|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 03 2025 04:31 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2025 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:06 Magic Powers wrote:On October 03 2025 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 03:48 WombaT wrote:On October 03 2025 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 03:01 WombaT wrote:On October 03 2025 02:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Is it time for the Sartre quote yet? I know, deep down, you all are better than this...right? Better than what? Maybe I should have said "smarter" or "wiser"? You guys are getting played like a fiddle and somehow think you're winning despite your collective familiarity with the Sartre quote and having come to this general realization on your own multiple times. It's wandered from sensible, to funny, to questionable, to pathetic and seemingly pathological. It's honestly unsettling because it is a sort of microcosm of what Democrats are doing generally regarding Republicans with Dem leadership's strategy being " hope the Republicans do the right thing". See my previous post(s) on this exact topic. Many of us recognise the inherent insuitability of the Democratic Party to rein in the Fascism if the other lot are in power. Ergo, don’t put them in that position, because they will fail. You’re acting like this is news, or that other people who specifically warned about this exact scenario are being ‘played like fiddles’ You’re lecturing other people on naivety when your plan is: 1. GOP getting elected is no biggy 2. Because socialist revolution There’s not even a plan A there, never mind B thru C. But do feel free to lecture people for ‘gawking’ There's literally more people that think Democrats have a viable path forward if we support them than there are conservative posters. On October 03 2025 00:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2025 20:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 02 2025 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2025 06:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 02 2025 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2025 03:10 ChristianS wrote:[quote] + Show Spoiler +Sure, and I know GreenHorizons feels that way. I guess I was trying to engage with LibHorizons’ challenge (since you often seem frustrated that no one is willing to). Of course, the other reason they might hesitate to engage is because they know LH is a performance, not a true held belief (“bad faith,” someone might say) and they suspect you’ll use any resulting discussion as ammunition for your “stop voting for Democrats” hobby horse. Personally, I think the position you need to be attacking is not “the Democratic Party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them” (which hardly anybody seems to really buy anyway). It’s “there is no path forward and we can only watch the decline, maybe trying to protect our loved ones from the worst of it.” The “mocking and gawking” seems to me like a natural response if that’s your viewpoint. + Show Spoiler +
I mean, the thing about liberals is their politics is not particularly motivated by self-interest. There’s a kind of “noblesse oblige” to the whole faction. They tend to be pretty affluent, pretty white, and most of their moral commitments don’t particularly impact them personally. If you want to be uncharitable, you could accuse them of being motivated by the appeal of smug self-righteousness and the social standing obtainable through right-think. But in the last election they widely took the position “Donald Trump is an existential threat to our way of life, and if we don’t stop him he’ll create a fascist autocracy.” The general response was “fuck you, everybody hates you, go away and never come back.”
It’s not surprising that the response would be to politically disengage and say “well, we tried to tell you, now I guess we’ll all reap the consequences, you imbeciles,” is it? I’m not saying it’s the right response, or that we need to be more considerate of their feelings or something. But I don’t think there’s much to be accomplished by telling them to despair at the Democrats’ prospects right now. They’re in gallows-humor watch-the-world-burn mode because they’re *already* despairing.
I think you make some interesting points that are worth further investigation. I don't mind revisiting LH but I'd also like to gauge where we're really at first. Poll: I believeYou must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them
☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative
☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it
☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Is it possible that some of these poll options aren't mutually exclusive? For example, 2 and 4, or 3 and 4? It's possible. People are free to elaborate/articulate their own answer. ChristianS particular perspective is that 1 isn't where people here are at, so we can check that. If someone believes 1, 2, or 4 is the best way they would fulfil 3 they can just answer with 1, 2 or 4. 3. is basically just "I dunno, every family for themselves?" (or at least that's how I interpreted ChristianS there). It's rare for a poll be split almost perfectly across all 4 options. From a purely statistical standpoint, I think this is pretty neat, even if the sample size is currently just 14. No wonder there's so much agreement that the Republicans are terrible, yet far less agreement on how to actually move forwards and try to fix things in our country. Poll: I believeYou must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them
☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative
☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it
☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Yeah, I don't think anyone expected those results. You raise an interesting point. Typically everyone agreeing means the topic gets less attention and everyone disagreeing gets more. It's the opposite when it comes to how people that don't align with Republicans should move forward vs "Republicans are terrible" can't help yourselves/mock and gawk, that's worth examining closer. It's honestly very weird so many people responded and then chose not to discuss it all. Instead opting to argue with squirrels in the park. One frustration the poll shows that confirms my personal experience is that when I'm arguing in favor of socialism I'm arguing against some people that believe each answer (and some unlisted ones) and they each need to be convinced of different things. Let's say I agree that my plan sucks. I'm suggesting we (or just you guys among yourself since Kwark thinks this is about me and not our ability to influence our futures) discuss a better one instead of wasting time, reading, effort, typing, etc... on people who you all know their entire game is to bait you into their pointless bickering that only serves to make the people "arguing with squirrels" look ridiculous. I always tell others they need to be better than you in the aspect that they criticize about you. But the same goes for you. You can't demand from others to be better about something unless you're better about it first. I mean, lets be real. Your behavior isn't any more productive than anyone else's here. In terms of achieving change, neither is mine I'm guessing. Just saying. Which answer did you pick and why? And/Or Why didn't you choose any particular answer? And/Or What does your answer look like to you? And/or Is there a more custom answer you would have preferred be up there and why? I won't even opine myself if you all just discuss that for awhile. I might ask questions, but I would be fine being ignored for you to discuss it among yourselves. I chose "The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them". But it was a very close call between that and the socialist future option. I'd say the realist in me won this time. I believe you know my argumentation? I want more socialism in my own country, and if I was American I'd definitely want a lot more socialism. I also believe that voting Democrat as much as possible is the path towards more socialism in America. This is where you and I disagree. My preferred answer would be one that views Democrats as only a jumping-off-point. They're not the solution in and of itself, but they are useful. I think Democrats can be pressured into becoming more pro-socialism over time, by the same method that Republicans can be pressured into becoming less racist. That method is to keep voting for the lesser evil (which you disagree with). The lesser evil is Democrats. The next step is to vote for the lesser evil among Democrats. The reason why I think lesser-evilism is currently (!) the right choice is that I don't view Democrats as any worse than Republicans in any particular area. I don't think they're aiding and abetting fascists, I just think they lost their competence since Obama's era and they failed to deal with the Trump beast. They were caught off-guard by a variety of new phenomena. This doesn't make them evil (although some individual Dems are evil, I'm only describing Dems as a group), it makes them fallible people who have to learn. Though likely they'll also have to make way to a wave of new Democrats. That's a much bigger obstacle: some Dems (such as Biden) enjoy their power too much and ruin things for everyone. That's my somewhat nuanced take. I'll stop now, my comment is getting long.
Thank you for that.
I wonder if we could hear from one/some of the people (if they aren't right-wing) who chose "The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative" and/or "The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it"?
I also wonder if anyone else that chose the same answer as you has any significant (or not so significant) disagreements with your elaboration?
|
On October 03 2025 04:37 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2025 04:06 Magic Powers wrote:On October 03 2025 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 03:48 WombaT wrote:On October 03 2025 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 03:01 WombaT wrote:On October 03 2025 02:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Is it time for the Sartre quote yet? I know, deep down, you all are better than this...right? Better than what? Maybe I should have said "smarter" or "wiser"? You guys are getting played like a fiddle and somehow think you're winning despite your collective familiarity with the Sartre quote and having come to this general realization on your own multiple times. It's wandered from sensible, to funny, to questionable, to pathetic and seemingly pathological. It's honestly unsettling because it is a sort of microcosm of what Democrats are doing generally regarding Republicans with Dem leadership's strategy being " hope the Republicans do the right thing". See my previous post(s) on this exact topic. Many of us recognise the inherent insuitability of the Democratic Party to rein in the Fascism if the other lot are in power. Ergo, don’t put them in that position, because they will fail. You’re acting like this is news, or that other people who specifically warned about this exact scenario are being ‘played like fiddles’ You’re lecturing other people on naivety when your plan is: 1. GOP getting elected is no biggy 2. Because socialist revolution There’s not even a plan A there, never mind B thru C. But do feel free to lecture people for ‘gawking’ There's literally more people that think Democrats have a viable path forward if we support them than there are conservative posters. On October 03 2025 00:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2025 20:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 02 2025 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2025 06:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 02 2025 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2025 03:10 ChristianS wrote:On October 02 2025 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] That's sorta the point. If we actually think and talk about what Democrats should/could/would do it becomes pretty undeniably obvious they are a waste of our time. The things that even their steadfast supporters acknowledge need to be done and what Democrats are willing/capable of doing simply don't overlap. Confronting that contradiction is hard/scary so people are holding out on that with their typical mock and gawk until they can return to just thoughtlessly spamming variations of "vote blue no matter who or you're a MAGAt!" instead. + Show Spoiler +Sure, and I know GreenHorizons feels that way. I guess I was trying to engage with LibHorizons’ challenge (since you often seem frustrated that no one is willing to). Of course, the other reason they might hesitate to engage is because they know LH is a performance, not a true held belief (“bad faith,” someone might say) and they suspect you’ll use any resulting discussion as ammunition for your “stop voting for Democrats” hobby horse. Personally, I think the position you need to be attacking is not “the Democratic Party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them” (which hardly anybody seems to really buy anyway). It’s “there is no path forward and we can only watch the decline, maybe trying to protect our loved ones from the worst of it.” The “mocking and gawking” seems to me like a natural response if that’s your viewpoint. + Show Spoiler +
I mean, the thing about liberals is their politics is not particularly motivated by self-interest. There’s a kind of “noblesse oblige” to the whole faction. They tend to be pretty affluent, pretty white, and most of their moral commitments don’t particularly impact them personally. If you want to be uncharitable, you could accuse them of being motivated by the appeal of smug self-righteousness and the social standing obtainable through right-think. But in the last election they widely took the position “Donald Trump is an existential threat to our way of life, and if we don’t stop him he’ll create a fascist autocracy.” The general response was “fuck you, everybody hates you, go away and never come back.”
