|
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 September 03 2026 19:43 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2026 15:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 03 2026 13:46 oBlade wrote:On September 03 2026 03:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Also waiting for oblade to tell us in two months when this has escalated into a full blown crisis how this is super clever and how he didn’t in fact vote three times for a clueless and incompetent clown. So by November 4th if for some reason the crisis you now sincerely predict doesn't materialize whatsoever, you'll be here to 1) say you were wrong, 2) say your idea was wrong, and 3) apologize and explain you will no longer mortgage random possible futures you've invented against the chance to say "durr oBlade" in the present in an insane obsessive way? Right? You won't have completely forgotten and moved on to new manufactured hysteria about totally different things, right? If apologizing and not making up random nonsense is beneath you, I am also open to taking an even odds ban bet with you that you are completely talking out of your ass (that there's no such "full blown crisis" in 2 months) at any duration of your discretion. Oh, brother. Let me explain you. What we are commenting on is your general behaviour and the fact that Trump could defecate in the Oval Office in front of everyone, you would still justify it. No one really cares what happens with the Falklands. Your orange moron does this kind of blunders every two hours, and most of them result in just a bit more credibility and soft power gone, on top of renewing the absolute contempt of the entire world feels for your country and people like you who put such a man in office. There is no "we." I am talking to you. You said there will be a full blown crisis in two months. I believe you're factually wrong, but that's fine, I couldn't care less. Then you out of nowhere randomly said not only that, but I will defend it when it happens (which it won't, and I won't, and it was delusional for you to post , just like thinking the president would shit in front of everyone). You like commenting on general behavior? Your general behavior is you know less about me than you do about politics, yet obsessively pontificate on both with the same undeserved confidence. Take the bet and put your money where your mouth is.
I honestly think we are more than halfway there of something like that happening...
That is how much faith I have in the US and POTUS right now
|
On September 04 2026 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 00:04 Jankisa wrote:On September 03 2026 22:33 LightSpectra wrote:
"The center-left will call us self-righteous idiots on social media? Fine. Let them create their vapid digital noise. While they are laughing/crying on Bluesky about the latest idiotic thing uttered by a Republican and voter apathy (or where/whatever), we will be on the ground building the literal networks of survival. When the system inevitably fractures under its own greed, the working class won't run to the liberals who spent decades telling them to compromise. They will run to the people who actually built the infrastructure to keep them alive."
+ Show Spoiler +
Some serious Rorschach vibes there, I always found it funny how morons idealized that guy when he was designed as a critique of extreme moral absolutism and right-wing political philosophies.
Funny how GH sounding like him further validates the horse shoe (3 pronged one) theory for me. Why do you think pretty much all serious political scientists (regardless of political leanings) dismiss horseshoe theory (not even your asinine extension of it) as pop culture tripe?
That's like saying that serious scientists dismiss Goodwin's law or Murphy's law, not something that I'm interested in, these are observations made by people and I don't think that they necessarily belong in the realm of science.
To me, horse shoe theory (like I mentioned, I do believe there is an equally extreme middle option as well) is pretty much self evident because I've been alive for 35+ years and spent quite bit of time discussing politics in real life and on the internet.
|
Horseshoe theory isn't useful as a scientific or sociological theory, that much is true. But that doesn't invalidate the similarity between religious fundamentalists, fascists, and Stalinists openly fantasizing about the dies irae when liberals will finally get what's coming to them.
The key thread connecting those three groups isn't a shared ideology or background, just the authoritarian revenge fantasies.
|
On September 04 2026 00:23 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 04 2026 00:04 Jankisa wrote:On September 03 2026 22:33 LightSpectra wrote:
"The center-left will call us self-righteous idiots on social media? Fine. Let them create their vapid digital noise. While they are laughing/crying on Bluesky about the latest idiotic thing uttered by a Republican and voter apathy (or where/whatever), we will be on the ground building the literal networks of survival. When the system inevitably fractures under its own greed, the working class won't run to the liberals who spent decades telling them to compromise. They will run to the people who actually built the infrastructure to keep them alive."
+ Show Spoiler +
Some serious Rorschach vibes there, I always found it funny how morons idealized that guy when he was designed as a critique of extreme moral absolutism and right-wing political philosophies.
