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 October 25 2024 09:03 Razyda wrote: I think you guys are wrong and it is big part of the reason why Dems are loosing this election. You just kind of conditioned to think that people will vote for Trump only because they are some kind of nazis, fascist, racist, transphobes. Meanwhile you have Kamala telling her actual supporters "I am speaking now" and Trump chatting up random people, or taking a stunt at McDonald. What I find funny about that is that Trump is pretending to care about average person, Democrats cant be bothered to do even that, all they do is grandstanding about the issues which maybe 10% population is giving damn about. Now you are unhappy with the current sate of things and you choose between someone who pretends to care about you and someone who cant be bothered to do even that. Meanwhile bunch of people who would rather vote for Trump than keep the status quo are getting actively alienated. And this are the people who will sway from Trump if he does some stupid sh...t. So yeah I think that his appearance on Joe Rogan is mistake (kind of unnecessary point of failure)
PS: just watched Piers Morgan uncensored (I like the idea of the show, hate the execution)
I dont know who the guy who is a friend of the Trump son is, but it is one of the most dangerous people I've ever seen.
What’s your proposed alternative?
Crazy idea, but how about thinking about them as human beings?
I work with Trump voters and go to school with more. They do not treat the people they talk about politics that they disagree with as human beings. As bad as you think leftists talk about conservatives in this thread in real life they're much worse. They do not consider immigrants as human beings anymore. They haven't considered Muslims as human beings for 23 years now. Gay and trans people aren't just not human to them they're actively evil people that need to be removed from society.
Trump has conditioned his fans to not believe people are arguing with them in good faith and has lied so much and with so little regard to reality that it is impossible to reason with them. We work with entirely different sets of facts now in this country. Tariffs are something other nations pay for. The wall was going to be paid for by Mexico and be effective at stopping migration. You can easily and ethically seize and deport people who are here illegally back to the country they came from. People are going to die from the covid vaccine en mass but also trump is great for developing it so fast. The people who stormed the capital are both Antifa plants and are political hostages. George floyd died from an overdose and was a felon so he doesn't deserve pity. Any sort of prosecution for trumps crimes are lawfare, don't pay attention to the process or the evidence presented. Trump filled up the oil reserves when you can easily find out that he drew it down a lot. Taxes went up during bidens term when it was the tax plan that trump put into place. Tampons not being restricted to womens bathrooms is weird and funny. Hunter Bidens laptop being suppressed was government suppression of the truth even thought it was bidens team when he wasn't in the white house, but the supression of JD vances dossier on twitter is somehow perfectly find and not a problem. There was widespread election fraud but no evidence of it anywhere. You don't have to accept that you ever lose an election and disrupting the transfer of power isn't an issue, but directly comparing what trump says to what hitler said is an issue.
You look at BJ and you do not see someone who thinks of you as a human being worth respecting with a simple conversation. You look at oblade and you see someone who wants to just talk about thinks that no one is talking about.
You see GH trying to push away anyone that might support him as hard as possible and wondering why no one agrees with his violent revolution.
The problem isn't that we don't think of them as human beings its that we do think of them as human beings and are disappointed when they don't act like them. I'm a Christian that belives in christ when he told everyone that loving your neighbor was one of the two commandments that all others depended on. These people pretend to be Christians yet do not follow his teachings.
2. There's the notion that the status quo is imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within its own parameters (this would include reformism with socialism/communism as it's ultimate goal/ideal).
3. There's fear of people losing their comfort, social status, livelihoods, lives, etc.
4. There's the uncertainty that a revolution would be successful in overcoming the existing system that comes with fears of the consequences of a failed revolution (like the sacrifices being made in vain/retaliation for insolence).
5. There's fear of a successful revolution that removes the existing power structure only to replace it with something similar/worse.
And yet you show no understanding of any of these points being legitimate nor do you treat the people who believe these things with the respect you are entitled to. You deny electoralism as being a legitimate way to achieve your goals and constantly advocate for the abandonment of it. You harp all the time about how you don't think democrats have an issue with genocide and yet cannot provide an alternative to it past just letting trump genocide even harder. When was the last time you tried to argue with BJ or Oblade or provide any insight into an issue that wasn't exclusively anti democrat or anyone on the left side of the country?
Being able to recognize the pattern of what people tell you when they disagree with you is not understanding why people don't agree with you.
I don't know what you mean by "legitimate" in this context, but yeah, they are reasonable concerns I don't mind discussing (save for #1 because it's basically always engaged in bad faith in this context by right wingers that oppose it).
Electoralism is futile for a variety of reasons, but Trump destroying democracy would settle that.
The alternative was for voters that oppose genocide to pressure Democrats, Biden, and Harris to withdraw their support for genocide 10+ months ago before the first primary was even started. Instead you guys, and Democrats generally, immediately went the shame, blame and threaten route with the "just letting trump genocide even harder" trash.
Part of why I've been harping on all this stuff is so that if Harris does lose you guys can't pretend like you (and Dem voters generally) didn't defend/support Democrats being trash when you needed to be joining the people demanding better.
Especially when the bar is in Hell at not supporting a genocide that the majority of voters want them to stop supporting.
And this is the best example of you pushing away everyone who support you need to build with and not understand why no one wants to support your violent revolution. If Harris loses the leftists who voted for Jill stein will be blamed and the party will pivot right in order to win further elections. Jill stein took enough votes away in 2016 for trump to get elected, she didn't run in 2020 and biden got elected, now shes running again in 2024. You, and leftists like you, have spent the entire cycle being an incredible ass outright saying your intent is to help get trump elected and then rub it in peoples faces for the next four years again like you did something good or should be seen as the superior person. You are not coalition building, you are not building any support, you are only setting yourself up to be the scapegoat for everything that goes wrong under trump. If there is a revolution socialists are not going to be the people the democrat electorate goes to for leadership during it. They're going to be right alongside conservatives for who caused conditions to get so bad.
I know what you think you are doing but everyone has been incredibly patient for you to understand what you are actually doing.
Nothing GH has done indicates he has been trying to “help get Trump elected and rub it in people’s faces.”
It would have made more sense if he had. These 3 positions don't work together:
- electoralism is futile - lesser evil voting is wrong - not an accelarationist
If his goals cannot be achieved through electoralism, and he's not cheering for the worst possible electoral results to accelerate change through non-electoral means, what we're left with is "less misery in the short term costs nothing and impedes me in no way, but wanting it is wrong."
There's an implied false dichotomy between participating in flawed electoralism and overthrowing the system. There's nothing stopping you from both doing the former and attempting the latter, they're completely parallel choices. You can throw your molotovs 5 mins after having hedged on the non-fascist if you want to.
Not just my goals, but even modest liberal goals like ending the legalized and literal enslavement of US citizens can't be achieved through electoralism after over 100 years.
Lesser evil absolutism is wrong. It leaves one willing to vote for Hitler.
Accelerationism (on the left) assumes an inevitability of socialism that I personally think can easily be filled by fascists indefinitely, so I don't support it (among other reasons).
Should probably spend a few more pages discussing the merits of using Drumpf though since you guys totally don't have a problem controlling yourselves lol.
On August 07 2024 23:43 Velr wrote: Ok, sorry... it's plain RP'ing.
Just so I understand, is the accusation that socialism is just role playing, or that I'm not a socialist?
Are you doing something else that would actively further your cause?
Yes. I'm in community with a lot more socialists today than I was in 2016, and plenty of them weren't socialists when I met them. Can't take credit for all of them, but many have shown appreciation for my role in that journey.
