Democratic president in recent history...
To the dismay of migrant advocates, the seismic policy change attempts to upend U.S. asylum law...
The American Civil Liberties Union said it will challenge Mr. Biden's actions in court. "We intend to sue. A ban on asylum is illegal just as it was when Trump unsuccessfully tried it,"
), etc. Tomorrow some other groups, and eventually anyone espousing this sort of dead-ender lesser evilism.
I feel like the mindset of "We can just ignore Supreme Court rulings that we don't like, so who cares if the Supreme Court stays super-conservative for the next 20+ years" is a very cavalier attitude.
I said the part before the comma, but not the part after it.
On June 05 2024 08:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It looks like Trump's Supreme Court is reversing decisions that protected against racial gerrymandering. In other words, they're perpetuating racial gerrymandering, and the racism and unfair elections that go along with it.
There are only 9 Supreme Court Justices, and Trump's 3 picks created a 6-3 Republican majority. First, Trump's Supreme Court attacked women's right to bodily autonomy; now it's perpetuating racism and racial gerrymandering. If Trump wins in November, where he might be able to appoint 1-4 additional SCJs (4 of them will be in their 70s... 2 are Democrats and 2 are Republicans), we could be seeing a 6-3, 7-2, or even 8-1 Republican majority that would last *for decades*. Say goodbye to gay marriage and fair elections. Say hello to more sexist and racist laws, and a *national* ban on abortions (the moment Republicans gain any control in Congress and the Presidency). If you want a balanced court (or a left-leaning / liberal / progressive one), then please vote for Biden and future Democratic candidates.
I believe you mean well and are sincere, but I have to call these veiled threats out for the drivel they are.
The Supreme Court is like the ICJ or ICC in that it doesn't actually have the capacity to enforce its rulings and can thus be ignored.
If the Supreme Court bans gay marriage/abortion or reinvigorates slavery with some interpretation of debt being a crime, or whatever else, New Jersey, Washington, California, New York, and any other Democrat state doesn't have to just strip their residents of their rights in order to accommodate Trump's Supreme Court.
Beyond the obvious threat of "Vote for Biden or else" is the implicit admission/acknowledgment that the speaker and their ilk are going to be "more devoted to order than to justice" should Trump entrench such a farce of a Supreme Court and that court decides to interpret away even more of people's rights. Moreover that they'll throw whomever they "have" to onto the tracks ahead of the trolly to make sure it isn't themselves. Today it's women's bodily autonomy, Palestinians, immigrants (+ Show Spoiler +
President Biden on Tuesday unveiled new executive action authorizing U.S. immigration officials to deport large numbers of migrants without processing their asylum claims, announcing what is arguably the most restrictive border policy by a Democratic president in recent history...
To the dismay of migrant advocates, the seismic policy change attempts to upend U.S. asylum law...
The American Civil Liberties Union said it will challenge Mr. Biden's actions in court. "We intend to sue. A ban on asylum is illegal just as it was when Trump unsuccessfully tried it,"
), etc. Tomorrow some other groups, and eventually anyone espousing this sort of dead-ender lesser evilism.
I feel like the mindset of "We can just ignore Supreme Court rulings that we don't like, so who cares if the Supreme Court stays super-conservative for the next 20+ years" is a very cavalier attitude.
To be honest, "6 dipshits decided women have no bodily autonomy so we're gonna just enforce that now" is also rather cavalier, don't you think? I don't agree with - or at least don't have a full opinion on - the full point GH is making. But there is an important observation that is part of his point: enforcing the SC's rulings is a decision. Dem states don't lose moral culpability for doing said enforcing because Thomas, Alito and friends said they should.
Is the system erosion from not enforcing the decision worse than enforcing the decision? I don't know, but there are real competing interests here. Always just following the court ruling with people like Clarence on it may very well be the greater evil in some cases.
There's a few points packed in there but the competing interests and moral depravity of following the rulings of a fascist Supreme Court is one of the big/important ones.
What is being demonstrated is a decades old pattern from Democrats/their supporters of willingly sacrificing oppressed peoples for political expediency while attempting to rationalize it as ethical, logical, and pragmatic. Or as Dr. King put it so many years ago, they are unabashedly "more devoted to order than to justice". Just look...