Funny how GH sounding like him further validates the horse shoe (3 pronged one) theory for me. Why do you think pretty much all serious political scientists (regardless of political leanings) dismiss horseshoe theory (not even your asinine extension of it) as pop culture tripe? That's like saying that serious scientists dismiss Goodwin's law or Murphy's law, not something that I'm interested in, these are observations made by people and I don't think that they necessarily belong in the realm of science. + Show Spoiler +To me, horse shoe theory (like I mentioned, I do believe there is an equally extreme middle option as well) is pretty much self evident because I've been alive for 35+ years and spent quite bit of time discussing politics in real life and on the internet.
Except what I said is true and what you said is misleading at best.
Godwin's and Murphy's "law" obviously aren't meant as actual laws of science and serious scientists do use/consider them as adages.
"Horseshoe theory" (forget the version you made up yourself) isn't an adage that serious political thinkers (forget "science") find useful, it's a rhetorical tool (not an analytical one) used to maintain the status quo by delegitimizing socialist critiques of the status quo.
|
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On September 03 2026 23:53 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2026 08:54 Sermokala wrote:
Bush is in Arabian Sea fighting people without wifi From beyond the grave. Show nested quote +On September 03 2026 22:05 WombaT wrote: I could give you a million dollars and you’d not score in a brothel
I volunteer.
I’d be happy to do if I had that amount of liquidity!
On September 03 2026 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2026 22:05 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 13:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2026 09:24 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 02:14 LightSpectra wrote:
I see you've chosen the laughingstock route. Don't get mad when people refuse to engage with you when you consistently meltdown when pressed too closely 🤷 Quelle fucking surprise GH alienates another potential ally and doesn’t understand why Who could have fucking thunk it? "Another potential ally" for what exactly? I mean almost anything? + Show Spoiler +No man is an island and all that
This shit doesn’t work without forming alliances and convincing people, by its very nature and having to overcome a lot of inbuilt cultural conditioning.
Which is difficult but your solution to that difficult problem appears to be a combination of lecturing and not admitting any mistakes whatsoever.
In terms of convincing people as opposed to alienating them, you’re spectacularly bad at this. I could give you a million dollars and you’d not score in a brothel
Bear in mind, we already have pretty similar political outlooks and I couldn’t be arsed anymore. What chance people on the periphery are going to convert? I don't think many people here are good allies even to relatively liberal/Democrat principles. All people do here is hobbyist escapism. Fleetfeet was the last example I remember of someone trying ally stuff: Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 14:01 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 29 2026 12:07 Billyboy wrote:On July 29 2026 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 10:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:I can't even tell what they are arguing about. I don't think they even have fundamentally different political stances. + Show Spoiler +I don't think GH understands 'vote blue no matter who' is a temporary, practical stance, and everyone's version of leftism is a more long standing philosophical stance.
Vote blue no matter who doesn't mean you are happy with the candidates the Democrats are putting up. It just means they are at the time, less bad than the opposition. Does it suck that this encourages/allows the Democrats to constantly run candidates who are... subpar to say the least? Absolutely. But what are you going to do specifically in that election? Your options are limited vote blue, vote red, vote independent or don't vote. You can do OTHER stuff in the meantime, but you still need to make this decision on the actual election.
You can still be advocating for 'non reformist reforms' or still be organising on the side, but none of that is going to stop the ongoing election from happening. What are you going to do? Vote for the Republican/conservative on the other side who are openly advocating for things you don't want? That would be, at best, some form of accelerationism.
As Jankiska has mentioned repeatedly now, he would not support Klobuchar/Buttigieg because they are against, say.. universal healthcare (though I question how much how much they, like any liberals are against it so much as pre-compromising with the opposition before staking their positions as liberals tend to do). I'm sure HE believes they should stop infighting with the left on that issue and just be for universal healthcare.
But if they did, hypothetically win the next Dem primary, and are running against... Rubio or Trump3 or Vance, what are you going to do? Not vote for Klobuchar/Buttigieg?