Through the methods I recently outlined (among others), I've helped establish relationships with local unions, charities, businesses, clubs, community centers, women's shelters, etc. that have amplified my (and my growing cadre of comrades) ability to help people in need. I've also helped build relationships outside of my local area that have assisted us in supporting various aligned efforts across the country and world.
It's not an exhaustive list, nor do I want to be braggadocious, it's just what being a socialist is. I don't expect anything from anyone in return for helping them, but I've found very little in life (outside of family stuff) more fulfilling than a sincere thank you from someone I helped out of a tight spot. Especially when I was only able to do it because of my comrades and the work we've done together to that point. When someone we helped in that way is able to pay it forward (and does so of their own volition) is one of those few things that tops it. It's part of why the baseless accusations about what we're doing being "imaginary" or "role playing" don't really bother me (at least beyond their wilfully oblivious obnoxiousness debasing the discussion generally).
I regularly see the impact of the work my comrades and I do in the lives of the people around me and deal with far more hostile people in that work. Trolly shitposts maligning us and our work just lowers my opinion of the people making them more than anything else.
Bad faith sealioning?guess I'll have to look up that term.
How does your activism translate to legislatory action? I can understand that a significant amount of people are now more socialistic (is that a term you can use for being more socialist) than they were before and understand what that entails, but after community building you also need to solidify that community. Is your village/town also embracing that into how their council operates? Do you intend to go through with it in a bottom-up approach or are you going to try to flatten the entire hierarchy? If so, which I would very much cheer on, how do you intend to do that?
I'm assuming that voters have already made up their mind about whether or not Trump being a fascist matters to them, so I can't imagine that what John Kelly says will suddenly sway public opinion.
That does lead me to this question though: Are there *any* public figures or politicians or celebrities or family members or friends, who - if they were to suddenly reject Trump and publicly announce that he shouldn't be reelected - could actually persuade a decent number of undecided or barely-Trump voters? Who would hypothetically be the most likely to influence people against voting for Trump? Maybe Melania? Elon Musk? Someone else?
At this point I think only person being able to do it, is Trump himself by doing something monumentally stupid (we talking being caught on video being sh...ed by Putin, or promising to bring back slavery) other than that, Trump dying, or Kamala getting 9.5 billion votes, he is going to be president.
I do agree with you that Trump would essentially be his own worst enemy in a hypothetical case of who could damage Trump the most. On the other hand, while Harris could obviously hurt her own chances too, I think there are a bunch of other public figures who have been rallying for her - such as Barack and Michelle Obama - who could also hypothetically harm Harris's chances if they suddenly did a 180 on supporting her. I'm having trouble figuring out who is analogous to the Obamas and their support of Harris on the Trump side.
I dont think their situation is similar. Trump is running on being Trump, so he doesnt rely so much on support (as in people dont vote for him because he is Republican). Kamala runs (beside not being Trump) as Democrat candidate more than being Kamala, so if notable Democrats turned away from her, she would suffer.
So you're saying the Republican party has turned into a cult of personality. I obviously agree, I'm just surprised to hear a Republican sympathizer say so.
I missed this post earlier. I think you misunderstood my point. I would said the same about Obama, that he was running on being Obama rather than Democrat candidate, that wouldn't mean that I think Democratic party turned into cult of Obama. Also while I can understand why you think I am Republican sympathiser I would rather consider myself as being in opposition to Democrats. This arent the same things.
@GH I sincerely think you might be overlooking a key factor. While it is true that voting for Democrats doesn't solve some of the biggest crimes that are happening, if they do win more presidential elections, then Republicans will have more reason to turn away from Trump and other radical figures. This in turn will allow Democrats to splinter over various issues like wars, gender politics etc., as the threat of a far-right takeover diminishes. The right-wing in various countries often revives itself after the left has splintered over new issues due to a feeling of relative safety. The internal fracturing gives rise to and unites right-wingers while making them more radical, and their unity shoves them to the forefront for years. Then left-wingers have to unite again to combat that radicalism and the cycle repeats. In the US this can be especially problematic due to the two-party system where unity of policy for presidential elections is almost necessary. I believe that's part of why single-issue voters are such a crucial element in the US.
While I do agree with your identification of the problem at its core, I think what goes missing is the fact that radicalization is disincentivized by making radicals lose power. At this point in history Democrats are significantly less radical than Republicans.
On October 25 2024 22:09 Uldridge wrote: Bad faith sealioning?guess I'll have to look up that term.
How does your activism translate to legislatory action? I can understand that a significant amount of people are now more socialistic (is that a term you can use for being more socialist) than they were before and understand what that entails, but after community building you also need to solidify that community. Is your village/town also embracing that into how their council operates? Do you intend to go through with it in a bottom-up approach or are you going to try to flatten the entire hierarchy? If so, which I would very much cheer on, how do you intend to do that?
Yeah, you should look it up, because this is definitely that.
As I told you last time Non-reformist reforms is what that looks like legislatively.
I'm sorry dude I really can't recall everything I've discussed with people here. My short/mid term memory is fried from taking care of my young children lol I'll try better in the future.
On October 25 2024 22:22 Uldridge wrote: I'm sorry dude I really can't recall everything I've discussed with people here. My short/mid term memory is fried from taking care of my young children lol I'll try better in the future.
It was sincere, my brain really is cooked. Sleep deprivatjon does that to someone. In any case, I was wondering how non-reformist reforms will eventually tackle entrenched systems like the legislatory bodies. Or do they somehow co-exist with one another? Do you even believe in the necessity of legislation?
I also find it difficult to slowly reach a critical mass as there are so many different ideological views now. It's basically pick your own adventure book. How do you convince people? Just by praxis? Also: how much time do you spend per week "spreading socialism" so to speak?
My take has always been, for example, transgender men are not the same as biological men but I will happily identify them as such and used their preferred name and pronouns because that's the kind and courteous thing to do.
The woke take is "a transgender man is literally the same as a biological man and if you disagree you're committing violence against trans people."
Honestly I have little interest in a debate of whether a man can be a woman or vice versa. It's inevitably going to turn in a semantic debate where I insist that a man is a biological male and everyone else insists a man is "anyone that claims to be a man." I would much rather have a discussion on what happens when woke ideology is applied in the real world, such as the case with the school board defending the teacher with the giant prosthetic breasts.
Can you please define "a biological male"? I'm not sure what that means, insofar as which criteria you believe are necessary for a person to be considered biologically male.
In my experience this normally refers to chromosomes, and trans people to my knowledge overwhelmingly have the chromosome pattern matching their 'biological' sex. Genitalia can be altered but chromosomes cannot. And yeah a very small group of people are something else than xx or xy but those people aren't necessarily related to trans people in any way.
Biologically it's gametes. We have either sperm or eggs, there is no third type (it's "binary"). In many animals chromosomes can determine the sex but they don't define it. Famously, in alligators incubation temperature determines sex.
Edit: so chromosomes are a useful shorthand but edge cases don't make the whole exercise arbitrary.
This is close to true, perhaps good enough for government work, but it’s not quite right. Fundamentally, what someone’s “biological sex” is depends on what purpose you have for defining their biological sex – for sex-linked genetic traits, for instance, chromosomes *is* what you would care about, whether or not their gametes match.
Stepping back a little, biology is a constant exercise of looking at enormously complex, heterogeneous systems, and trying to define rules and categories that will help understand how they work, even though every rule or category will have nontrivial exceptions you’ll then have to account for. Even something relatively robust like “species” has weird exceptions that make it a little hard to delineate exactly how many species of this type of bird there are in a certain population, or where the dividing line is between them. But if we define a prototypical case, and describe the characteristics that the vast majority of cases follow, we can talk about the cases that deviate from the rule and why, which is still a better understanding than we had before.