It’s not surprising that the response would be to politically disengage and say “well, we tried to tell you, now I guess we’ll all reap the consequences, you imbeciles,” is it? I’m not saying it’s the right response, or that we need to be more considerate of their feelings or something. But I don’t think there’s much to be accomplished by telling them to despair at the Democrats’ prospects right now. They’re in gallows-humor watch-the-world-burn mode because they’re *already* despairing.
I think you make some interesting points that are worth further investigation. I don't mind revisiting LH but I'd also like to gauge where we're really at first. Poll: I believeYou must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them
☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative
☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it
☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Is it possible that some of these poll options aren't mutually exclusive? For example, 2 and 4, or 3 and 4? It's possible. People are free to elaborate/articulate their own answer. ChristianS particular perspective is that 1 isn't where people here are at, so we can check that. If someone believes 1, 2, or 4 is the best way they would fulfil 3 they can just answer with 1, 2 or 4. 3. is basically just "I dunno, every family for themselves?" (or at least that's how I interpreted ChristianS there). It's rare for a poll be split almost perfectly across all 4 options. From a purely statistical standpoint, I think this is pretty neat, even if the sample size is currently just 14. No wonder there's so much agreement that the Republicans are terrible, yet far less agreement on how to actually move forwards and try to fix things in our country. Poll: I believeYou must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them
☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative
☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it
☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Yeah, I don't think anyone expected those results. You raise an interesting point. Typically everyone agreeing means the topic gets less attention and everyone disagreeing gets more. It's the opposite when it comes to how people that don't align with Republicans should move forward vs "Republicans are terrible" can't help yourselves/mock and gawk, that's worth examining closer. It's honestly very weird so many people responded and then chose not to discuss it all. Instead opting to argue with squirrels in the park. One frustration the poll shows that confirms my personal experience is that when I'm arguing in favor of socialism I'm arguing against some people that believe each answer (and some unlisted ones) and they each need to be convinced of different things. Let's say I agree that my plan sucks. I'm suggesting we (or just you guys among yourself since Kwark thinks this is about me and not our ability to influence our futures) discuss a better one instead of wasting time, reading, effort, typing, etc... on people who you all know their entire game is to bait you into their pointless bickering that only serves to make the people "arguing with squirrels" look ridiculous. I always tell others they need to be better than you in the aspect that they criticize about you. But the same goes for you. You can't demand from others to be better about something unless you're better about it first. I mean, lets be real. Your behavior isn't any more productive than anyone else's here. In terms of achieving change, neither is mine I'm guessing. Just saying. Ya never know. Perhaps there’s a political butterfly effect that compounds into something meaningful, all the way from the most useless Reddit interaction. Who knows? Maybe the person who read one of my posts 7 years ago repeated the gist to someone, who repeated the gist to someone, who ended up Galactic Overlord and is heavily WombaT influenced The idea that internet posting isn’t important is insane to me, given how that machinery is blatantly fuelling the worst of our politics. And, very obviously so. I mean it’s either irrelevant or it isn’t. I don’t think you can be concerned about the social media rigmarole and misinformation, while simultaneously thinking posting is pointless and doesn’t have influence, even if merely on aggregate. Those are contradictory ideas. GH just doesn’t play the game, and believes it’s their politics that are the problem, when they really aren’t. Basically they’ll post some complaints and then say they’re not being engaged. People will engage, earnestly, and give counterpoints and they’ll just dip and return to make the same initial complaints. And it’s super obvious to any regulars here. There’s a flurry of activity to complain we’re squirrel whisperers, radio silence for many critiques of what they’re actually saying, then the cycle repeats. They’ll make a claim like ‘the Trump admin’s Israel/Palestine policy isn’t all bad because it’s spurring Europe to action on Israel/Palestine’ which is utterly erroneous and showcases a complete ignorance of European politics and divergence on this topic, and historic policy and sentiment. To pick one of innumerable examples. That just happens to be one I know something about. Other people I’m sure have their own domains that they’ve some expertise on. Call them on it you get crickets. Tis a shame as I’d consider myself a socialist, but GH is as bad faith an interlocutor as you get. Or good faith, but a complete idiot at communicating versus anyone other than the already converted. Not like I didn’t give them the benefit of the doubt, way longer indeed than most other regulars. Which I’m sure many would attest to GH's ability to take a forum full of people who agree with him for most of his positions, and many who live in countries he would like to emulate, and turn all them against him really is a miracle of modern communication. You could probably write a master's thesis on it for some social study course.
|
United States43057 Posts
On October 03 2025 04:37 WombaT wrote:
The idea that internet posting isn’t important is insane to me, given how that machinery is blatantly fuelling the worst of our politics. And, very obviously so.
I mean it’s either irrelevant or it isn’t. I don’t think you can be concerned about the social media rigmarole and misinformation, while simultaneously thinking posting is pointless and doesn’t have influence, even if merely on aggregate. Those are contradictory ideas.
I disagree. If the problem were CO2 emissions then the impact of what we're doing on TL is about as impactful as an individual forgetting to use a reusable cotton shopping bag. Sure, you can say that CO2 is either irrelevant or it's not, but scale matters. We can identify that there is an important issue, and that there is technically a link between an activity and that issue, without assigning that activity more weight than it is worth.
Big picture, sure, internet idea spread is changing things. No argument there, you'd be insane to deny it, 100% right. You make a new youtube account and within a few videos it is putting right wing content in your feed. You watch a right wing video and it suggests more and pretty soon you're chanting that the Jews will not replace us.
But that's algorithms, influencer culture, big tech, botnets upvoting/retweeting content, Russian money flowing to DW people, and so forth.
What we're doing here is early 2000s era text posting on a forum dedicated to an ancient video game. We don't even have a feed here. None of us are doing shortform clickbait video content. It's just not relevant.