Noone is saying you shouldn't vote/canvass/organise against them in primaries or just outside of that specific election in general. And I understand voting for them surrenders leverage to the 'center', where they have no reason to listen to the left if the left votes for them anyway. But would you really advocate for not voting blue in an actual election where the alternative is actively worse?
Is your stance? 'Fuck it, let the right invade Cuba, or tarriff everyone,' or whatever else those ghouls stand for?
Because that's why people talk about harm reduction. To do otherwise is accelerationism, 'we'll let the Republicans win, and if they make things bad enough the Dems will have to compromise with the left'
There aren't people here (that I can tell), certainly that would describe themselves as leftists, who are philosophically 'vote blue no matter who', there are a bunch of leftists who aren't accelerationists, so the practical short term options for them are to vote blue or let their country burn(more so than it already is). Think it is pretty obvious we do. Do you also not have any policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage? Did I stumble on the Blue MAGA version of "Who won the 2020 election?" Classic GH, gets an opportunity to explain himself and possibly gain an ally, but because he can’t and wants to protect his ego, he attacks. Don’t worry doubleup, it’s him not you. Speaking of ally, GH has previously mentioned that their pronouns are "they", presumably they/them/themselves/their etc. Not calling you out because I think you're intentionally being a shitter, just letting you know in case you missed it. They also didn't try to make me kiss their ass first or praise them in exchange. They just did the thing that aligned with their principles. Remember when I said: Show nested quote + You guys really don't appreciate how miserable you (either actively or by what you allow around you) make these spaces for people other than whiteclub/adjacent guys. You have to understand you all are a major reason why there aren't more women and Black people here and around various scenes and why we typically would rather just not be around you whether that means making our own spaces or just abandoning an interest because the community around that interest is too toxic for an individual to tolerate. + Show Spoiler +
Historically/evidently the primary way to get white men (and their lackeys) to be less bigoted shitheads in the US is to force them against their will and let them retroactively explain how it was really their idea/intent all along. That's something that connects all these issues.
It doesn't pass the sniff test as unintentional at this point.
What do you do bar pontificating that merits such a pious attitude?
Other people do do things, but you just dismiss it unless it entirely aligns with your worldview and that’s why you’ll perpetually fail in any attempts at community organisation. And you seemingly can’t grasp this even when people are figuratively punching you in the face with the point
|
On September 04 2026 00:32 LightSpectra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Horseshoe theory isn't useful as a scientific or sociological theory, that much is true. But that doesn't invalidate the similarity between religious fundamentalists, fascists, and Stalinists openly fantasizing about the dies irae when liberals will finally get what's coming to them. The key thread connecting those three groups isn't a shared ideology or background, just the authoritarian revenge fantasies. This doesn't even make sense.
I'd get dumpstered long before I had to see any of the liberals (that'd likely have aligned with fascists out of "pragmatism" and be the first in line to dumpster me to prove their loyalty) get their end of the Niemoller quote.
If you mean under socialism, then it also doesn't make sense because "what's coming to them" would be human rights, living wages, universal healthcare, etc.
|
On September 04 2026 00:44 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2026 23:53 Vivax wrote:On September 03 2026 08:54 Sermokala wrote:
Bush is in Arabian Sea fighting people without wifi From beyond the grave. On September 03 2026 22:05 WombaT wrote: I could give you a million dollars and you’d not score in a brothel
I volunteer. I’d be happy to do if I had that amount of liquidity! Show nested quote +On September 03 2026 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2026 22:05 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 13:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2026 09:24 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 02:14 LightSpectra wrote:
I see you've chosen the laughingstock route. Don't get mad when people refuse to engage with you when you consistently meltdown when pressed too closely 🤷 Quelle fucking surprise GH alienates another potential ally and doesn’t understand why Who could have fucking thunk it? "Another potential ally" for what exactly? I mean almost anything? + Show Spoiler +No man is an island and all that
This shit doesn’t work without forming alliances and convincing people, by its very nature and having to overcome a lot of inbuilt cultural conditioning.
Which is difficult but your solution to that difficult problem appears to be a combination of lecturing and not admitting any mistakes whatsoever.