The nitpicky problem with “sex is binary, you either produce one gamete or the other” is that a small number of people produce both, and a huge number of people produce neither. The more fundamental problem is that when people talk about sex, even specifically “biological sex,” their gametes may or may not be relevant. If I’m talking about a chimeric individual (someone whose body is made partly of cells with a different genetic set), and I say that one of their genetic sets is male and the other is female, I don’t think anyone would think I was talking about gametes. Or, to put it another way, if I say “a male liver cell” it would be idiotic to respond “liver cells don’t produce gametes so there’s no such thing as male or female liver cells.”
All of which is to say that we could, perhaps, say “gametes are binary” in that any individual gamete is one or the other (I’m not aware of any exceptions to that, although there’s no theoretical theoretical reason there couldn’t be). But biological sex is a complex constellation of traits that usually correlate into two populations, but not always. If you’re gonna push your glasses up your nose and say in a nasally voice, “Well actually, biological sex *is* binary” I could maybe excuse the know-it-all technicality of it, if you weren’t also wrong on the technicality.
The relevance of all this to US politics is slim, except that one faction has committed itself to the rhetorical position that sex and gender are binary, and anyone who disagrees is a leftist radical wholly detached from scientific reality. Those folks are incurious dullards, every bit as censorious and tyrannical as BlackJack’s woke scolds who insist biological sex doesn’t exist, but in my experience, substantially more numerous and vocal.
I'd consider a coin flip as something that is a binary. Of course there's a small chance that the coin lands perfectly on its edge leading to a result that is neither heads nor tails. To me, the people pointing out this (literal) edge case are the ones pushing their glasses up their nose and saying in the nasally voice "well actually.." For some reason I've never encountered a person that wants to go 12 rounds on whether or not a coin flip is actually binary because coins can land on their edge. If I did I would really hope they were trying to make some broader point and not trying to scold me for being dumb enough to think a coinflip is binary.
What are we even disagreeing over then? I mean, when shitty right-wingers (including randos on Twitter, but also, like, Ted Cruz and the like) say it’s binary, they mean “the exceptions don’t exist, those people are just deluded.” You’re acknowledging the nontrivial exceptions exist, that values besides 1 and 0 are possible (and, I’d wager, significantly likelier than a coin landing on its edge), but you still want to use the word binary because, what, you like the sound of it? The mouth feel? Define words however you want to, I guess, why should I care?
Meanwhile I opened with an explicit endorsement of the idea that the categories are useful even if they have edge cases and exceptions (as all biological categories inevitably will) and yet both you and Intro keep coming back to “isn’t it easier to just use the categories even though there are a few exceptions they don’t account for?” Yes, I already said so! Newtonian physics is fine for most purposes, just don’t insist it’s all there is or “well actually” people who are talking about quantum mechanics.
Meanwhile those shitty right-wingers are using this bullshit to ban healthcare for trans people and fearmonger that the Satanic democrats are trying to trans your kids. You’ve already pretty clearly said you don’t agree with that shit (I don’t know about Intro) but that’s virtually the only policy implication of this topic and this is a US politics thread so what are we even doing here?
I don’t know how “sex is binary” or non-binary helps any argument of any issue related to trans issues. That’s why I said I was hoping there would be some broader point to be made because arguing over something so trivial seems pointless.
I think there are some interesting things to discuss regarding transgenderism. Nature vs nurture, social contagion, but from past experience my earnest attempt to just ask questions has been met with “you’re just a transphobe who is trying to mask their transphobia under the guise of JAQ.”
I can tell you have a lot of disdain for US Republicans like Ted Cruz for trying to ban healthcare for trans people. I would instead offer that a lot of European countries have also started to draw back on gender medicine and that can’t be blamed as easily on the Ted Cruz’s in the US legislature.
The clown world I object to is not about men identifying as women or women identifying as men. It’s about 19-year-olds lecturing Richard Dawkins on Twitter because his decades of study in biology has caused him to conclude sex is pretty damn binary.
I don’t follow what Europe’s doing, I’m sure they have their own shitty people to worry about. There’s really no good reason for these decisions to be made by legislatures. Difficult medical decisions have been made between patients and their doctors (and their legal guardians, where children are concerned) for ages, and medical communities are perfectly capable of producing and evaluating clinical evidence for and against any given therapy. There’d be an argument for regulatory agencies to be making decisions (since they’re supposed to approve treatments for safety and efficacy anyway) except as I understand it, pretty much all of the relevant drugs were approved ages ago for largely uncontroversial applications, and it’s pretty normal for doctors to have freedom to prescribe off-label as they see fit.
I mean to be honest I don’t think you’re the transphobe people accuse you of being but you don’t do a great job explaining yourself. Like, people who are obviously coming from a “trans ideology is just a delusion caused by the woke mind virus and must be destroyed” place start posting about it and you tend to sound like you’re agreeing with them, and using a lot of the same “man pretending to be a woman” language they would, when apparently you’re only trying to make mundane points like “there are biological differences between cis and trans men” (something I’ve never heard a trans person deny) or “polarization on this culture war issue sometimes makes woke scolds take dumb positions.”
I know you live in San Francisco, arguably the woke scold capital of the world, so maybe it’s understandable that you feel the urgency of combating their orthodoxy much more acutely than I do. But it’s hard for me to give that too much credence when you’re going on about some Bill Maher segment or college kids being mean to Richard Dawkins on Twitter (a man who, wherever his contributions to science, is obviously extremely bad at Twitter). I’m sure they’re saying dumb stuff sometimes, but idk, maybe just grow up? Like, if they’re doing significant harm then sure, go oppose them in the proper venue, but otherwise it’s okay to let other people be wrong, even obnoxiously wrong, without picking a fight with them or demanding that society condemn them.
1. Yes, I generally agree with you. The best people to make medical guidance would be medical professionals and their regulating bodies. But there may be room for exception. For example, pain management clinics that were essentially pill mills where well-intentioned and ill-intentioned doctors alike helped contribute to the opioid epidemic. There's several good documentaries on this. Perhaps a more uniquely American problem given our for-profit healthcare system. It is, nonetheless an example of why you can't automatically allow for medical professionals to be left to their own devices.
2. Here's an article that gives a brief summary of European countries restricting trans health care for minors. For example the Swedish government's most up to date guidance says “risks of puberty suppressing treatment … and gender-affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits.” I have little doubt that if that happened someone in the United States you would be outraged over someone denying life-saving gender affirming care to transgender minors. The thing that really bothers me is that I suspect you have very little idea what causes gender dysphoria, whether it can be melded onto young impressionable minds, why there has been a 1500% increase in it over a short period of time. Even people that study this professionally don't have good answers. So I don't know why you feel so confident in labeling people transphobes if they don't agree with your beliefs on these topics.
3. You can look at any single grievance on wokeism and sort of dismiss it as a one-off and not something I should be in a stink over. But I've been posting about it for years now. Sure Richard Dawkins will survive if he gets a little flak or an award or two gets revoked because he refuses to fall in line with the group think. For every Richard Dawkins there might be 10 other biologists that will self-censor themselves because they don't want to do with that. There may people declining to publish their research results because it came to the opposite conclusion they were hoping for. In my opinion the harm is immeasurable by the people wishing to make it taboo to tell the truth if the truth is inconvenient to them.