|
On October 03 2025 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2025 04:31 Magic Powers wrote:On October 03 2025 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:06 Magic Powers wrote:On October 03 2025 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 03:48 WombaT wrote:On October 03 2025 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 03:01 WombaT wrote:On October 03 2025 02:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Is it time for the Sartre quote yet? I know, deep down, you all are better than this...right? Better than what? Maybe I should have said "smarter" or "wiser"? You guys are getting played like a fiddle and somehow think you're winning despite your collective familiarity with the Sartre quote and having come to this general realization on your own multiple times. It's wandered from sensible, to funny, to questionable, to pathetic and seemingly pathological. It's honestly unsettling because it is a sort of microcosm of what Democrats are doing generally regarding Republicans with Dem leadership's strategy being " hope the Republicans do the right thing". See my previous post(s) on this exact topic. Many of us recognise the inherent insuitability of the Democratic Party to rein in the Fascism if the other lot are in power. Ergo, don’t put them in that position, because they will fail. You’re acting like this is news, or that other people who specifically warned about this exact scenario are being ‘played like fiddles’ You’re lecturing other people on naivety when your plan is: 1. GOP getting elected is no biggy 2. Because socialist revolution There’s not even a plan A there, never mind B thru C. But do feel free to lecture people for ‘gawking’ There's literally more people that think Democrats have a viable path forward if we support them than there are conservative posters. On October 03 2025 00:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2025 20:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 02 2025 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2025 06:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 02 2025 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] I think you make some interesting points that are worth further investigation. I don't mind revisiting LH but I'd also like to gauge where we're really at first. Poll: I believeYou must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them
☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative
☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it
☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Is it possible that some of these poll options aren't mutually exclusive? For example, 2 and 4, or 3 and 4? It's possible. People are free to elaborate/articulate their own answer. ChristianS particular perspective is that 1 isn't where people here are at, so we can check that. If someone believes 1, 2, or 4 is the best way they would fulfil 3 they can just answer with 1, 2 or 4. 3. is basically just "I dunno, every family for themselves?" (or at least that's how I interpreted ChristianS there). It's rare for a poll be split almost perfectly across all 4 options. From a purely statistical standpoint, I think this is pretty neat, even if the sample size is currently just 14. No wonder there's so much agreement that the Republicans are terrible, yet far less agreement on how to actually move forwards and try to fix things in our country. Poll: I believeYou must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them
☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative
☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it
☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Yeah, I don't think anyone expected those results. You raise an interesting point. Typically everyone agreeing means the topic gets less attention and everyone disagreeing gets more. It's the opposite when it comes to how people that don't align with Republicans should move forward vs "Republicans are terrible" can't help yourselves/mock and gawk, that's worth examining closer. It's honestly very weird so many people responded and then chose not to discuss it all. Instead opting to argue with squirrels in the park. One frustration the poll shows that confirms my personal experience is that when I'm arguing in favor of socialism I'm arguing against some people that believe each answer (and some unlisted ones) and they each need to be convinced of different things. Let's say I agree that my plan sucks. I'm suggesting we (or just you guys among yourself since Kwark thinks this is about me and not our ability to influence our futures) discuss a better one instead of wasting time, reading, effort, typing, etc... on people who you all know their entire game is to bait you into their pointless bickering that only serves to make the people "arguing with squirrels" look ridiculous. I always tell others they need to be better than you in the aspect that they criticize about you. But the same goes for you. You can't demand from others to be better about something unless you're better about it first. I mean, lets be real. Your behavior isn't any more productive than anyone else's here. In terms of achieving change, neither is mine I'm guessing. Just saying. Which answer did you pick and why? And/Or Why didn't you choose any particular answer? And/Or What does your answer look like to you? And/or Is there a more custom answer you would have preferred be up there and why? I won't even opine myself if you all just discuss that for awhile. I might ask questions, but I would be fine being ignored for you to discuss it among yourselves. I chose "The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them". But it was a very close call between that and the socialist future option. I'd say the realist in me won this time. I believe you know my argumentation? I want more socialism in my own country, and if I was American I'd definitely want a lot more socialism. I also believe that voting Democrat as much as possible is the path towards more socialism in America. This is where you and I disagree. My preferred answer would be one that views Democrats as only a jumping-off-point. They're not the solution in and of itself, but they are useful. I think Democrats can be pressured into becoming more pro-socialism over time, by the same method that Republicans can be pressured into becoming less racist. That method is to keep voting for the lesser evil (which you disagree with). The lesser evil is Democrats. The next step is to vote for the lesser evil among Democrats. The reason why I think lesser-evilism is currently (!) the right choice is that I don't view Democrats as any worse than Republicans in any particular area. I don't think they're aiding and abetting fascists, I just think they lost their competence since Obama's era and they failed to deal with the Trump beast. They were caught off-guard by a variety of new phenomena. This doesn't make them evil (although some individual Dems are evil, I'm only describing Dems as a group), it makes them fallible people who have to learn. Though likely they'll also have to make way to a wave of new Democrats. That's a much bigger obstacle: some Dems (such as Biden) enjoy their power too much and ruin things for everyone. That's my somewhat nuanced take. I'll stop now, my comment is getting long. Thank you for that. I wonder if we could hear from one/some of the people (if they aren't right-wing) who chose " The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative" and/or " The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it"? I also wonder if anyone else that chose the same answer as you has any significant (or not so significant) disagreements with your elaboration? I don't even see how the "The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative" even works because to me the statement itself is a contradiction.
We need a path to the left, and the democrats are not it. therefor we need to find a different party to be that path. A party that gets enough traction and voters to not just threaten, but beat the Democrats and replace them. But if such a voter block exists that can force that then that same voter block can also course correct the Democrats by working from within.
You can't have a situation where there is an untapped voter block big enough to beat the Democrats from the left but at the same time unable to move the Democrats themselves left.
|
Northern Ireland25800 Posts
On October 03 2025 04:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2025 04:37 WombaT wrote:
The idea that internet posting isn’t important is insane to me, given how that machinery is blatantly fuelling the worst of our politics. And, very obviously so.
I mean it’s either irrelevant or it isn’t. I don’t think you can be concerned about the social media rigmarole and misinformation, while simultaneously thinking posting is pointless and doesn’t have influence, even if merely on aggregate. Those are contradictory ideas. I disagree. If the problem were CO2 emissions then the impact of what we're doing on TL is about as impactful as an individual forgetting to use a reusable cotton shopping bag. Sure, you can say that CO2 is either irrelevant or it's not, but scale matters. We can identify that there is an important issue, and that there is technically a link between an activity and that issue, without assigning that activity more weight than it is worth. Big picture, sure, internet idea spread is changing things. No argument there, you'd be insane to deny it, 100% right. You make a new youtube account and within a few videos it is putting right wing content in your feed. You watch a right wing video and it suggests more and pretty soon you're chanting that the Jews will not replace us. But that's algorithms, influencer culture, big tech, botnets upvoting/retweeting content, Russian money flowing to DW people, and so forth. What we're doing here is early 2000s era text posting on a forum dedicated to an ancient video game. We don't even have a feed here. None of us are doing shortform clickbait video content. It's just not relevant.
Aye fair. But then if it’s irrelevant it doesn’t really matter if we spend our time arguing with squirrels or not
|
On October 03 2025 04:37 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2025 04:06 Magic Powers wrote:On October 03 2025 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 03:48 WombaT wrote:On October 03 2025 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 03:01 WombaT wrote:On October 03 2025 02:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Is it time for the Sartre quote yet? I know, deep down, you all are better than this...right? Better than what? Maybe I should have said "smarter" or "wiser"? You guys are getting played like a fiddle and somehow think you're winning despite your collective familiarity with the Sartre quote and having come to this general realization on your own multiple times. It's wandered from sensible, to funny, to questionable, to pathetic and seemingly pathological. It's honestly unsettling because it is a sort of microcosm of what Democrats are doing generally regarding Republicans with Dem leadership's strategy being " hope the Republicans do the right thing". See my previous post(s) on this exact topic. Many of us recognise the inherent insuitability of the Democratic Party to rein in the Fascism if the other lot are in power. Ergo, don’t put them in that position, because they will fail. You’re acting like this is news, or that other people who specifically warned about this exact scenario are being ‘played like fiddles’ You’re lecturing other people on naivety when your plan is: 1. GOP getting elected is no biggy 2. Because socialist revolution There’s not even a plan A there, never mind B thru C. But do feel free to lecture people for ‘gawking’ There's literally more people that think Democrats have a viable path forward if we support them than there are conservative posters. On October 03 2025 00:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2025 20:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 02 2025 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2025 06:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 02 2025 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2025 03:10 ChristianS wrote:On October 02 2025 01:10 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] That's sorta the point. If we actually think and talk about what Democrats should/could/would do it becomes pretty undeniably obvious they are a waste of our time. The things that even their steadfast supporters acknowledge need to be done and what Democrats are willing/capable of doing simply don't overlap. Confronting that contradiction is hard/scary so people are holding out on that with their typical mock and gawk until they can return to just thoughtlessly spamming variations of "vote blue no matter who or you're a MAGAt!" instead. + Show Spoiler +Sure, and I know GreenHorizons feels that way. I guess I was trying to engage with LibHorizons’ challenge (since you often seem frustrated that no one is willing to). Of course, the other reason they might hesitate to engage is because they know LH is a performance, not a true held belief (“bad faith,” someone might say) and they suspect you’ll use any resulting discussion as ammunition for your “stop voting for Democrats” hobby horse. Personally, I think the position you need to be attacking is not “the Democratic Party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them” (which hardly anybody seems to really buy anyway). It’s “there is no path forward and we can only watch the decline, maybe trying to protect our loved ones from the worst of it.” The “mocking and gawking” seems to me like a natural response if that’s your viewpoint. + Show Spoiler +
I mean, the thing about liberals is their politics is not particularly motivated by self-interest. There’s a kind of “noblesse oblige” to the whole faction. They tend to be pretty affluent, pretty white, and most of their moral commitments don’t particularly impact them personally. If you want to be uncharitable, you could accuse them of being motivated by the appeal of smug self-righteousness and the social standing obtainable through right-think. But in the last election they widely took the position “Donald Trump is an existential threat to our way of life, and if we don’t stop him he’ll create a fascist autocracy.” The general response was “fuck you, everybody hates you, go away and never come back.”
It’s not surprising that the response would be to politically disengage and say “well, we tried to tell you, now I guess we’ll all reap the consequences, you imbeciles,” is it? I’m not saying it’s the right response, or that we need to be more considerate of their feelings or something. But I don’t think there’s much to be accomplished by telling them to despair at the Democrats’ prospects right now. They’re in gallows-humor watch-the-world-burn mode because they’re *already* despairing.