In terms of convincing people as opposed to alienating them, you’re spectacularly bad at this. I could give you a million dollars and you’d not score in a brothel
Bear in mind, we already have pretty similar political outlooks and I couldn’t be arsed anymore. What chance people on the periphery are going to convert? I don't think many people here are good allies even to relatively liberal/Democrat principles. All people do here is hobbyist escapism. Fleetfeet was the last example I remember of someone trying ally stuff: On July 29 2026 14:01 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 29 2026 12:07 Billyboy wrote:On July 29 2026 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 10:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:I can't even tell what they are arguing about. I don't think they even have fundamentally different political stances. + Show Spoiler +I don't think GH understands 'vote blue no matter who' is a temporary, practical stance, and everyone's version of leftism is a more long standing philosophical stance.
Vote blue no matter who doesn't mean you are happy with the candidates the Democrats are putting up. It just means they are at the time, less bad than the opposition. Does it suck that this encourages/allows the Democrats to constantly run candidates who are... subpar to say the least? Absolutely. But what are you going to do specifically in that election? Your options are limited vote blue, vote red, vote independent or don't vote. You can do OTHER stuff in the meantime, but you still need to make this decision on the actual election.
You can still be advocating for 'non reformist reforms' or still be organising on the side, but none of that is going to stop the ongoing election from happening. What are you going to do? Vote for the Republican/conservative on the other side who are openly advocating for things you don't want? That would be, at best, some form of accelerationism.
As Jankiska has mentioned repeatedly now, he would not support Klobuchar/Buttigieg because they are against, say.. universal healthcare (though I question how much how much they, like any liberals are against it so much as pre-compromising with the opposition before staking their positions as liberals tend to do). I'm sure HE believes they should stop infighting with the left on that issue and just be for universal healthcare.
But if they did, hypothetically win the next Dem primary, and are running against... Rubio or Trump3 or Vance, what are you going to do? Not vote for Klobuchar/Buttigieg?
Noone is saying you shouldn't vote/canvass/organise against them in primaries or just outside of that specific election in general. And I understand voting for them surrenders leverage to the 'center', where they have no reason to listen to the left if the left votes for them anyway. But would you really advocate for not voting blue in an actual election where the alternative is actively worse?
Is your stance? 'Fuck it, let the right invade Cuba, or tarriff everyone,' or whatever else those ghouls stand for?
Because that's why people talk about harm reduction. To do otherwise is accelerationism, 'we'll let the Republicans win, and if they make things bad enough the Dems will have to compromise with the left'
There aren't people here (that I can tell), certainly that would describe themselves as leftists, who are philosophically 'vote blue no matter who', there are a bunch of leftists who aren't accelerationists, so the practical short term options for them are to vote blue or let their country burn(more so than it already is). Think it is pretty obvious we do. Do you also not have any policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage? Did I stumble on the Blue MAGA version of "Who won the 2020 election?" Classic GH, gets an opportunity to explain himself and possibly gain an ally, but because he can’t and wants to protect his ego, he attacks. Don’t worry doubleup, it’s him not you. Speaking of ally, GH has previously mentioned that their pronouns are "they", presumably they/them/themselves/their etc. Not calling you out because I think you're intentionally being a shitter, just letting you know in case you missed it. They also didn't try to make me kiss their ass first or praise them in exchange. They just did the thing that aligned with their principles. Remember when I said: You guys really don't appreciate how miserable you (either actively or by what you allow around you) make these spaces for people other than whiteclub/adjacent guys. You have to understand you all are a major reason why there aren't more women and Black people here and around various scenes and why we typically would rather just not be around you whether that means making our own spaces or just abandoning an interest because the community around that interest is too toxic for an individual to tolerate. + Show Spoiler +
Historically/evidently the primary way to get white men (and their lackeys) to be less bigoted shitheads in the US is to force them against their will and let them retroactively explain how it was really their idea/intent all along. That's something that connects all these issues.