1. So you can imagine a scenario where legislatures should intervene, are you gonna say whether you think this is one of those scenarios? If there a reason you’re keeping us in suspense? Personally I don’t think puberty blockers are all that similar to pain pills but given you’re the one that brought it up, do you? Or is it just kind of an irrelevant aside about how doctors are bad sometimes?
2. Yeah like I said I don’t really follow what Europe’s been up to, because I don’t care. I’m not sure why “Sweden has decided…” should change my mind any more than “Alabama hahas decided…” or “Florida has decided…” would. Nothing against Europeans, y’know, but I never bought the idea that Europe is automatically more progressive or enlightened. They’ve got their own weird culture wars, I don’t need any more of those.
Given that trans issues have been a constant culture war conversation for several years now, it’s not implausible to me that more young people are associating their personal difficulties to gender presentation than would have in the past. Maybe 50 years ago a 14 year old who didn’t quite fit in would just be angsty, now they’re more likely to consider whether it’s that dysphoria thing everybody’s been talking about constantly. I dunno. This has been turned into a moral panic about kids trans-ing each other or transitioning to be cool, which I just don’t buy – it’s a huge hassle at a minimum that would put a huge target for harassment on your back, even in a younger generation that’s more accepting about it. A confused kid could misattribute their problems, but I don’t think a meaningful percentage are doing it to get to eat at the cool table.
But if more kids are self-reporting dysphoria than did in the past, and trying out social transition to see if that helps them (followed by medical interventions if it does), I don’t immediately see why that’s a crisis. If it’s not helping them they’re gonna have to figure that out for themselves. I guess you’d worry there’s some risk of their woke parents and peers will be so eager to support them that they’ll feel like they can’t change their mind? But I’ve always known people to be pretty ready to accept whatever they think is right for them. I mean, the whole point of the “start with social transition, then stay on puberty blockers for a while” thing is to give them time to think about it and change their mind if they want.
At the end of the day increased prevalence is pretty weak evidence that they’re “wrong” somehow. If they’re as malleable as you’re worried they are, maybe they’re never going to change their mind because this is who they are now; is that so bad? Or maybe prevalence really has increased for some reason (idk, some PFAS side effect or something); so what? Kids and their parents and their doctors are making difficult medical decisions, all we can do is try to give them the best information possible.
3. Believe me, I know you’ve been posting about it for years. Whenever I have trouble figuring out what you’re on about, I try to figure out if there’s an angle that would incorporate the concept “self-censorship,” and if there is, I figure that’s probably where you’re coming from.
And I mean, catch me on the right day and I worry about it too. There’s a lot of political conversations on both the left and the right where it feels to me like everybody is reading the room and trying to figure out the right thing to say in this crowd, and nobody is actually thinking sincerely about the underlying questions. I start thinking about the French Revolution sometimes, the way the orthodox position can change so fast and everybody re-orients so easily to it; the few that actually believe in something and stick to it are liable to get isolated, flanked from all sides, and destroyed, leaving nothing but a population of cynical survivalists who will say anything because they believe in nothing.
But that’s when I’m feeling particularly melodramatic. Most days I think people might have to choose their battles a bit regarding what they say on politically charged topics when their career could be affected, but we get a pretty distorted view of this from stuff like Twitter. For most people in every day life, they mostly have about as much freedom to think and say whatever they want as they ever had. If there was a HUAC responsible for it that we could dismantle I’d say let’s dismantle it, but when it’s just a fuzzy-headed orthodoxy agreed on by Twitter mobs, I don’t think there’s much to be done. Don’t give it too much oxygen, don’t give it any more power than it already has, but otherwise, God knows we have a lot of worse problems to worry about.
Socialism requires people to work for somebody elses benefit..and the trust that everybody would do it for you (and your family)
It's fundamentally incompatibel with humans, or I guess with Life itself. Life is indeed competition.
In GDR all people were equal, and some have been "more equal" and got nicer cars, bigger houses and more freedoms. usually for sucking up to the state (in form of more powerful people).
In China you everbody is equal.. and there is the party brass that is more equal.
I work with Trump voters and go to school with more. They do not treat the people they talk about politics that they disagree with as human beings. As bad as you think leftists talk about conservatives in this thread in real life they're much worse. They do not consider immigrants as human beings anymore. They haven't considered Muslims as human beings for 23 years now. Gay and trans people aren't just not human to them they're actively evil people that need to be removed from society.
Trump has conditioned his fans to not believe people are arguing with them in good faith and has lied so much and with so little regard to reality that it is impossible to reason with them. We work with entirely different sets of facts now in this country. Tariffs are something other nations pay for. The wall was going to be paid for by Mexico and be effective at stopping migration. You can easily and ethically seize and deport people who are here illegally back to the country they came from. People are going to die from the covid vaccine en mass but also trump is great for developing it so fast. The people who stormed the capital are both Antifa plants and are political hostages. George floyd died from an overdose and was a felon so he doesn't deserve pity. Any sort of prosecution for trumps crimes are lawfare, don't pay attention to the process or the evidence presented. Trump filled up the oil reserves when you can easily find out that he drew it down a lot. Taxes went up during bidens term when it was the tax plan that trump put into place. Tampons not being restricted to womens bathrooms is weird and funny. Hunter Bidens laptop being suppressed was government suppression of the truth even thought it was bidens team when he wasn't in the white house, but the supression of JD vances dossier on twitter is somehow perfectly find and not a problem. There was widespread election fraud but no evidence of it anywhere. You don't have to accept that you ever lose an election and disrupting the transfer of power isn't an issue, but directly comparing what trump says to what hitler said is an issue.
You look at BJ and you do not see someone who thinks of you as a human being worth respecting with a simple conversation. You look at oblade and you see someone who wants to just talk about thinks that no one is talking about.
You see GH trying to push away anyone that might support him as hard as possible and wondering why no one agrees with his violent revolution.
The problem isn't that we don't think of them as human beings its that we do think of them as human beings and are disappointed when they don't act like them. I'm a Christian that belives in christ when he told everyone that loving your neighbor was one of the two commandments that all others depended on. These people pretend to be Christians yet do not follow his teachings.
2. There's the notion that the status quo is imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within its own parameters (this would include reformism with socialism/communism as it's ultimate goal/ideal).
3. There's fear of people losing their comfort, social status, livelihoods, lives, etc.
4. There's the uncertainty that a revolution would be successful in overcoming the existing system that comes with fears of the consequences of a failed revolution (like the sacrifices being made in vain/retaliation for insolence).
5. There's fear of a successful revolution that removes the existing power structure only to replace it with something similar/worse.
And yet you show no understanding of any of these points being legitimate nor do you treat the people who believe these things with the respect you are entitled to. You deny electoralism as being a legitimate way to achieve your goals and constantly advocate for the abandonment of it. You harp all the time about how you don't think democrats have an issue with genocide and yet cannot provide an alternative to it past just letting trump genocide even harder. When was the last time you tried to argue with BJ or Oblade or provide any insight into an issue that wasn't exclusively anti democrat or anyone on the left side of the country?
Being able to recognize the pattern of what people tell you when they disagree with you is not understanding why people don't agree with you.
I don't know what you mean by "legitimate" in this context, but yeah, they are reasonable concerns I don't mind discussing (save for #1 because it's basically always engaged in bad faith in this context by right wingers that oppose it).
Electoralism is futile for a variety of reasons, but Trump destroying democracy would settle that.
The alternative was for voters that oppose genocide to pressure Democrats, Biden, and Harris to withdraw their support for genocide 10+ months ago before the first primary was even started. Instead you guys, and Democrats generally, immediately went the shame, blame and threaten route with the "just letting trump genocide even harder" trash.