I think you make some interesting points that are worth further investigation. I don't mind revisiting LH but I'd also like to gauge where we're really at first. Poll: I believeYou must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them
☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative
☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it
☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Is it possible that some of these poll options aren't mutually exclusive? For example, 2 and 4, or 3 and 4? It's possible. People are free to elaborate/articulate their own answer. ChristianS particular perspective is that 1 isn't where people here are at, so we can check that. If someone believes 1, 2, or 4 is the best way they would fulfil 3 they can just answer with 1, 2 or 4. 3. is basically just "I dunno, every family for themselves?" (or at least that's how I interpreted ChristianS there). It's rare for a poll be split almost perfectly across all 4 options. From a purely statistical standpoint, I think this is pretty neat, even if the sample size is currently just 14. No wonder there's so much agreement that the Republicans are terrible, yet far less agreement on how to actually move forwards and try to fix things in our country. Poll: I believeYou must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them
☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative
☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it
☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Yeah, I don't think anyone expected those results. You raise an interesting point. Typically everyone agreeing means the topic gets less attention and everyone disagreeing gets more. It's the opposite when it comes to how people that don't align with Republicans should move forward vs "Republicans are terrible" can't help yourselves/mock and gawk, that's worth examining closer. It's honestly very weird so many people responded and then chose not to discuss it all. Instead opting to argue with squirrels in the park. One frustration the poll shows that confirms my personal experience is that when I'm arguing in favor of socialism I'm arguing against some people that believe each answer (and some unlisted ones) and they each need to be convinced of different things. Let's say I agree that my plan sucks. I'm suggesting we (or just you guys among yourself since Kwark thinks this is about me and not our ability to influence our futures) discuss a better one instead of wasting time, reading, effort, typing, etc... on people who you all know their entire game is to bait you into their pointless bickering that only serves to make the people "arguing with squirrels" look ridiculous. I always tell others they need to be better than you in the aspect that they criticize about you. But the same goes for you. You can't demand from others to be better about something unless you're better about it first. I mean, lets be real. Your behavior isn't any more productive than anyone else's here. In terms of achieving change, neither is mine I'm guessing. Just saying. Ya never know. Perhaps there’s a political butterfly effect that compounds into something meaningful, all the way from the most useless Reddit interaction. Who knows? Maybe the person who read one of my posts 7 years ago repeated the gist to someone, who repeated the gist to someone, who ended up Galactic Overlord and is heavily WombaT influenced The idea that internet posting isn’t important is insane to me, given how that machinery is blatantly fuelling the worst of our politics. And, very obviously so. I mean it’s either irrelevant or it isn’t. I don’t think you can be concerned about the social media rigmarole and misinformation, while simultaneously thinking posting is pointless and doesn’t have influence, even if merely on aggregate. Those are contradictory ideas. GH just doesn’t play the game, and believes it’s their politics that are the problem, when they really aren’t. Basically they’ll post some complaints and then say they’re not being engaged. People will engage, earnestly, and give counterpoints and they’ll just dip and return to make the same initial complaints. And it’s super obvious to any regulars here. There’s a flurry of activity to complain we’re squirrel whisperers, radio silence for many critiques of what they’re actually saying, then the cycle repeats. They’ll make a claim like ‘the Trump admin’s Israel/Palestine policy isn’t all bad because it’s spurring Europe to action on Israel/Palestine’ which is utterly erroneous and showcases a complete ignorance of European politics and divergence on this topic, and historic policy and sentiment. To pick one of innumerable examples. That just happens to be one I know something about. Other people I’m sure have their own domains that they’ve some expertise on. Call them on it you get crickets. Tis a shame as I’d consider myself a socialist, but GH is as bad faith an interlocutor as you get. Or good faith, but a complete idiot at communicating versus anyone other than the already converted. Not like I didn’t give them the benefit of the doubt, way longer indeed than most other regulars. Which I’m sure many would attest to
I've previously called out GH and received silence in response. I know what you mean. But I don't view that as a problem, it's only human to respond in a way such as that considering how much flak people are dishing out. GH is, in my mind, at worst perhaps a nuisance, but at best an ally I have disagreements with. I don't believe anyone here or elsewhere whose vote matters will be deterred from voting Democrat in the Trump era because of GH. So it's worth keeping this ally on my side.
I strongly agree that discourse in this thread must have some kind of effect elsewhere politically. I don't delude myself into thinking it's a big impact, but I do believe the impact is greater than giving a single vote to a single candidate. And if only the effect is that my future votes will be more politically informed and thus more effective.
|
On October 03 2025 04:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2025 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:31 Magic Powers wrote:On October 03 2025 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:06 Magic Powers wrote:On October 03 2025 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 03:48 WombaT wrote:On October 03 2025 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 03:01 WombaT wrote:On October 03 2025 02:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Is it time for the Sartre quote yet? I know, deep down, you all are better than this...right? Better than what? Maybe I should have said "smarter" or "wiser"? You guys are getting played like a fiddle and somehow think you're winning despite your collective familiarity with the Sartre quote and having come to this general realization on your own multiple times. It's wandered from sensible, to funny, to questionable, to pathetic and seemingly pathological. It's honestly unsettling because it is a sort of microcosm of what Democrats are doing generally regarding Republicans with Dem leadership's strategy being " hope the Republicans do the right thing". See my previous post(s) on this exact topic. Many of us recognise the inherent insuitability of the Democratic Party to rein in the Fascism if the other lot are in power. Ergo, don’t put them in that position, because they will fail. You’re acting like this is news, or that other people who specifically warned about this exact scenario are being ‘played like fiddles’ You’re lecturing other people on naivety when your plan is: 1. GOP getting elected is no biggy 2. Because socialist revolution There’s not even a plan A there, never mind B thru C. But do feel free to lecture people for ‘gawking’ There's literally more people that think Democrats have a viable path forward if we support them than there are conservative posters. On October 03 2025 00:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2025 20:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 02 2025 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2025 06:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Is it possible that some of these poll options aren't mutually exclusive? For example, 2 and 4, or 3 and 4? It's possible. People are free to elaborate/articulate their own answer. ChristianS particular perspective is that 1 isn't where people here are at, so we can check that. If someone believes 1, 2, or 4 is the best way they would fulfil 3 they can just answer with 1, 2 or 4. 3. is basically just "I dunno, every family for themselves?" (or at least that's how I interpreted ChristianS there). It's rare for a poll be split almost perfectly across all 4 options. From a purely statistical standpoint, I think this is pretty neat, even if the sample size is currently just 14. No wonder there's so much agreement that the Republicans are terrible, yet far less agreement on how to actually move forwards and try to fix things in our country. Poll: I believeYou must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them
☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative
☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it
☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Yeah, I don't think anyone expected those results. You raise an interesting point. Typically everyone agreeing means the topic gets less attention and everyone disagreeing gets more. It's the opposite when it comes to how people that don't align with Republicans should move forward vs "Republicans are terrible" can't help yourselves/mock and gawk, that's worth examining closer. It's honestly very weird so many people responded and then chose not to discuss it all. Instead opting to argue with squirrels in the park. One frustration the poll shows that confirms my personal experience is that when I'm arguing in favor of socialism I'm arguing against some people that believe each answer (and some unlisted ones) and they each need to be convinced of different things. Let's say I agree that my plan sucks. I'm suggesting we (or just you guys among yourself since Kwark thinks this is about me and not our ability to influence our futures) discuss a better one instead of wasting time, reading, effort, typing, etc... on people who you all know their entire game is to bait you into their pointless bickering that only serves to make the people "arguing with squirrels" look ridiculous. I always tell others they need to be better than you in the aspect that they criticize about you. But the same goes for you. You can't demand from others to be better about something unless you're better about it first. I mean, lets be real. Your behavior isn't any more productive than anyone else's here. In terms of achieving change, neither is mine I'm guessing. Just saying. Which answer did you pick and why? And/Or Why didn't you choose any particular answer? And/Or What does your answer look like to you? And/or Is there a more custom answer you would have preferred be up there and why? I won't even opine myself if you all just discuss that for awhile. I might ask questions, but I would be fine being ignored for you to discuss it among yourselves. I chose "The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them". But it was a very close call between that and the socialist future option. I'd say the realist in me won this time. I believe you know my argumentation? I want more socialism in my own country, and if I was American I'd definitely want a lot more socialism. I also believe that voting Democrat as much as possible is the path towards more socialism in America. This is where you and I disagree. My preferred answer would be one that views Democrats as only a jumping-off-point. They're not the solution in and of itself, but they are useful. I think Democrats can be pressured into becoming more pro-socialism over time, by the same method that Republicans can be pressured into becoming less racist. That method is to keep voting for the lesser evil (which you disagree with). The lesser evil is Democrats. The next step is to vote for the lesser evil among Democrats. The reason why I think lesser-evilism is currently (!) the right choice is that I don't view Democrats as any worse than Republicans in any particular area. I don't think they're aiding and abetting fascists, I just think they lost their competence since Obama's era and they failed to deal with the Trump beast. They were caught off-guard by a variety of new phenomena. This doesn't make them evil (although some individual Dems are evil, I'm only describing Dems as a group), it makes them fallible people who have to learn. Though likely they'll also have to make way to a wave of new Democrats. That's a much bigger obstacle: some Dems (such as Biden) enjoy their power too much and ruin things for everyone. That's my somewhat nuanced take. I'll stop now, my comment is getting long. Thank you for that. I wonder if we could hear from one/some of the people (if they aren't right-wing) who chose " The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative" and/or " The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it"? I also wonder if anyone else that chose the same answer as you has any significant (or not so significant) disagreements with your elaboration? I don't even see how the "The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative" even works because to me the statement itself is a contradiction. We need a path to the left, and the democrats are not it. therefor we need to find a different party to be that path. A party that gets enough traction and voters to not just threaten, but beat the Democrats and replace them. But if such a voter block exists that can force that then that same voter block can also course correct the Democrats by working from within. You can't have a situation where there is an untapped voter block big enough to beat the Democrats from the left but at the same time unable to move the Democrats themselves left.