It doesn't pass the sniff test as unintentional at this point. + Show Spoiler +What do you do bar pontificating that merits such a pious attitude? Other people do do things, + Show Spoiler +but you just dismiss it unless it entirely aligns with your worldview and that’s why you’ll perpetually fail in any attempts at community organisation. And you seemingly can’t grasp this even when people are figuratively punching you in the face with the point
What do they do?
|
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On September 04 2026 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 00:44 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 23:53 Vivax wrote:On September 03 2026 08:54 Sermokala wrote:
Bush is in Arabian Sea fighting people without wifi From beyond the grave. On September 03 2026 22:05 WombaT wrote: I could give you a million dollars and you’d not score in a brothel
I volunteer. I’d be happy to do if I had that amount of liquidity! On September 03 2026 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2026 22:05 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 13:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2026 09:24 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 02:14 LightSpectra wrote:
I see you've chosen the laughingstock route. Don't get mad when people refuse to engage with you when you consistently meltdown when pressed too closely 🤷 Quelle fucking surprise GH alienates another potential ally and doesn’t understand why Who could have fucking thunk it? "Another potential ally" for what exactly? I mean almost anything? + Show Spoiler +No man is an island and all that
This shit doesn’t work without forming alliances and convincing people, by its very nature and having to overcome a lot of inbuilt cultural conditioning.
Which is difficult but your solution to that difficult problem appears to be a combination of lecturing and not admitting any mistakes whatsoever.
In terms of convincing people as opposed to alienating them, you’re spectacularly bad at this. I could give you a million dollars and you’d not score in a brothel
Bear in mind, we already have pretty similar political outlooks and I couldn’t be arsed anymore. What chance people on the periphery are going to convert? I don't think many people here are good allies even to relatively liberal/Democrat principles. All people do here is hobbyist escapism. Fleetfeet was the last example I remember of someone trying ally stuff: On July 29 2026 14:01 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 29 2026 12:07 Billyboy wrote:On July 29 2026 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 10:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:I can't even tell what they are arguing about. I don't think they even have fundamentally different political stances. + Show Spoiler +I don't think GH understands 'vote blue no matter who' is a temporary, practical stance, and everyone's version of leftism is a more long standing philosophical stance.
Vote blue no matter who doesn't mean you are happy with the candidates the Democrats are putting up. It just means they are at the time, less bad than the opposition. Does it suck that this encourages/allows the Democrats to constantly run candidates who are... subpar to say the least? Absolutely. But what are you going to do specifically in that election? Your options are limited vote blue, vote red, vote independent or don't vote. You can do OTHER stuff in the meantime, but you still need to make this decision on the actual election.
You can still be advocating for 'non reformist reforms' or still be organising on the side, but none of that is going to stop the ongoing election from happening. What are you going to do? Vote for the Republican/conservative on the other side who are openly advocating for things you don't want? That would be, at best, some form of accelerationism.
As Jankiska has mentioned repeatedly now, he would not support Klobuchar/Buttigieg because they are against, say.. universal healthcare (though I question how much how much they, like any liberals are against it so much as pre-compromising with the opposition before staking their positions as liberals tend to do). I'm sure HE believes they should stop infighting with the left on that issue and just be for universal healthcare.
But if they did, hypothetically win the next Dem primary, and are running against... Rubio or Trump3 or Vance, what are you going to do? Not vote for Klobuchar/Buttigieg?
Noone is saying you shouldn't vote/canvass/organise against them in primaries or just outside of that specific election in general. And I understand voting for them surrenders leverage to the 'center', where they have no reason to listen to the left if the left votes for them anyway. But would you really advocate for not voting blue in an actual election where the alternative is actively worse?
Is your stance? 'Fuck it, let the right invade Cuba, or tarriff everyone,' or whatever else those ghouls stand for?