On June 05 2024 08:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It looks like Trump's Supreme Court is reversing decisions that protected against racial gerrymandering. In other words, they're perpetuating racial gerrymandering, and the racism and unfair elections that go along with it.
There are only 9 Supreme Court Justices, and Trump's 3 picks created a 6-3 Republican majority. First, Trump's Supreme Court attacked women's right to bodily autonomy; now it's perpetuating racism and racial gerrymandering. If Trump wins in November, where he might be able to appoint 1-4 additional SCJs (4 of them will be in their 70s... 2 are Democrats and 2 are Republicans), we could be seeing a 6-3, 7-2, or even 8-1 Republican majority that would last *for decades*. Say goodbye to gay marriage and fair elections. Say hello to more sexist and racist laws, and a *national* ban on abortions (the moment Republicans gain any control in Congress and the Presidency). If you want a balanced court (or a left-leaning / liberal / progressive one), then please vote for Biden and future Democratic candidates.
I believe you mean well and are sincere, but I have to call these veiled threats out for the drivel they are.
The Supreme Court is like the ICJ or ICC in that it doesn't actually have the capacity to enforce its rulings and can thus be ignored.
If the Supreme Court bans gay marriage/abortion or reinvigorates slavery with some interpretation of debt being a crime, or whatever else, New Jersey, Washington, California, New York, and any other Democrat state doesn't have to just strip their residents of their rights in order to accommodate Trump's Supreme Court.
Beyond the obvious threat of "Vote for Biden or else" is the implicit admission/acknowledgment that the speaker and their ilk are going to be "more devoted to order than to justice" should Trump entrench such a farce of a Supreme Court and that court decides to interpret away even more of people's rights. Moreover that they'll throw whomever they "have" to onto the tracks ahead of the trolly to make sure it isn't themselves. Today it's women's bodily autonomy, Palestinians, immigrants (+ Show Spoiler +
President Biden on Tuesday unveiled new executive action authorizing U.S. immigration officials to deport large numbers of migrants without processing their asylum claims, announcing what is arguably the most restrictive border policy by a Democratic president in recent history...
To the dismay of migrant advocates, the seismic policy change attempts to upend U.S. asylum law...
The American Civil Liberties Union said it will challenge Mr. Biden's actions in court. "We intend to sue. A ban on asylum is illegal just as it was when Trump unsuccessfully tried it,"
), etc. Tomorrow some other groups, and eventually anyone espousing this sort of dead-ender lesser evilism.
I feel like the mindset of "We can just ignore Supreme Court rulings that we don't like, so who cares if the Supreme Court stays super-conservative for the next 20+ years" is a very cavalier attitude.
To be honest, "6 dipshits decided women have no bodily autonomy so we're gonna just enforce that now" is also rather cavalier, don't you think? I don't agree with - or at least don't have a full opinion on - the full point GH is making. But there is an important observation that is part of his point: enforcing the SC's rulings is a decision. Dem states don't lose moral culpability for doing said enforcing because Thomas, Alito and friends said they should.
Is the system erosion from not enforcing the decision worse than enforcing the decision? I don't know, but there are real competing interests here. Always just following the court ruling with people like Clarence on it may very well be the greater evil in some cases.
No. Our country is structured such that enforcing what the Supreme Court decides is the default position, the null hypothesis. Following the Supreme Court's ruling is the status quo, + Show Spoiler +
as opposed to telling the Supreme Court to go fuck itself whenever they make a national ruling that some states don't like. This is obvious from the fact that when Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, we didn't have the governors of red states saying "Yeah no. Fuck Roe v. Wade. I'm permanently banning abortion in my state no matter what the Supreme Court thinks, and I'll keep enforcing this state ban." And if even Republican state leaderships don't have the audacity to undermine the law in this respect, given how frequently they undermine the law in other respects, then there's no way that Democratic state leaderships are going to suddenly find the nerve to do it.
It also definitely doesn't help protect the rights of people living in purple or red states. We'd be regressing as a country.