Thank you for that. Can we infer from that information that you also chose "The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them"?
I didn't choose "No viable path for Democrats..." myself, but I do wonder if someone that did wants to address your concerns/points?
|
United States43057 Posts
On October 03 2025 05:00 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2025 04:50 KwarK wrote:On October 03 2025 04:37 WombaT wrote:
The idea that internet posting isn’t important is insane to me, given how that machinery is blatantly fuelling the worst of our politics. And, very obviously so.
I mean it’s either irrelevant or it isn’t. I don’t think you can be concerned about the social media rigmarole and misinformation, while simultaneously thinking posting is pointless and doesn’t have influence, even if merely on aggregate. Those are contradictory ideas. I disagree. If the problem were CO2 emissions then the impact of what we're doing on TL is about as impactful as an individual forgetting to use a reusable cotton shopping bag. Sure, you can say that CO2 is either irrelevant or it's not, but scale matters. We can identify that there is an important issue, and that there is technically a link between an activity and that issue, without assigning that activity more weight than it is worth. Big picture, sure, internet idea spread is changing things. No argument there, you'd be insane to deny it, 100% right. You make a new youtube account and within a few videos it is putting right wing content in your feed. You watch a right wing video and it suggests more and pretty soon you're chanting that the Jews will not replace us. But that's algorithms, influencer culture, big tech, botnets upvoting/retweeting content, Russian money flowing to DW people, and so forth. What we're doing here is early 2000s era text posting on a forum dedicated to an ancient video game. We don't even have a feed here. None of us are doing shortform clickbait video content. It's just not relevant. Aye fair. But then if it’s irrelevant it doesn’t really matter if we spend our time arguing with squirrels or not
Literally my point.
But as I think about the climate change metaphor it becomes more obviously applicable to GH. He’s the guy who walks into a room full of people, all of whom believe in climate change and have taken steps to reduce emissions, and demands to know what they’re doing to solve it. Who shames anyone taking the bus when they could cycle. Who attempts to hold random allies personally accountable for there still being a problem, despite the scale of the problem being vastly beyond what any individual could solve. He takes a systemic issue and turns it into a personal crusade. And he does all this without making any attempt to lead by example, he doesn’t meet the standard he holds others to, he doesn’t even meet the standard set by the allies he constantly attacks.
In short, an asshole. That’s why he can’t seem to find agreement in a room full of allies.
|
On October 03 2025 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2025 04:59 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2025 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:31 Magic Powers wrote:On October 03 2025 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:06 Magic Powers wrote:On October 03 2025 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 03:48 WombaT wrote:On October 03 2025 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 03:01 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Better than what? Maybe I should have said "smarter" or "wiser"? You guys are getting played like a fiddle and somehow think you're winning despite your collective familiarity with the Sartre quote and having come to this general realization on your own multiple times. It's wandered from sensible, to funny, to questionable, to pathetic and seemingly pathological. It's honestly unsettling because it is a sort of microcosm of what Democrats are doing generally regarding Republicans with Dem leadership's strategy being " hope the Republicans do the right thing". See my previous post(s) on this exact topic. Many of us recognise the inherent insuitability of the Democratic Party to rein in the Fascism if the other lot are in power. Ergo, don’t put them in that position, because they will fail. You’re acting like this is news, or that other people who specifically warned about this exact scenario are being ‘played like fiddles’ You’re lecturing other people on naivety when your plan is: 1. GOP getting elected is no biggy 2. Because socialist revolution There’s not even a plan A there, never mind B thru C. But do feel free to lecture people for ‘gawking’ There's literally more people that think Democrats have a viable path forward if we support them than there are conservative posters. On October 03 2025 00:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2025 20:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 02 2025 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]It's possible. People are free to elaborate/articulate their own answer. ChristianS particular perspective is that 1 isn't where people here are at, so we can check that. If someone believes 1, 2, or 4 is the best way they would fulfil 3 they can just answer with 1, 2 or 4.
3. is basically just "I dunno, every family for themselves?" (or at least that's how I interpreted ChristianS there).
It's rare for a poll be split almost perfectly across all 4 options. From a purely statistical standpoint, I think this is pretty neat, even if the sample size is currently just 14. No wonder there's so much agreement that the Republicans are terrible, yet far less agreement on how to actually move forwards and try to fix things in our country. Poll: I believeYou must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them
☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative
☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it
☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Yeah, I don't think anyone expected those results. You raise an interesting point. Typically everyone agreeing means the topic gets less attention and everyone disagreeing gets more. It's the opposite when it comes to how people that don't align with Republicans should move forward vs "Republicans are terrible" can't help yourselves/mock and gawk, that's worth examining closer. It's honestly very weird so many people responded and then chose not to discuss it all. Instead opting to argue with squirrels in the park. One frustration the poll shows that confirms my personal experience is that when I'm arguing in favor of socialism I'm arguing against some people that believe each answer (and some unlisted ones) and they each need to be convinced of different things. Let's say I agree that my plan sucks. I'm suggesting we (or just you guys among yourself since Kwark thinks this is about me and not our ability to influence our futures) discuss a better one instead of wasting time, reading, effort, typing, etc... on people who you all know their entire game is to bait you into their pointless bickering that only serves to make the people "arguing with squirrels" look ridiculous. I always tell others they need to be better than you in the aspect that they criticize about you. But the same goes for you. You can't demand from others to be better about something unless you're better about it first. I mean, lets be real. Your behavior isn't any more productive than anyone else's here. In terms of achieving change, neither is mine I'm guessing. Just saying. Which answer did you pick and why? And/Or Why didn't you choose any particular answer? And/Or What does your answer look like to you? And/or Is there a more custom answer you would have preferred be up there and why? I won't even opine myself if you all just discuss that for awhile. I might ask questions, but I would be fine being ignored for you to discuss it among yourselves. I chose "The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them". But it was a very close call between that and the socialist future option. I'd say the realist in me won this time. I believe you know my argumentation? I want more socialism in my own country, and if I was American I'd definitely want a lot more socialism. I also believe that voting Democrat as much as possible is the path towards more socialism in America. This is where you and I disagree. My preferred answer would be one that views Democrats as only a jumping-off-point. They're not the solution in and of itself, but they are useful. I think Democrats can be pressured into becoming more pro-socialism over time, by the same method that Republicans can be pressured into becoming less racist. That method is to keep voting for the lesser evil (which you disagree with). The lesser evil is Democrats. The next step is to vote for the lesser evil among Democrats. The reason why I think lesser-evilism is currently (!) the right choice is that I don't view Democrats as any worse than Republicans in any particular area. I don't think they're aiding and abetting fascists, I just think they lost their competence since Obama's era and they failed to deal with the Trump beast. They were caught off-guard by a variety of new phenomena. This doesn't make them evil (although some individual Dems are evil, I'm only describing Dems as a group), it makes them fallible people who have to learn. Though likely they'll also have to make way to a wave of new Democrats. That's a much bigger obstacle: some Dems (such as Biden) enjoy their power too much and ruin things for everyone. That's my somewhat nuanced take. I'll stop now, my comment is getting long. Thank you for that. I wonder if we could hear from one/some of the people (if they aren't right-wing) who chose " The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative" and/or " The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it"? I also wonder if anyone else that chose the same answer as you has any significant (or not so significant) disagreements with your elaboration? I don't even see how the "The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative" even works because to me the statement itself is a contradiction. We need a path to the left, and the democrats are not it. therefor we need to find a different party to be that path. A party that gets enough traction and voters to not just threaten, but beat the Democrats and replace them. But if such a voter block exists that can force that then that same voter block can also course correct the Democrats by working from within. You can't have a situation where there is an untapped voter block big enough to beat the Democrats from the left but at the same time unable to move the Democrats themselves left. Thank you for that. Can we infer from that information that you also chose " The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them"? I didn't choose " No viable path for Democrats..." myself, but I do wonder if someone that did wants to address your concerns/points? Oh hell no, America is deeply fucked. It is in general deeply conservative and deeply racist (or at best is ok with people around them being deeply racist) and the progressives that would love to pull the country to the left either don't exist as a group large enough to force an influence or can't be arsed to go and vote.