Part of why I've been harping on all this stuff is so that if Harris does lose you guys can't pretend like you (and Dem voters generally) didn't defend/support Democrats being trash when you needed to be joining the people demanding better.
Especially when the bar is in Hell at not supporting a genocide that the majority of voters want them to stop supporting.
And this is the best example of you pushing away everyone who support you need to build with and not understand why no one wants to support your violent revolution. If Harris loses the leftists who voted for Jill stein will be blamed and the party will pivot right in order to win further elections. Jill stein took enough votes away in 2016 for trump to get elected, she didn't run in 2020 and biden got elected, now shes running again in 2024. You, and leftists like you, have spent the entire cycle being an incredible ass outright saying your intent is to help get trump elected and then rub it in peoples faces for the next four years again like you did something good or should be seen as the superior person. You are not coalition building, you are not building any support, you are only setting yourself up to be the scapegoat for everything that goes wrong under trump. If there is a revolution socialists are not going to be the people the democrat electorate goes to for leadership during it. They're going to be right alongside conservatives for who caused conditions to get so bad.
I know what you think you are doing but everyone has been incredibly patient for you to understand what you are actually doing.
Nothing GH has done indicates he has been trying to “help get Trump elected and rub it in people’s faces.”
It would have made more sense if he had. These 3 positions don't work together:
- electoralism is futile - lesser evil voting is wrong - not an accelarationist
If his goals cannot be achieved through electoralism, and he's not cheering for the worst possible electoral results to accelerate change through non-electoral means, what we're left with is "less misery in the short term costs nothing and impedes me in no way, but wanting it is wrong."
There's an implied false dichotomy between participating in flawed electoralism and overthrowing the system. There's nothing stopping you from both doing the former and attempting the latter, they're completely parallel choices. You can throw your molotovs 5 mins after having hedged on the non-fascist if you want to.
Not just my goals, but even modest liberal goals like ending the legalized and literal enslavement of US citizens can't be achieved through electoralism after over 100 years.
Lesser evil absolutism is wrong. It leaves one willing to vote for Hitler.
Accelerationism (on the left) assumes an inevitability of socialism that I personally think can easily be filled by fascists indefinitely, so I don't support it (among other reasons).
Should probably spend a few more pages discussing the merits of using Drumpf though since you guys totally don't have a problem controlling yourselves lol.
Your argument consistently seems to revolve around Liberalism not working because it has not reached its goals. But the exact same thing is true about revolutionary socialism so it is a poor argument.
Your next main argument is about how bad lesser evilism is because it leads to slow progress or no progress. Your absolutism leads to no progress or all the way. Well yours has accomplished no progress, to you that seems to be that you are only one step away from all the way, the rest of the world see's it as you are further away from your goal than liberalism is. And since your goals are even further than liberalism you are further away from them. Another poor argument.
Then your technique seems to rely on a mix of condescension or straight up insults to the people closest and most likely to join your cause. My guess is that is not working well since you have a ton of posts, they all seem along the same lines and no one seems to have joined. It also seems factually accurate that you would need more members of your cause to join than liberals need (like in the US they would need like 10-15% more of the population to make a lot of changes and you would need 60% more of the population). So recruiting and changing peoples minds would seemingly be a important part of achieving what it is you want. So why are you using a technique that is guaranteed to piss people off?
These are the reasons that I believe that many people accuse you of being a Republican or whatever. It fits more logically. That being said tons of people do not act rationally so that may not be the case. Just trying to explain why it is so common that people feel that way and say it to you.
I work with Trump voters and go to school with more. They do not treat the people they talk about politics that they disagree with as human beings. As bad as you think leftists talk about conservatives in this thread in real life they're much worse. They do not consider immigrants as human beings anymore. They haven't considered Muslims as human beings for 23 years now. Gay and trans people aren't just not human to them they're actively evil people that need to be removed from society.
Trump has conditioned his fans to not believe people are arguing with them in good faith and has lied so much and with so little regard to reality that it is impossible to reason with them. We work with entirely different sets of facts now in this country. Tariffs are something other nations pay for. The wall was going to be paid for by Mexico and be effective at stopping migration. You can easily and ethically seize and deport people who are here illegally back to the country they came from. People are going to die from the covid vaccine en mass but also trump is great for developing it so fast. The people who stormed the capital are both Antifa plants and are political hostages. George floyd died from an overdose and was a felon so he doesn't deserve pity. Any sort of prosecution for trumps crimes are lawfare, don't pay attention to the process or the evidence presented. Trump filled up the oil reserves when you can easily find out that he drew it down a lot. Taxes went up during bidens term when it was the tax plan that trump put into place. Tampons not being restricted to womens bathrooms is weird and funny. Hunter Bidens laptop being suppressed was government suppression of the truth even thought it was bidens team when he wasn't in the white house, but the supression of JD vances dossier on twitter is somehow perfectly find and not a problem. There was widespread election fraud but no evidence of it anywhere. You don't have to accept that you ever lose an election and disrupting the transfer of power isn't an issue, but directly comparing what trump says to what hitler said is an issue.
You look at BJ and you do not see someone who thinks of you as a human being worth respecting with a simple conversation. You look at oblade and you see someone who wants to just talk about thinks that no one is talking about.
You see GH trying to push away anyone that might support him as hard as possible and wondering why no one agrees with his violent revolution.
The problem isn't that we don't think of them as human beings its that we do think of them as human beings and are disappointed when they don't act like them. I'm a Christian that belives in christ when he told everyone that loving your neighbor was one of the two commandments that all others depended on. These people pretend to be Christians yet do not follow his teachings.
2. There's the notion that the status quo is imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within its own parameters (this would include reformism with socialism/communism as it's ultimate goal/ideal).
3. There's fear of people losing their comfort, social status, livelihoods, lives, etc.
4. There's the uncertainty that a revolution would be successful in overcoming the existing system that comes with fears of the consequences of a failed revolution (like the sacrifices being made in vain/retaliation for insolence).
5. There's fear of a successful revolution that removes the existing power structure only to replace it with something similar/worse.
And yet you show no understanding of any of these points being legitimate nor do you treat the people who believe these things with the respect you are entitled to. You deny electoralism as being a legitimate way to achieve your goals and constantly advocate for the abandonment of it. You harp all the time about how you don't think democrats have an issue with genocide and yet cannot provide an alternative to it past just letting trump genocide even harder. When was the last time you tried to argue with BJ or Oblade or provide any insight into an issue that wasn't exclusively anti democrat or anyone on the left side of the country?
Being able to recognize the pattern of what people tell you when they disagree with you is not understanding why people don't agree with you.
I don't know what you mean by "legitimate" in this context, but yeah, they are reasonable concerns I don't mind discussing (save for #1 because it's basically always engaged in bad faith in this context by right wingers that oppose it).
Electoralism is futile for a variety of reasons, but Trump destroying democracy would settle that.
The alternative was for voters that oppose genocide to pressure Democrats, Biden, and Harris to withdraw their support for genocide 10+ months ago before the first primary was even started. Instead you guys, and Democrats generally, immediately went the shame, blame and threaten route with the "just letting trump genocide even harder" trash.
Part of why I've been harping on all this stuff is so that if Harris does lose you guys can't pretend like you (and Dem voters generally) didn't defend/support Democrats being trash when you needed to be joining the people demanding better.
Especially when the bar is in Hell at not supporting a genocide that the majority of voters want them to stop supporting.