Besides undermining the legitimacy of the ICC, ICJ, UN, and any decisions they make (and actions the West has used them to legitimate), this thinking is a quintessential example of being "more devoted to order than to justice". while demonstrating how ready and willing even ostensibly "progressive Democrats" are to help strip people of their rights (in this example, bodily autonomy of potentially pregnant people) to maintain that status quo.
This is part of why I asked a while back about if Republicans could go too far. As of yet the answer has been, a frankly terrifying, "No!"
So if the Supreme Court reinvigorates slavery (because the US never actually banned it) by making debt (or just being Black, or some other bullshit) a crime, Democrats/their supporters will be making this same "pragmatic" argument about how we all have to vote Democrat (ignoring their own roles in the problems) for 30 years, and maybe after that they'll finally ban slavery in the US.
I doubt this would be their position if it were specifically their human rights/lives being sacrificed for Democrats short term political expediency. But as long as it is "others" they won't just be piss-poor allies, they'll be working alongside the fascists pressing for order over justice. When it stops being "their rights/lives" and becomes "my rights/life" it'll be too late because they'll have assisted the fascists in demolishing anyone that would stand with them against such tyranny.
Order is sometimes more valuable than justice, especially as justice is subjective.
To give a very simple example, mob justice may be just at times. If a manifestly flawed internal investigation of police brutality lets a murdering cop go free then that’s unjust and a lynch mob taking the matter into their own hands and sentencing him to death would be rather more just. We oppose mob justice not because it is never just but rather because it opens the door to unjust lynch mobs. We think it’s better than nobody gets lynched, even if that protects people who deserve it.
Our society is a very long way from perfect justice. We know this and we don’t like it. There is no argument to be had there, nobody believes otherwise.
However, by agreeing to work for improvement within the existing framework of order we manage to avoid a complete breakdown of society. We avoid brownshirts bombing meetings of political opponents. We avoid fighting in the streets. We avoid a breakdown of supply chains, we have food on our shelves and medicine in our pharmacies.
Everyone, even you GH, believes there is some amount of injustice that is tolerable in the name of order. If, in an isolated incident, one racist judge sentenced a black man 5 years in prison where he’d have given a white man 59 months I doubt you’d advocate for a violent revolution in which a million starved. You’d seek a solution, just as the rest of us would, but, just like the rest of us, you’d recognize limits on how far it was reasonable to go.
From that starting point of recognizing that there is inevitably a trade off it’s then simply deciding where the line is drawn. How much injustice can be tolerated, while working to eliminate it, in the name of order. How much value is placed on the maintenance of an imperfect order.
You pretend to be this idealist visionary who has this unique awareness that injustice exists and that people tolerate it in the name of order. You are not. That is the starting point, the rest of us are already there, we accepted it, we moved past it and are addressing injustice within our own frameworks. You need to catch up.
Order is sometimes more valuable than justice, especially as justice is subjective.
To give a very simple example, mob justice may be just at times. If a manifestly flawed internal investigation of police brutality lets a murdering cop go free then that’s unjust and a lynch mob taking the matter into their own hands and sentencing him to death would be rather more just. We oppose mob justice not because it is never just but rather because it opens the door to unjust lynch mobs. We think it’s better than nobody gets lynched, even if that protects people who deserve it.
Our society is a very long way from perfect justice. We know this and we don’t like it. There is no argument to be had there, nobody believes otherwise.
However, by agreeing to work for improvement within the existing framework of order we manage to avoid a complete breakdown of society. We avoid brownshirts bombing meetings of political opponents. We avoid fighting in the streets. We avoid a breakdown of supply chains, we have food on our shelves and medicine in our pharmacies.
Everyone, even you GH, believes there is some amount of injustice that is tolerable in the name of order. If, in an isolated incident, one racist judge sentenced a black man 5 years in prison where he’d have given a white man 59 months I doubt you’d advocate for a violent revolution in which a million starved. You’d seek a solution, just as the rest of us would, but, just like the rest of us, you’d recognize limits on how far it was reasonable to go.