As far as I'm concerned Ideocracy has gone from being a parody, to a warning, to becoming a hopeful vision of the future, because atleast the people there were smart enough to recognise an 'expert' and turn to him for advise, which is more then can be said for current day America.
|
On October 03 2025 03:10 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2025 02:55 Billyboy wrote:On October 03 2025 02:47 LightSpectra wrote:
I don't think censorship is the right approach either, but "let people with objectively false opinions make fools of themselves" is obviously not working as a strategy. Flat earthism is on the rise. Holocaust denial is on the rise. Anti-vaxism is on the rise. The number of people who think chocolate milk comes from brown cows is on the rise. Disinformation is winning the war. We really need an unbiased, non politized center of truth so that people can all agree on them and then work from them to find solutions to our problems. Those can differ based on opinions and methods, and political leanings but the facts should not. The problem is that any center of truth is going to appear left leaning at this point because people on the right are currently believing a lot of unproven or unproveable things and no center of truth can have anything faith based. Anyone who figures out a successful strategy to combat disinformation will genuinely be heralded as the savior of civilization. I saw an article in Ars Technica recently that said prebunking (information campaigns before disinformation has a chance to flourish) has shown some promise against election denialism, but it's unclear how to use the same tactics to fight anti-vaxxers and whatnot.
It would be phenomenal if they did. That is an interesting study, hopefully with more and more there can be an effective strategy. My big fear is that any time I have personally had any effect debunking something, that person still believes their sources on basically everything else and then eventually gets pulled back into whatever was debunked. It is very frustrating. I'm wondering how long the predebunking effectiveness holds when people are bombarded through their social media?
On October 03 2025 03:24 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2025 03:01 Billyboy wrote:On October 03 2025 02:57 oBlade wrote:On October 03 2025 02:20 Billyboy wrote:On October 02 2025 22:50 Uldridge wrote:On October 02 2025 22:41 KwarK wrote:On October 02 2025 22:29 Razyda wrote:On October 02 2025 22:10 Uldridge wrote:
What do you think the classifier Liberal means? At this point in time I would say: Very Liberal - people who openly celebrated Kirk death, Liberal - the ones that try to gaslight themselves and others that their nazi/fascist rhetorics is not the cause, and they themselves are therefore not to blame (There is shred of sanity remaining in them, which makes them somewhat uncomfortable with saying murder is good, not enough though to admit that they may be partially responsible. End of the day they are the good guys, so cant do anything morally wrong) You’re allowed to say no bud. You don’t have to literally show us that you don’t understand what it means. I think answer displays to everyone here that this person should not be taken seriously, even if that already was more or less the case. Just lacking any substance whatsoever. I'm not really arguing with you, but he is very representative of that group of people. Also, from what I can tell he authentically believes what he writes. So if you want to talk to someone that supports MAGA, and MAGAish things, then he's your guy. You are not going to find better, my experience (which is lengthy) is this is what you get. On October 03 2025 01:53 oBlade wrote:On October 03 2025 01:39 KwarK wrote:On October 02 2025 23:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Razyda saying "conservatives are your Jews" is wild. What gets me is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is wrong with the Holocaust. They literally don't get why it is bad. The Nazis asserted that Jews were poisoning the nation and, if left unchecked, would destroy the German people. They asserted that by fighting the Jews they were really acting legitimately and legally in self defence. The critical issue with their assertion is that they made the whole thing up. Jews weren't destroying Germany, Nazis were destroying Germany and blaming Jews. It's like a guilty man insisting that his incarceration is basically the same as Nelson Mandela's. The comparison works as long as you have absolutely no understanding of why it was wrong to imprison Nelson Mandela. I actually think the Holocaust is bad whether or not the Nazis had been right (which they thought they were) instead of having made the whole thing up. I'm guessing this is why you are so upset with the inhumane condition that the illegals ICE are rounding up are kept in. Because even if they are illegal they still deserve respect and human dignity, right? Respect, no, dignity, yes. Have you ever stopped once to ponder the question why or how there are so many illegal immigrants that the US government would be space constrained in some cases with the logistics of fixing the problem? No, I'm confident it is because where they are from is awful and there are plenty of jobs for them that pay better in the US. I also know there are many more cost effective, and humane, ways to deal with immigration. That's their perspective. Why would the US government, increasingly in the hands of radical open borders free trade corporatists, have allowed them to constantly come and settle? Why let that happen? Are they really into the workers' revolution and wanted to allow more workers in to help the Americans to get that going? They really want to share the plenty of high paying jobs out of the goodness of their heart - perhaps even pay them more than native citizens - something like that?
First I think it is funny how treating people humanely was only important until you had a space issue, I'm guessing the Nazi's had the same space issue and also no one was willing to take Jews for deportations, so really what were they to do?
I'm not familiar with most of your word salad. But I'm guessing that this round of Trumps border security will be as effective and cost efficient as his wall paid for by Mexico was. Which used to be super necessary and for some reason now is completely unmentioned.
I get that you are part of the religion of Trump. But do you really think that spending all that money and get massive resistance from the populous is a good use of the resources Trump has? Wouldn't clearing out all the immigrants from places friendly to him (and much more saturated), then being way more awesome than places that had not lead to more people being on board? Could it be possible that your dear leader actually does not care about the issue at all (and never has) but just wants people mad because he thrives in the chaos?
|
On October 03 2025 05:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2025 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:59 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2025 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:31 Magic Powers wrote:On October 03 2025 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:06 Magic Powers wrote:On October 03 2025 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 03:48 WombaT wrote:On October 03 2025 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Maybe I should have said "smarter" or "wiser"? You guys are getting played like a fiddle and somehow think you're winning despite your collective familiarity with the Sartre quote and having come to this general realization on your own multiple times. It's wandered from sensible, to funny, to questionable, to pathetic and seemingly pathological. It's honestly unsettling because it is a sort of microcosm of what Democrats are doing generally regarding Republicans with Dem leadership's strategy being " hope the Republicans do the right thing". See my previous post(s) on this exact topic. Many of us recognise the inherent insuitability of the Democratic Party to rein in the Fascism if the other lot are in power. Ergo, don’t put them in that position, because they will fail. You’re acting like this is news, or that other people who specifically warned about this exact scenario are being ‘played like fiddles’ You’re lecturing other people on naivety when your plan is: 1. GOP getting elected is no biggy 2. Because socialist revolution There’s not even a plan A there, never mind B thru C. But do feel free to lecture people for ‘gawking’ There's literally more people that think Democrats have a viable path forward if we support them than there are conservative posters. On October 03 2025 00:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2025 20:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
It's rare for a poll be split almost perfectly across all 4 options. From a purely statistical standpoint, I think this is pretty neat, even if the sample size is currently just 14. No wonder there's so much agreement that the Republicans are terrible, yet far less agreement on how to actually move forwards and try to fix things in our country. Poll: I believeYou must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them
☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative
☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it
☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Yeah, I don't think anyone expected those results. You raise an interesting point. Typically everyone agreeing means the topic gets less attention and everyone disagreeing gets more. It's the opposite when it comes to how people that don't align with Republicans should move forward vs "Republicans are terrible" can't help yourselves/mock and gawk, that's worth examining closer. It's honestly very weird so many people responded and then chose not to discuss it all. Instead opting to argue with squirrels in the park. One frustration the poll shows that confirms my personal experience is that when I'm arguing in favor of socialism I'm arguing against some people that believe each answer (and some unlisted ones) and they each need to be convinced of different things. Let's say I agree that my plan sucks. I'm suggesting we (or just you guys among yourself since Kwark thinks this is about me and not our ability to influence our futures) discuss a better one instead of wasting time, reading, effort, typing, etc... on people who you all know their entire game is to bait you into their pointless bickering that only serves to make the people "arguing with squirrels" look ridiculous. I always tell others they need to be better than you in the aspect that they criticize about you. But the same goes for you. You can't demand from others to be better about something unless you're better about it first. I mean, lets be real. Your behavior isn't any more productive than anyone else's here. In terms of achieving change, neither is mine I'm guessing. Just saying. Which answer did you pick and why? And/Or Why didn't you choose any particular answer? And/Or What does your answer look like to you? And/or Is there a more custom answer you would have preferred be up there and why? I won't even opine myself if you all just discuss that for awhile. I might ask questions, but I would be fine being ignored for you to discuss it among yourselves. I chose "The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them". But it was a very close call between that and the socialist future option. I'd say the realist in me won this time. I believe you know my argumentation? I want more socialism in my own country, and if I was American I'd definitely want a lot more socialism. I also believe that voting Democrat as much as possible is the path towards more socialism in America. This is where you and I disagree. My preferred answer would be one that views Democrats as only a jumping-off-point. They're not the solution in and of itself, but they are useful. I think Democrats can be pressured into becoming more pro-socialism over time, by the same method that Republicans can be pressured into becoming less racist. That method is to keep voting for the lesser evil (which you disagree with). The lesser evil is Democrats. The next step is to vote for the lesser evil among Democrats. The reason why I think lesser-evilism is currently (!) the right choice is that I don't view Democrats as any worse than Republicans in any particular area. I don't think they're aiding and abetting fascists, I just think they lost their competence since Obama's era and they failed to deal with the Trump beast. They were caught off-guard by a variety of new phenomena. This doesn't make them evil (although some individual Dems are evil, I'm only describing Dems as a group), it makes them fallible people who have to learn. Though likely they'll also have to make way to a wave of new Democrats. That's a much bigger obstacle: some Dems (such as Biden) enjoy their power too much and ruin things for everyone. That's my somewhat nuanced take. I'll stop now, my comment is getting long. Thank you for that. I wonder if we could hear from one/some of the people (if they aren't right-wing) who chose " The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative" and/or " The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it"? I also wonder if anyone else that chose the same answer as you has any significant (or not so significant) disagreements with your elaboration? I don't even see how the "The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative" even works because to me the statement itself is a contradiction. We need a path to the left, and the democrats are not it. therefor we need to find a different party to be that path. A party that gets enough traction and voters to not just threaten, but beat the Democrats and replace them. But if such a voter block exists that can force that then that same voter block can also course correct the Democrats by working from within. You can't have a situation where there is an untapped voter block big enough to beat the Democrats from the left but at the same time unable to move the Democrats themselves left. Thank you for that. Can we infer from that information that you also chose " The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them"? I didn't choose " No viable path for Democrats..." myself, but I do wonder if someone that did wants to address your concerns/points? Oh hell no, America is deeply fucked. It is in general deeply conservative and deeply racist (or at best is ok with people around them being deeply racist) and the progressives that would love to pull the country to the left either don't exist as a group large enough to force an influence or can't be arsed to go and vote. As far as I'm concerned Ideocracy has gone from being a parody, to a warning, to becoming a hopeful vision of the future, because atleast the people there were smart enough to recognise an 'expert' and turn to him for advise, which is more then can be said for current day America.