And this is the best example of you pushing away everyone who support you need to build with and not understand why no one wants to support your violent revolution. If Harris loses the leftists who voted for Jill stein will be blamed and the party will pivot right in order to win further elections. Jill stein took enough votes away in 2016 for trump to get elected, she didn't run in 2020 and biden got elected, now shes running again in 2024. You, and leftists like you, have spent the entire cycle being an incredible ass outright saying your intent is to help get trump elected and then rub it in peoples faces for the next four years again like you did something good or should be seen as the superior person. You are not coalition building, you are not building any support, you are only setting yourself up to be the scapegoat for everything that goes wrong under trump. If there is a revolution socialists are not going to be the people the democrat electorate goes to for leadership during it. They're going to be right alongside conservatives for who caused conditions to get so bad.
I know what you think you are doing but everyone has been incredibly patient for you to understand what you are actually doing.
Nothing GH has done indicates he has been trying to “help get Trump elected and rub it in people’s faces.”
It would have made more sense if he had. These 3 positions don't work together:
- electoralism is futile - lesser evil voting is wrong - not an accelarationist
If his goals cannot be achieved through electoralism, and he's not cheering for the worst possible electoral results to accelerate change through non-electoral means, what we're left with is "less misery in the short term costs nothing and impedes me in no way, but wanting it is wrong."
There's an implied false dichotomy between participating in flawed electoralism and overthrowing the system. There's nothing stopping you from both doing the former and attempting the latter, they're completely parallel choices. You can throw your molotovs 5 mins after having hedged on the non-fascist if you want to.
Not just my goals, but even modest liberal goals like ending the legalized and literal enslavement of US citizens can't be achieved through electoralism after over 100 years.
Lesser evil absolutism is wrong. It leaves one willing to vote for Hitler.
Accelerationism (on the left) assumes an inevitability of socialism that I personally think can easily be filled by fascists indefinitely, so I don't support it (among other reasons).
You have a ouroborous situation on your hands that you didn't address. I will engage with your slippery slope as is, even though there's no indication that Harris is more authoritarian or bloodthirsty than previous Democratic presidents.
Under your own framework where achieving meaningful goals is a fight that's entirely parallel to electoralism and Hitler+ beating Hitler doesn't improve the odds of that parallel struggle going your way - there's nothing left in the equation that would make wanting Hitler to beat Hitler+ wrong.
It could be wrong if tactically voting for Hitler prevents non-Hitler from having a chance (i.e. a modicum of faith in electoralism), and it could be wrong if the bigger short term misery of Hitler+ leads to a larger long term reward (i.e. accelerationism). You took those out.
You want to be left with "it's wrong because we should have overthrown the government long before even considering voting for Hitler, duh", but we haven't or there wouldn't have been such a vote choice and you've established that the supposed overthrow attempt has nothing to do with the vote.
To be clear, I'm not saying that in that situation you have a moral imperative to vote for Hitler over Hitler+. You don't. I've personally sat out a run-off election where I couldn't hold my nose and put the stamp on anyone (though I would argue the difference in foreseeable outcomes between the two was infinitely smaller than between Harris and Trump). However, I wouldn't have a leg to stand on if I were to deem those that did manage to hold their noses immoral.
I understand and share your frustration with where the Overton window is currently positioned, but the interesction of those 3 positions is a self-cannibalizing mess and needs revising. The most obvious fix is dropping "wanting less short term misery is wrong because Hitler".
More than 30 million early votes have been cast so far in the general election, according to the University of Florida’s Election Lab. Nearly 15 million of those ballots were cast in person, data from the lab showed.
Of those who have voted by party registration in certain states, 40.8 percent or nearly 6.7 million people were Democrats, compared to 35.8 percent or about 5.8 million who were Republicans, the data revealed. Female voters outpaced male voters by more than 10 percentage points, 54.2 percent to 43.9 percent, in Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia, according to the lab’s data.
The largest group of voters by age, per the data, were voters over 65 years old. They made up 45.6 percent of the arly ballots in Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Voters aged 41 to 65 years old came in second, accounting for 36.4 percent, the data showed.
Georgia and North Carolina have already had record-setting early voting numbers, as Georgia’s secretary of state said that first-day voting totals were more than double the record and North Carolina’s State Board of Elections announcing just days ago that it surpassed the 1 million ballot mark. North Carolina has already surged past its 2020 record for the first day of early voting.
I don't know how long it normally takes for Joe Rogan interview videos to be edited and uploaded, but I would expect the interview to be posted before Election Day.
On October 25 2024 09:03 Razyda wrote: I think you guys are wrong and it is big part of the reason why Dems are loosing this election. You just kind of conditioned to think that people will vote for Trump only because they are some kind of nazis, fascist, racist, transphobes. Meanwhile you have Kamala telling her actual supporters "I am speaking now" and Trump chatting up random people, or taking a stunt at McDonald. What I find funny about that is that Trump is pretending to care about average person, Democrats cant be bothered to do even that, all they do is grandstanding about the issues which maybe 10% population is giving damn about. Now you are unhappy with the current sate of things and you choose between someone who pretends to care about you and someone who cant be bothered to do even that. Meanwhile bunch of people who would rather vote for Trump than keep the status quo are getting actively alienated. And this are the people who will sway from Trump if he does some stupid sh...t. So yeah I think that his appearance on Joe Rogan is mistake (kind of unnecessary point of failure)
PS: just watched Piers Morgan uncensored (I like the idea of the show, hate the execution)
I work with Trump voters and go to school with more. They do not treat the people they talk about politics that they disagree with as human beings. As bad as you think leftists talk about conservatives in this thread in real life they're much worse. They do not consider immigrants as human beings anymore. They haven't considered Muslims as human beings for 23 years now. Gay and trans people aren't just not human to them they're actively evil people that need to be removed from society.
Trump has conditioned his fans to not believe people are arguing with them in good faith and has lied so much and with so little regard to reality that it is impossible to reason with them. We work with entirely different sets of facts now in this country. Tariffs are something other nations pay for. The wall was going to be paid for by Mexico and be effective at stopping migration. You can easily and ethically seize and deport people who are here illegally back to the country they came from. People are going to die from the covid vaccine en mass but also trump is great for developing it so fast. The people who stormed the capital are both Antifa plants and are political hostages. George floyd died from an overdose and was a felon so he doesn't deserve pity. Any sort of prosecution for trumps crimes are lawfare, don't pay attention to the process or the evidence presented. Trump filled up the oil reserves when you can easily find out that he drew it down a lot. Taxes went up during bidens term when it was the tax plan that trump put into place. Tampons not being restricted to womens bathrooms is weird and funny. Hunter Bidens laptop being suppressed was government suppression of the truth even thought it was bidens team when he wasn't in the white house, but the supression of JD vances dossier on twitter is somehow perfectly find and not a problem. There was widespread election fraud but no evidence of it anywhere. You don't have to accept that you ever lose an election and disrupting the transfer of power isn't an issue, but directly comparing what trump says to what hitler said is an issue.
You look at BJ and you do not see someone who thinks of you as a human being worth respecting with a simple conversation. You look at oblade and you see someone who wants to just talk about thinks that no one is talking about.
You see GH trying to push away anyone that might support him as hard as possible and wondering why no one agrees with his violent revolution.
The problem isn't that we don't think of them as human beings its that we do think of them as human beings and are disappointed when they don't act like them. I'm a Christian that belives in christ when he told everyone that loving your neighbor was one of the two commandments that all others depended on. These people pretend to be Christians yet do not follow his teachings.
2. There's the notion that the status quo is imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within its own parameters (this would include reformism with socialism/communism as it's ultimate goal/ideal).