From that starting point of recognizing that there is inevitably a trade off it’s then simply deciding where the line is drawn. How much injustice can be tolerated, while working to eliminate it, in the name of order. How much value is placed on the maintenance of an imperfect order. + Show Spoiler +
You pretend to be this idealist visionary who has this unique awareness that injustice exists and that people tolerate it in the name of order. You are not. That is the starting point, the rest of us are already there, we accepted it, we moved past it and are addressing injustice within our own frameworks. You need to catch up.
Setting aside the slights and mischaracterizations, I would think then that you understand why I found/find it so troubling that you and/or none of the ostensible "leftists" of any stripe here seem to have one of those lines?
You can call me whatever names you'd like, but for me, the systemic deprivation of oppressed peoples' rights, ongoing domestic slavery, ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestinians, and so on already crosses my line, even if it doesn't cross yours or others'.
Now you've already made the big brain move of not having a line.
On December 12 2023 05:14 KwarK wrote: Biden works for the American people. All of your objections to his failure to specifically serve your desires above theirs can be dismissed. Your problems with what he is doing are problems with America. He’s doing his job capably.
If Trump wins (it's increasingly looking like it will come down to Michigan and that's not looking good) that's 100% going to be thrown in your face (by others than myself).
But what your reasoning begs to wonder is: Where is the line? If the US decides within the structure of its ostensible democracy that it is going to be an unabashed genocidal white supremacist fascist global hegemony with a fully unleashed megalomaniacal bloodthirsty Trump at the helm, will you still insist "Your problems with what he is doing are problems with America"? As if folks haven't long established that they are aware the problems with Biden, Trump, Democrats, Republicans, and the US system generally, aren't exclusively products of those currently in power and in some very troubling ways do in fact reflect the majority (and/or substantial percentages of) preferences/opinions of the country.
...
I also don’t get this line talk. It’s incomprehensible to me what you think your point is. If America elects a theocratic fascist then it elects a theocratic fascist. I don’t have a line....
Though now we know you do understand this "line talk" and what my point was.
So it begs the question: have you found your line since you've discovered its inevitable necessity? The deprivation of potentially pregnant people's bodily autonomy, enslavement of US citizens, and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians doesn't cross it, so what would/could at this point?
Part of my point is that we already know what it would take and the problematic nature of it in part thanks to the timeless warning about the rise of fascism from Niemoller.
Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me
This dead ender lesser evil electoralism is going to keep tossing people in front of the trolly in a vain (and/or perhaps disingenuous) effort to slow it down until it's too late and there's no one to rally with to prevent the dead-enders themselves from being thrown on the tracks. Then they can rationalize their outright joining overt fascists as an "ethical pragmatism" built on these foundations of rationalizing the very behavior that predictably put them in that predicament.
As was made clear in my original post which you selectively edited, I was saying that putting me on the spot and demanding that I apply red lines to the United States of America is absurd. I’m not it’s dad. I can’t put it in timeout if it’s naughty. That’s not my role or my job or within my power.
On December 12 2023 05:46 GreenHorizons wrote: Where is the line? If the US decides within the structure of its ostensible democracy that it is going to be an unabashed genocidal white supremacist fascist global hegemony with a fully unleashed megalomaniacal bloodthirsty Trump at the helm, will you still insist "Your problems with what he is doing are problems with America"? As if folks haven't long established that they are aware the problems with Biden, Trump, Democrats, Republicans, and the US system generally, aren't exclusively products of those currently in power and in some very troubling ways do in fact reflect the majority (and/or substantial percentages of) preferences/opinions of the country.
Why would it be thrown in my face? I’m not responsible for the American voting public. I genuinely don’t get why you think America is my fault.
I also don’t get this line talk. It’s incomprehensible to me what you think your point is. If America elects a theocratic fascist then it elects a theocratic fascist. I don’t have a line. I don’t need to have a line because I’m not in charge here. I’m not responsible for what America does. In what world would I ever say "you really crossed the line this time America?" and what would it mean for me to say that? What are you talking about?
On June 06 2024 09:41 KwarK wrote: As was made clear in my original post which you selectively edited, I was saying that putting me on the spot and demanding that I apply red lines to the United States of America is absurd. I’m not it’s dad. I can’t put it in timeout if it’s naughty. That’s not my role or my job or within my power.