Guessing this means you went with "The US has no viable path forward..."?
Is what Gors is saying here what the people that chose that answer had in mind?
Anyone that chose "Democrats have a viable path..." want to disagree?
|
The Schumer Democrats will secretly want to kick people off healthcare. They aren't a radical left, they are also paid for by billionaires and their kids need jobs at google too.
They will offer any deal to be part of the game, I don't know if the US is past the point of needing an actual opposition.
They could solve the shutdown.. but they want to just blame democrats until the Army is ready to be deployed and remove them from offices.
Trump has threaten any military leaders, if you are not loyal to MEEEEEE, you get fired. Even annoying Orange-Musolini will have that effect.
|
On October 03 2025 05:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2025 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:59 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2025 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:31 Magic Powers wrote:On October 03 2025 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:06 Magic Powers wrote:On October 03 2025 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 03:48 WombaT wrote:On October 03 2025 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Maybe I should have said "smarter" or "wiser"? You guys are getting played like a fiddle and somehow think you're winning despite your collective familiarity with the Sartre quote and having come to this general realization on your own multiple times. It's wandered from sensible, to funny, to questionable, to pathetic and seemingly pathological. It's honestly unsettling because it is a sort of microcosm of what Democrats are doing generally regarding Republicans with Dem leadership's strategy being " hope the Republicans do the right thing". See my previous post(s) on this exact topic. Many of us recognise the inherent insuitability of the Democratic Party to rein in the Fascism if the other lot are in power. Ergo, don’t put them in that position, because they will fail. You’re acting like this is news, or that other people who specifically warned about this exact scenario are being ‘played like fiddles’ You’re lecturing other people on naivety when your plan is: 1. GOP getting elected is no biggy 2. Because socialist revolution There’s not even a plan A there, never mind B thru C. But do feel free to lecture people for ‘gawking’ There's literally more people that think Democrats have a viable path forward if we support them than there are conservative posters. On October 03 2025 00:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2025 20:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
It's rare for a poll be split almost perfectly across all 4 options. From a purely statistical standpoint, I think this is pretty neat, even if the sample size is currently just 14. No wonder there's so much agreement that the Republicans are terrible, yet far less agreement on how to actually move forwards and try to fix things in our country. Poll: I believeYou must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them
☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative
☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it
☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Yeah, I don't think anyone expected those results. You raise an interesting point. Typically everyone agreeing means the topic gets less attention and everyone disagreeing gets more. It's the opposite when it comes to how people that don't align with Republicans should move forward vs "Republicans are terrible" can't help yourselves/mock and gawk, that's worth examining closer. It's honestly very weird so many people responded and then chose not to discuss it all. Instead opting to argue with squirrels in the park. One frustration the poll shows that confirms my personal experience is that when I'm arguing in favor of socialism I'm arguing against some people that believe each answer (and some unlisted ones) and they each need to be convinced of different things. Let's say I agree that my plan sucks. I'm suggesting we (or just you guys among yourself since Kwark thinks this is about me and not our ability to influence our futures) discuss a better one instead of wasting time, reading, effort, typing, etc... on people who you all know their entire game is to bait you into their pointless bickering that only serves to make the people "arguing with squirrels" look ridiculous. I always tell others they need to be better than you in the aspect that they criticize about you. But the same goes for you. You can't demand from others to be better about something unless you're better about it first. I mean, lets be real. Your behavior isn't any more productive than anyone else's here. In terms of achieving change, neither is mine I'm guessing. Just saying. Which answer did you pick and why? And/Or Why didn't you choose any particular answer? And/Or What does your answer look like to you? And/or Is there a more custom answer you would have preferred be up there and why? I won't even opine myself if you all just discuss that for awhile. I might ask questions, but I would be fine being ignored for you to discuss it among yourselves. I chose "The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them". But it was a very close call between that and the socialist future option. I'd say the realist in me won this time. I believe you know my argumentation? I want more socialism in my own country, and if I was American I'd definitely want a lot more socialism. I also believe that voting Democrat as much as possible is the path towards more socialism in America. This is where you and I disagree. My preferred answer would be one that views Democrats as only a jumping-off-point. They're not the solution in and of itself, but they are useful. I think Democrats can be pressured into becoming more pro-socialism over time, by the same method that Republicans can be pressured into becoming less racist. That method is to keep voting for the lesser evil (which you disagree with). The lesser evil is Democrats. The next step is to vote for the lesser evil among Democrats. The reason why I think lesser-evilism is currently (!) the right choice is that I don't view Democrats as any worse than Republicans in any particular area. I don't think they're aiding and abetting fascists, I just think they lost their competence since Obama's era and they failed to deal with the Trump beast. They were caught off-guard by a variety of new phenomena. This doesn't make them evil (although some individual Dems are evil, I'm only describing Dems as a group), it makes them fallible people who have to learn. Though likely they'll also have to make way to a wave of new Democrats. That's a much bigger obstacle: some Dems (such as Biden) enjoy their power too much and ruin things for everyone. That's my somewhat nuanced take. I'll stop now, my comment is getting long. Thank you for that. I wonder if we could hear from one/some of the people (if they aren't right-wing) who chose " The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative" and/or " The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it"? I also wonder if anyone else that chose the same answer as you has any significant (or not so significant) disagreements with your elaboration? I don't even see how the "The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative" even works because to me the statement itself is a contradiction. We need a path to the left, and the democrats are not it. therefor we need to find a different party to be that path. A party that gets enough traction and voters to not just threaten, but beat the Democrats and replace them. But if such a voter block exists that can force that then that same voter block can also course correct the Democrats by working from within. You can't have a situation where there is an untapped voter block big enough to beat the Democrats from the left but at the same time unable to move the Democrats themselves left. Thank you for that. Can we infer from that information that you also chose " The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them"? I didn't choose " No viable path for Democrats..." myself, but I do wonder if someone that did wants to address your concerns/points? Oh hell no, America is deeply fucked. It is in general deeply conservative and deeply racist (or at best is ok with people around them being deeply racist) and the progressives that would love to pull the country to the left either don't exist as a group large enough to force an influence or can't be arsed to go and vote. As far as I'm concerned Ideocracy has gone from being a parody, to a warning, to becoming a hopeful vision of the future, because atleast the people there were smart enough to recognise an 'expert' and turn to him for advise, which is more then can be said for current day America.
Well, we might be fucked. There are some reasons to be optimistic though. We went from racial segregation to gay marriage being legal in all fifty states in less than a lifetime.
I'm not convinced the Christo-fascists have won everything yet. AOC said she thinks they're weaker than they look. I agree.
|
United States43057 Posts
On October 03 2025 06:01 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2025 05:17 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2025 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:59 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2025 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:31 Magic Powers wrote:On October 03 2025 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:06 Magic Powers wrote:On October 03 2025 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 03:48 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
See my previous post(s) on this exact topic.
Many of us recognise the inherent insuitability of the Democratic Party to rein in the Fascism if the other lot are in power. Ergo, don’t put them in that position, because they will fail.
You’re acting like this is news, or that other people who specifically warned about this exact scenario are being ‘played like fiddles’
You’re lecturing other people on naivety when your plan is:
1. GOP getting elected is no biggy
2. Because socialist revolution
There’s not even a plan A there, never mind B thru C.