3. There's fear of people losing their comfort, social status, livelihoods, lives, etc.
4. There's the uncertainty that a revolution would be successful in overcoming the existing system that comes with fears of the consequences of a failed revolution (like the sacrifices being made in vain/retaliation for insolence).
5. There's fear of a successful revolution that removes the existing power structure only to replace it with something similar/worse.
And yet you show no understanding of any of these points being legitimate nor do you treat the people who believe these things with the respect you are entitled to. You deny electoralism as being a legitimate way to achieve your goals and constantly advocate for the abandonment of it. You harp all the time about how you don't think democrats have an issue with genocide and yet cannot provide an alternative to it past just letting trump genocide even harder. When was the last time you tried to argue with BJ or Oblade or provide any insight into an issue that wasn't exclusively anti democrat or anyone on the left side of the country?
Being able to recognize the pattern of what people tell you when they disagree with you is not understanding why people don't agree with you.
I don't know what you mean by "legitimate" in this context, but yeah, they are reasonable concerns I don't mind discussing (save for #1 because it's basically always engaged in bad faith in this context by right wingers that oppose it).
Electoralism is futile for a variety of reasons, but Trump destroying democracy would settle that.
The alternative was for voters that oppose genocide to pressure Democrats, Biden, and Harris to withdraw their support for genocide 10+ months ago before the first primary was even started. Instead you guys, and Democrats generally, immediately went the shame, blame and threaten route with the "just letting trump genocide even harder" trash.
Part of why I've been harping on all this stuff is so that if Harris does lose you guys can't pretend like you (and Dem voters generally) didn't defend/support Democrats being trash when you needed to be joining the people demanding better.
Especially when the bar is in Hell at not supporting a genocide that the majority of voters want them to stop supporting.
And this is the best example of you pushing away everyone who support you need to build with and not understand why no one wants to support your violent revolution. If Harris loses the leftists who voted for Jill stein will be blamed and the party will pivot right in order to win further elections. Jill stein took enough votes away in 2016 for trump to get elected, she didn't run in 2020 and biden got elected, now shes running again in 2024. You, and leftists like you, have spent the entire cycle being an incredible ass outright saying your intent is to help get trump elected and then rub it in peoples faces for the next four years again like you did something good or should be seen as the superior person. You are not coalition building, you are not building any support, you are only setting yourself up to be the scapegoat for everything that goes wrong under trump. If there is a revolution socialists are not going to be the people the democrat electorate goes to for leadership during it. They're going to be right alongside conservatives for who caused conditions to get so bad.
I know what you think you are doing but everyone has been incredibly patient for you to understand what you are actually doing.
This is just the lib equivalent of the "libs being mean to me made me a Nazi" thing Republicans do. It's not people to your lefts' fault you and other Democrats support genocide and are willing to lose the election to prove it.
Its people to the lefts fault that Democrats lose elections, thats not an argument thats the effect of the green party existence. You hear entirely from green voters that they want kamala to lose and that they're going to "punish the democrats for supporting genocide". That punishment is letting trump win and letting Republicans pass republican legislature. I'm not the one being pushed off their position you are the one being pushed off the position of geting progressive policy advanced in the country. You are the one actively representing the position that trump should be elected because you think it will be better for the country if he wins.
I and others are trying to explain to you the consequences of your actions and you are refusing to acknowledge that you have agency.
On October 25 2024 09:03 Razyda wrote: I think you guys are wrong and it is big part of the reason why Dems are loosing this election. You just kind of conditioned to think that people will vote for Trump only because they are some kind of nazis, fascist, racist, transphobes. Meanwhile you have Kamala telling her actual supporters "I am speaking now" and Trump chatting up random people, or taking a stunt at McDonald. What I find funny about that is that Trump is pretending to care about average person, Democrats cant be bothered to do even that, all they do is grandstanding about the issues which maybe 10% population is giving damn about. Now you are unhappy with the current sate of things and you choose between someone who pretends to care about you and someone who cant be bothered to do even that. Meanwhile bunch of people who would rather vote for Trump than keep the status quo are getting actively alienated. And this are the people who will sway from Trump if he does some stupid sh...t. So yeah I think that his appearance on Joe Rogan is mistake (kind of unnecessary point of failure)
PS: just watched Piers Morgan uncensored (I like the idea of the show, hate the execution)
I work with Trump voters and go to school with more. They do not treat the people they talk about politics that they disagree with as human beings. As bad as you think leftists talk about conservatives in this thread in real life they're much worse. They do not consider immigrants as human beings anymore. They haven't considered Muslims as human beings for 23 years now. Gay and trans people aren't just not human to them they're actively evil people that need to be removed from society.
Trump has conditioned his fans to not believe people are arguing with them in good faith and has lied so much and with so little regard to reality that it is impossible to reason with them. We work with entirely different sets of facts now in this country. Tariffs are something other nations pay for. The wall was going to be paid for by Mexico and be effective at stopping migration. You can easily and ethically seize and deport people who are here illegally back to the country they came from. People are going to die from the covid vaccine en mass but also trump is great for developing it so fast. The people who stormed the capital are both Antifa plants and are political hostages. George floyd died from an overdose and was a felon so he doesn't deserve pity. Any sort of prosecution for trumps crimes are lawfare, don't pay attention to the process or the evidence presented. Trump filled up the oil reserves when you can easily find out that he drew it down a lot. Taxes went up during bidens term when it was the tax plan that trump put into place. Tampons not being restricted to womens bathrooms is weird and funny. Hunter Bidens laptop being suppressed was government suppression of the truth even thought it was bidens team when he wasn't in the white house, but the supression of JD vances dossier on twitter is somehow perfectly find and not a problem. There was widespread election fraud but no evidence of it anywhere. You don't have to accept that you ever lose an election and disrupting the transfer of power isn't an issue, but directly comparing what trump says to what hitler said is an issue.
You look at BJ and you do not see someone who thinks of you as a human being worth respecting with a simple conversation. You look at oblade and you see someone who wants to just talk about thinks that no one is talking about.
You see GH trying to push away anyone that might support him as hard as possible and wondering why no one agrees with his violent revolution.
The problem isn't that we don't think of them as human beings its that we do think of them as human beings and are disappointed when they don't act like them. I'm a Christian that belives in christ when he told everyone that loving your neighbor was one of the two commandments that all others depended on. These people pretend to be Christians yet do not follow his teachings.
2. There's the notion that the status quo is imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within its own parameters (this would include reformism with socialism/communism as it's ultimate goal/ideal).
3. There's fear of people losing their comfort, social status, livelihoods, lives, etc.
4. There's the uncertainty that a revolution would be successful in overcoming the existing system that comes with fears of the consequences of a failed revolution (like the sacrifices being made in vain/retaliation for insolence).
5. There's fear of a successful revolution that removes the existing power structure only to replace it with something similar/worse.
And yet you show no understanding of any of these points being legitimate nor do you treat the people who believe these things with the respect you are entitled to. You deny electoralism as being a legitimate way to achieve your goals and constantly advocate for the abandonment of it. You harp all the time about how you don't think democrats have an issue with genocide and yet cannot provide an alternative to it past just letting trump genocide even harder. When was the last time you tried to argue with BJ or Oblade or provide any insight into an issue that wasn't exclusively anti democrat or anyone on the left side of the country?
Being able to recognize the pattern of what people tell you when they disagree with you is not understanding why people don't agree with you.
I don't know what you mean by "legitimate" in this context, but yeah, they are reasonable concerns I don't mind discussing (save for #1 because it's basically always engaged in bad faith in this context by right wingers that oppose it).