On December 12 2023 05:46 GreenHorizons wrote: Where is the line? If the US decides within the structure of its ostensible democracy that it is going to be an unabashed genocidal white supremacist fascist global hegemony with a fully unleashed megalomaniacal bloodthirsty Trump at the helm, will you still insist "Your problems with what he is doing are problems with America"? As if folks haven't long established that they are aware the problems with Biden, Trump, Democrats, Republicans, and the US system generally, aren't exclusively products of those currently in power and in some very troubling ways do in fact reflect the majority (and/or substantial percentages of) preferences/opinions of the country.
Why would it be thrown in my face? I’m not responsible for the American voting public. I genuinely don’t get why you think America is my fault.
I also don’t get this line talk. It’s incomprehensible to me what you think your point is. If America elects a theocratic fascist then it elects a theocratic fascist. I don’t have a line. I don’t need to have a line because I’m not in charge here. I’m not responsible for what America does. In what world would I ever say "you really crossed the line this time America?" and what would it mean for me to say that? What are you talking about?
Do better.
I edited it for brevity.
I wasn't talking about being the US's dad then, I'm not talking about you being the US's dad now, and we all can see that you know this.
I'm talking about where individuals draw their personal lines which you still apparently haven't gotten around to finding for yourself. This is even more concerning than when you first told us you didn't have one because you yourself have said:
From that starting point of recognizing that there is inevitably a trade off it’s then simply deciding where the line is drawn.
and you're already willing to trade a crackdown on asylum seekers, the genocide of Palestinians, enslaved US citizens, and so many more horrific things.
I don't know where your (or anyone else's around here) line will eventually be drawn, or if it'll ever be drawn at all, but without one, people will end up rationalizing their support for fascism as "pragmatism". Then double down with nonsense like "voting for someone isn't supporting them", as if it sounds less ridiculous when they say it than when Trumpers try it.
KwarK isn't saying he personally has a line, he's saying that as a collective we must decide where that line is and get the people into positions of power to see that that line is never crossed. His line could be where your line is but it isn't. It doesn't exist. He's not in the position to have a line, but he is in a position to reach a collective decision on where this line should not be crossed with everyone, and share that responsibility into getting the right people in place to fix it. The line you want him to have is the line we all come up with together. Until we do that, there is no line because we never agreed on one.
Keeping in mind that I’m not America’s dad what exactly are you imagining deciding that things are unacceptable looks like. Let’s say, for a minute, that I think the treatment of Palestinians is acceptable and you think it’s unacceptable. I don’t, but let’s say for the sake of argument that I did. How do our actions based on that differing line differ? Neither of us have put America on the naughty step. In what way does your refusal to accept it manifest? You give off Michael Scott bankruptcy vibes. Declaring that something is across the line doesn’t mean shit unless you ante up and start bombing federal buildings.
Keeping in mind that I’m not America’s dad what exactly are you imagining deciding that things are unacceptable looks like. Let’s say, for a minute, that I think the treatment of Palestinians is acceptable and you think it’s unacceptable. I don’t, but let’s say for the sake of argument that I did. How do our actions based on that differing line differ? Neither of us have put America on the naughty step. In what way does your refusal to accept it manifest? You give off Michael Scott bankruptcy vibes.
Declaring that something is across the line doesn’t mean shit unless you ante up and start bombing federal buildings.
I disagree with your threshold for "mean[ing] shit", but it doesn't stop you from having a line.
Keeping in mind that I’m not America’s dad what exactly are you imagining deciding that things are unacceptable looks like. Let’s say, for a minute, that I think the treatment of Palestinians is acceptable and you think it’s unacceptable. I don’t, but let’s say for the sake of argument that I did. How do our actions based on that differing line differ? Neither of us have put America on the naughty step. In what way does your refusal to accept it manifest? You give off Michael Scott bankruptcy vibes.
Declaring that something is across the line doesn’t mean shit unless you ante up and start bombing federal buildings.
I disagree with your threshold for "mean[ing] shit", but it doesn't stop you from having a line.
So get one.