But do feel free to lecture people for ‘gawking’ There's literally more people that think Democrats have a viable path forward if we support them than there are conservative posters. On October 03 2025 00:21 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Poll: I believeYou must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them
☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative
☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it
☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Yeah, I don't think anyone expected those results. You raise an interesting point. Typically everyone agreeing means the topic gets less attention and everyone disagreeing gets more. It's the opposite when it comes to how people that don't align with Republicans should move forward vs "Republicans are terrible" can't help yourselves/mock and gawk, that's worth examining closer. It's honestly very weird so many people responded and then chose not to discuss it all. Instead opting to argue with squirrels in the park. One frustration the poll shows that confirms my personal experience is that when I'm arguing in favor of socialism I'm arguing against some people that believe each answer (and some unlisted ones) and they each need to be convinced of different things. Let's say I agree that my plan sucks. I'm suggesting we (or just you guys among yourself since Kwark thinks this is about me and not our ability to influence our futures) discuss a better one instead of wasting time, reading, effort, typing, etc... on people who you all know their entire game is to bait you into their pointless bickering that only serves to make the people "arguing with squirrels" look ridiculous. I always tell others they need to be better than you in the aspect that they criticize about you. But the same goes for you. You can't demand from others to be better about something unless you're better about it first. I mean, lets be real. Your behavior isn't any more productive than anyone else's here. In terms of achieving change, neither is mine I'm guessing. Just saying. Which answer did you pick and why? And/Or Why didn't you choose any particular answer? And/Or What does your answer look like to you? And/or Is there a more custom answer you would have preferred be up there and why? I won't even opine myself if you all just discuss that for awhile. I might ask questions, but I would be fine being ignored for you to discuss it among yourselves. I chose "The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them". But it was a very close call between that and the socialist future option. I'd say the realist in me won this time. I believe you know my argumentation? I want more socialism in my own country, and if I was American I'd definitely want a lot more socialism. I also believe that voting Democrat as much as possible is the path towards more socialism in America. This is where you and I disagree. My preferred answer would be one that views Democrats as only a jumping-off-point. They're not the solution in and of itself, but they are useful. I think Democrats can be pressured into becoming more pro-socialism over time, by the same method that Republicans can be pressured into becoming less racist. That method is to keep voting for the lesser evil (which you disagree with). The lesser evil is Democrats. The next step is to vote for the lesser evil among Democrats. The reason why I think lesser-evilism is currently (!) the right choice is that I don't view Democrats as any worse than Republicans in any particular area. I don't think they're aiding and abetting fascists, I just think they lost their competence since Obama's era and they failed to deal with the Trump beast. They were caught off-guard by a variety of new phenomena. This doesn't make them evil (although some individual Dems are evil, I'm only describing Dems as a group), it makes them fallible people who have to learn. Though likely they'll also have to make way to a wave of new Democrats. That's a much bigger obstacle: some Dems (such as Biden) enjoy their power too much and ruin things for everyone. That's my somewhat nuanced take. I'll stop now, my comment is getting long. Thank you for that. I wonder if we could hear from one/some of the people (if they aren't right-wing) who chose " The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative" and/or " The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it"? I also wonder if anyone else that chose the same answer as you has any significant (or not so significant) disagreements with your elaboration? I don't even see how the "The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative" even works because to me the statement itself is a contradiction. We need a path to the left, and the democrats are not it. therefor we need to find a different party to be that path. A party that gets enough traction and voters to not just threaten, but beat the Democrats and replace them. But if such a voter block exists that can force that then that same voter block can also course correct the Democrats by working from within. You can't have a situation where there is an untapped voter block big enough to beat the Democrats from the left but at the same time unable to move the Democrats themselves left. Thank you for that. Can we infer from that information that you also chose " The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them"? I didn't choose " No viable path for Democrats..." myself, but I do wonder if someone that did wants to address your concerns/points? Oh hell no, America is deeply fucked. It is in general deeply conservative and deeply racist (or at best is ok with people around them being deeply racist) and the progressives that would love to pull the country to the left either don't exist as a group large enough to force an influence or can't be arsed to go and vote. As far as I'm concerned Ideocracy has gone from being a parody, to a warning, to becoming a hopeful vision of the future, because atleast the people there were smart enough to recognise an 'expert' and turn to him for advise, which is more then can be said for current day America. Well, we might be fucked. There are some reasons to be optimistic though. We went from racial segregation to gay marriage being legal in all fifty states in less than a lifetime. I'm not convinced the Christo-fascists have won everything yet. AOC said she thinks they're weaker than they look. I agree.
They’re making things worse for ordinary people and the worse things get the more right wing people will get. It’s not going to get better.
|
On October 03 2025 06:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2025 06:01 LightSpectra wrote:On October 03 2025 05:17 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2025 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:59 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2025 04:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:31 Magic Powers wrote:On October 03 2025 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2025 04:06 Magic Powers wrote:On October 03 2025 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
There's literally more people that think Democrats have a viable path forward if we support them than there are conservative posters.
[quote]
Let's say I agree that my plan sucks.
I'm suggesting we (or just you guys among yourself since Kwark thinks this is about me and not our ability to influence our futures) discuss a better one instead of wasting time, reading, effort, typing, etc... on people who you all know their entire game is to bait you into their pointless bickering that only serves to make the people "arguing with squirrels" look ridiculous. I always tell others they need to be better than you in the aspect that they criticize about you. But the same goes for you. You can't demand from others to be better about something unless you're better about it first. I mean, lets be real. Your behavior isn't any more productive than anyone else's here. In terms of achieving change, neither is mine I'm guessing. Just saying. Which answer did you pick and why? And/Or Why didn't you choose any particular answer? And/Or What does your answer look like to you? And/or Is there a more custom answer you would have preferred be up there and why? I won't even opine myself if you all just discuss that for awhile. I might ask questions, but I would be fine being ignored for you to discuss it among yourselves. I chose "The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them". But it was a very close call between that and the socialist future option. I'd say the realist in me won this time. I believe you know my argumentation? I want more socialism in my own country, and if I was American I'd definitely want a lot more socialism. I also believe that voting Democrat as much as possible is the path towards more socialism in America. This is where you and I disagree. My preferred answer would be one that views Democrats as only a jumping-off-point. They're not the solution in and of itself, but they are useful. I think Democrats can be pressured into becoming more pro-socialism over time, by the same method that Republicans can be pressured into becoming less racist. That method is to keep voting for the lesser evil (which you disagree with). The lesser evil is Democrats. The next step is to vote for the lesser evil among Democrats. The reason why I think lesser-evilism is currently (!) the right choice is that I don't view Democrats as any worse than Republicans in any particular area. I don't think they're aiding and abetting fascists, I just think they lost their competence since Obama's era and they failed to deal with the Trump beast. They were caught off-guard by a variety of new phenomena. This doesn't make them evil (although some individual Dems are evil, I'm only describing Dems as a group), it makes them fallible people who have to learn. Though likely they'll also have to make way to a wave of new Democrats. That's a much bigger obstacle: some Dems (such as Biden) enjoy their power too much and ruin things for everyone. That's my somewhat nuanced take. I'll stop now, my comment is getting long. Thank you for that. I wonder if we could hear from one/some of the people (if they aren't right-wing) who chose " The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative" and/or " The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it"? I also wonder if anyone else that chose the same answer as you has any significant (or not so significant) disagreements with your elaboration? I don't even see how the "The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative" even works because to me the statement itself is a contradiction. We need a path to the left, and the democrats are not it. therefor we need to find a different party to be that path. A party that gets enough traction and voters to not just threaten, but beat the Democrats and replace them. But if such a voter block exists that can force that then that same voter block can also course correct the Democrats by working from within. You can't have a situation where there is an untapped voter block big enough to beat the Democrats from the left but at the same time unable to move the Democrats themselves left. Thank you for that. Can we infer from that information that you also chose " The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them"? I didn't choose " No viable path for Democrats..." myself, but I do wonder if someone that did wants to address your concerns/points? Oh hell no, America is deeply fucked. It is in general deeply conservative and deeply racist (or at best is ok with people around them being deeply racist) and the progressives that would love to pull the country to the left either don't exist as a group large enough to force an influence or can't be arsed to go and vote. As far as I'm concerned Ideocracy has gone from being a parody, to a warning, to becoming a hopeful vision of the future, because atleast the people there were smart enough to recognise an 'expert' and turn to him for advise, which is more then can be said for current day America. Well, we might be fucked. There are some reasons to be optimistic though. We went from racial segregation to gay marriage being legal in all fifty states in less than a lifetime. I'm not convinced the Christo-fascists have won everything yet. AOC said she thinks they're weaker than they look. I agree. They’re making things worse for ordinary people and the worse things get the more right wing people will get. It’s not going to get better.
The only hope we have is that at some point, those ordinary people will figure out that the rightwing people in charge are actually the ones making things worse, and not trans people/mexicans/jews/leftist/whoeverelsewehatetoday.
I don't know if that is likely, they seem to be mostly resistant to that epiphany so far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