Electoralism is futile for a variety of reasons, but Trump destroying democracy would settle that.
The alternative was for voters that oppose genocide to pressure Democrats, Biden, and Harris to withdraw their support for genocide 10+ months ago before the first primary was even started. Instead you guys, and Democrats generally, immediately went the shame, blame and threaten route with the "just letting trump genocide even harder" trash.
Part of why I've been harping on all this stuff is so that if Harris does lose you guys can't pretend like you (and Dem voters generally) didn't defend/support Democrats being trash when you needed to be joining the people demanding better.
Especially when the bar is in Hell at not supporting a genocide that the majority of voters want them to stop supporting.
And this is the best example of you pushing away everyone who support you need to build with and not understand why no one wants to support your violent revolution. If Harris loses the leftists who voted for Jill stein will be blamed and the party will pivot right in order to win further elections. Jill stein took enough votes away in 2016 for trump to get elected, she didn't run in 2020 and biden got elected, now shes running again in 2024. You, and leftists like you, have spent the entire cycle being an incredible ass outright saying your intent is to help get trump elected and then rub it in peoples faces for the next four years again like you did something good or should be seen as the superior person. You are not coalition building, you are not building any support, you are only setting yourself up to be the scapegoat for everything that goes wrong under trump. If there is a revolution socialists are not going to be the people the democrat electorate goes to for leadership during it. They're going to be right alongside conservatives for who caused conditions to get so bad.
I know what you think you are doing but everyone has been incredibly patient for you to understand what you are actually doing.
Nothing GH has done indicates he has been trying to “help get Trump elected and rub it in people’s faces.” You can’t just throw a tantrum about everyone that refuses to agree with you and then say ridiculous things that aren’t true.
My brother in christ he says it in the quote of the post you just replyed to. Please read the most basic context to what you talk about in the thread.
Part of why I've been harping on all this stuff is so that if Harris does lose you guys can't pretend like you (and Dem voters generally) didn't defend/support Democrats being trash when you needed to be joining the people demanding better.
Hes saying he wants to rub it in the faces of people after the election when Trump wins like he wants that the dems were trash and that they should have used their nonexistant power to "demand better". His entire positon has been to not vote for democrats his entire existance in the thread. Hes repetedly explained he lives in california where he belives he will be insulated from the effects of Trump being president and believes it will be a preferable outcome to harris winning.
On October 25 2024 07:44 Razyda wrote: Ok wild take, but I think Trump is making a mistake with Joe Rogan. He does well in hostile interviews, but I can easily see him relax and saying bunch of stupid shit in what is more of a friendly chat, than interview. Imo risk he didnt need to take.
What do you think might be something that Trump could say that could result in negative consequences for him?
This is somewhat unfair question as I cant predict future. However given how Trump sometimes wander off topic when he talks I can easily see him going like that for example: "we have to end this war, you know, there is lots of people dying you know, in war, which is horrible thing, people dying in war, like the one we had here against slavery, which we won, you know, and then freed all the slaves, because slavery was a horrible thing and wrong and also done wrong, I would do it much better"
It is not to say that he will say something like that, it is more of an example how I can see him mess up on Joe Rogan. I think he does much better job on avoiding stuff like that this election than he did in 2016 and 2020, and probably keep himself in check on interviews, but 2-3 hours of what is apparently friendly chat he may get relaxed and drop the guard.
On October 25 2024 09:03 Razyda wrote: I think you guys are wrong and it is big part of the reason why Dems are loosing this election. You just kind of conditioned to think that people will vote for Trump only because they are some kind of nazis, fascist, racist, transphobes. Meanwhile you have Kamala telling her actual supporters "I am speaking now" and Trump chatting up random people, or taking a stunt at McDonald. What I find funny about that is that Trump is pretending to care about average person, Democrats cant be bothered to do even that, all they do is grandstanding about the issues which maybe 10% population is giving damn about. Now you are unhappy with the current sate of things and you choose between someone who pretends to care about you and someone who cant be bothered to do even that. Meanwhile bunch of people who would rather vote for Trump than keep the status quo are getting actively alienated. And this are the people who will sway from Trump if he does some stupid sh...t. So yeah I think that his appearance on Joe Rogan is mistake (kind of unnecessary point of failure)
PS: just watched Piers Morgan uncensored (I like the idea of the show, hate the execution)
I dont know who the guy who is a friend of the Trump son is, but it is one of the most dangerous people I've ever seen.
What’s your proposed alternative?
Crazy idea, but how about thinking about them as human beings?
I work with Trump voters and go to school with more. They do not treat the people they talk about politics that they disagree with as human beings. As bad as you think leftists talk about conservatives in this thread in real life they're much worse. They do not consider immigrants as human beings anymore. They haven't considered Muslims as human beings for 23 years now. Gay and trans people aren't just not human to them they're actively evil people that need to be removed from society.
Trump has conditioned his fans to not believe people are arguing with them in good faith and has lied so much and with so little regard to reality that it is impossible to reason with them. We work with entirely different sets of facts now in this country. Tariffs are something other nations pay for. The wall was going to be paid for by Mexico and be effective at stopping migration. You can easily and ethically seize and deport people who are here illegally back to the country they came from. People are going to die from the covid vaccine en mass but also trump is great for developing it so fast. The people who stormed the capital are both Antifa plants and are political hostages. George floyd died from an overdose and was a felon so he doesn't deserve pity. Any sort of prosecution for trumps crimes are lawfare, don't pay attention to the process or the evidence presented. Trump filled up the oil reserves when you can easily find out that he drew it down a lot. Taxes went up during bidens term when it was the tax plan that trump put into place. Tampons not being restricted to womens bathrooms is weird and funny. Hunter Bidens laptop being suppressed was government suppression of the truth even thought it was bidens team when he wasn't in the white house, but the supression of JD vances dossier on twitter is somehow perfectly find and not a problem. There was widespread election fraud but no evidence of it anywhere. You don't have to accept that you ever lose an election and disrupting the transfer of power isn't an issue, but directly comparing what trump says to what hitler said is an issue.
You look at BJ and you do not see someone who thinks of you as a human being worth respecting with a simple conversation. You look at oblade and you see someone who wants to just talk about thinks that no one is talking about. You see GH trying to push away anyone that might support him as hard as possible and wondering why no one agrees with his violent revolution.
The problem isn't that we don't think of them as human beings its that we do think of them as human beings and are disappointed when they don't act like them. I'm a Christian that belives in christ when he told everyone that loving your neighbor was one of the two commandments that all others depended on. These people pretend to be Christians yet do not follow his teachings.
So you posted all that to prove my point and then extended "Trump voters" to "anyone who has a different opinion" because I dont think BJ and GH are Trump voters.
If proving your point ment "explaining why you can't expect it in return so theres no reason to bother". then yes I did prove your point. No I don't think BJ and GH are trump voters, I think they're both eager for the same outcome and are materially no different to the people of gaza but I don't think they're both voteing for Trump. If you mean "trump voters" in some sort of prerogative sense as being people who don't treat the people they interact with the respect you would treat someone if you thought they were a human being then yes.
Just look at oblade and his explanation about why he uses drumpf. He could use the smallest amount of effort to make the thread a better place to discuss for others. People are asking him to do the bare minimum of respect and its a bridge to far for him.
A better question than asking what Trump could say that would make Oblade or BJ vote for harris I think would be what could Trump say or do that would make GH, or leftists who think a trump presidency would be better for the nation long term, vote for harris.
EPT