America crossed your line and you didn’t do anything about it. You’re complicit. You’re making baby MLK cry with your acceptance of injustice in the name of stability. Do something.
Keeping in mind that I’m not America’s dad what exactly are you imagining deciding that things are unacceptable looks like. Let’s say, for a minute, that I think the treatment of Palestinians is acceptable and you think it’s unacceptable. I don’t, but let’s say for the sake of argument that I did. How do our actions based on that differing line differ? Neither of us have put America on the naughty step. In what way does your refusal to accept it manifest? You give off Michael Scott bankruptcy vibes.
Declaring that something is across the line doesn’t mean shit unless you ante up and start bombing federal buildings.
I disagree with your threshold for "mean[ing] shit", but it doesn't stop you from having a line.
So get one.
America crossed your line and you didn’t do anything about it. You’re complicit. You’re making baby MLK cry with your acceptance of injustice in the name of stability. Do something.
Or continue not to and keep lashing out like that instead I guess?
Keeping in mind that I’m not America’s dad what exactly are you imagining deciding that things are unacceptable looks like. Let’s say, for a minute, that I think the treatment of Palestinians is acceptable and you think it’s unacceptable. I don’t, but let’s say for the sake of argument that I did. How do our actions based on that differing line differ? Neither of us have put America on the naughty step. In what way does your refusal to accept it manifest? You give off Michael Scott bankruptcy vibes.
Declaring that something is across the line doesn’t mean shit unless you ante up and start bombing federal buildings.
I disagree with your threshold for "mean[ing] shit", but it doesn't stop you from having a line.
So get one.
America crossed your line and you didn’t do anything about it. You’re complicit. You’re making baby MLK cry with your acceptance of injustice in the name of stability. Do something.
Or continue not to and keep lashing out like that instead I guess?
I just don’t understand how you can tolerate the genocide in Palestine. Each day you get up and do nothing. What will it take for you to take action? If this doesn’t cross your line then what will? How many more will die before you say enough is enough and put a stop to it?
On June 06 2024 13:53 BlackJack wrote: GH bombing a federal building as a lone wolf terrorist isn't going to instill change any more than posting on a forum of a 26 year old computer game
Seems like a very convenient excuse for apathy. It’s easy to sit around and do nothing about all the injustice in the world if you have these excuses like “it’s a complicated structural problem outside of my ability to fix with direct action” and “the foreseeable consequences of that action are likely to make things worse”. But I see through those excuses because I identify as a revolutionary socialist and I have read the backs of many notable books. I alone understand that these so called reasons for not taking direct action are really just because everyone is a worse person than I am. I alone recognize the need for direct action to end the genocide in Palestine because everyone else is a genocide apologist. But I can’t do any direct action right now because I’m busy.
There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'.
On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'.
GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have.
He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people.
I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests.
On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'.
GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have.
He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people.
I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests.
What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself.
On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'.
GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have.
He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people.
I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests.
What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself.
Rejecting both parties within a two party system is abandoning democracy entirely. Unless you combine it with an overthrow of the state it’s simply non participation. It’s very convenient for him that his morally pure pedestal from which he judges others requires him to do literally nothing. Not even the barest minimum to protect the rights of his trans brothers and sisters by voting against a greater evil. Nothing at all.
I proposed bombing a federal building in jest but if he feels that’s too revolutionary he could bomb a state building. If that’s too much then maybe a municipal one. If that’s too much then maybe just break a window. If that’s too much then maybe use their public bathrooms, take a massive shit, and not flush. Any of these active steps would be above roleplaying a revolutionary on the internet. If he can’t manage any of those I really don’t see in what way he’s a revolutionary. It’s like being lectured by a vegan who couldn’t manage to give up bacon.
The rejection of the parties is only defensible as part of a larger effort to get where you want to be outside of the political process. If you’re not doing that then you’re not rejecting both parties, you’re just apolitical.
On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'.
GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have.
He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people.
I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests.
What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself.
We can stop stumping for Biden but that leads to a convicted felon and man liable for sexual assault becoming President. It does not make America better. Everyone here has repeatedly said we would rather not have Biden. But its him or Trump.
EPT