Because that's why people talk about harm reduction. To do otherwise is accelerationism, 'we'll let the Republicans win, and if they make things bad enough the Dems will have to compromise with the left'
There aren't people here (that I can tell), certainly that would describe themselves as leftists, who are philosophically 'vote blue no matter who', there are a bunch of leftists who aren't accelerationists, so the practical short term options for them are to vote blue or let their country burn(more so than it already is). Think it is pretty obvious we do. Do you also not have any policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage? Did I stumble on the Blue MAGA version of "Who won the 2020 election?" Classic GH, gets an opportunity to explain himself and possibly gain an ally, but because he can’t and wants to protect his ego, he attacks. Don’t worry doubleup, it’s him not you. Speaking of ally, GH has previously mentioned that their pronouns are "they", presumably they/them/themselves/their etc. Not calling you out because I think you're intentionally being a shitter, just letting you know in case you missed it. They also didn't try to make me kiss their ass first or praise them in exchange. They just did the thing that aligned with their principles. Remember when I said: You guys really don't appreciate how miserable you (either actively or by what you allow around you) make these spaces for people other than whiteclub/adjacent guys. You have to understand you all are a major reason why there aren't more women and Black people here and around various scenes and why we typically would rather just not be around you whether that means making our own spaces or just abandoning an interest because the community around that interest is too toxic for an individual to tolerate. + Show Spoiler +
Historically/evidently the primary way to get white men (and their lackeys) to be less bigoted shitheads in the US is to force them against their will and let them retroactively explain how it was really their idea/intent all along. That's something that connects all these issues.
It doesn't pass the sniff test as unintentional at this point. + Show Spoiler +What do you do bar pontificating that merits such a pious attitude? Other people do do things, + Show Spoiler +but you just dismiss it unless it entirely aligns with your worldview and that’s why you’ll perpetually fail in any attempts at community organisation. And you seemingly can’t grasp this even when people are figuratively punching you in the face with the point What do they do?
What do you do?
I’ve only been a Union rep for 15 years in my workplace, but obviously I’m doing fuck all
|
On September 04 2026 00:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 00:23 Jankisa wrote:On September 04 2026 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 04 2026 00:04 Jankisa wrote:On September 03 2026 22:33 LightSpectra wrote:
"The center-left will call us self-righteous idiots on social media? Fine. Let them create their vapid digital noise. While they are laughing/crying on Bluesky about the latest idiotic thing uttered by a Republican and voter apathy (or where/whatever), we will be on the ground building the literal networks of survival. When the system inevitably fractures under its own greed, the working class won't run to the liberals who spent decades telling them to compromise. They will run to the people who actually built the infrastructure to keep them alive."
+ Show Spoiler +
Some serious Rorschach vibes there, I always found it funny how morons idealized that guy when he was designed as a critique of extreme moral absolutism and right-wing political philosophies.
Funny how GH sounding like him further validates the horse shoe (3 pronged one) theory for me. Why do you think pretty much all serious political scientists (regardless of political leanings) dismiss horseshoe theory (not even your asinine extension of it) as pop culture tripe? That's like saying that serious scientists dismiss Goodwin's law or Murphy's law, not something that I'm interested in, these are observations made by people and I don't think that they necessarily belong in the realm of science. + Show Spoiler +To me, horse shoe theory (like I mentioned, I do believe there is an equally extreme middle option as well) is pretty much self evident because I've been alive for 35+ years and spent quite bit of time discussing politics in real life and on the internet. Except what I said is true and what you said is misleading at best. Godwin's and Murphy's "law" obviously aren't meant as actual laws of science and serious scientists do use/consider them as adages. "Horseshoe theory" (forget the version you made up yourself) isn't an adage that serious political thinkers (forget "science") find useful, it's a rhetorical tool (not an analytical one) used to maintain the status quo by delegitimizing socialist critiques of the status quo.
I like how you are lecturing me on something that is based in dualism and then completely skipping the part where it also criticizes the other part of the political spectrum.
Shows how serious of a political thinker you are!
|
On September 04 2026 00:53 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 04 2026 00:44 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 23:53 Vivax wrote:On September 03 2026 08:54 Sermokala wrote:
Bush is in Arabian Sea fighting people without wifi From beyond the grave. On September 03 2026 22:05 WombaT wrote: I could give you a million dollars and you’d not score in a brothel
I volunteer. I’d be happy to do if I had that amount of liquidity! On September 03 2026 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2026 22:05 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 13:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2026 09:24 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 02:14 LightSpectra wrote:
I see you've chosen the laughingstock route. Don't get mad when people refuse to engage with you when you consistently meltdown when pressed too closely 🤷 Quelle fucking surprise GH alienates another potential ally and doesn’t understand why Who could have fucking thunk it? "Another potential ally" for what exactly? I mean almost anything? + Show Spoiler +No man is an island and all that
This shit doesn’t work without forming alliances and convincing people, by its very nature and having to overcome a lot of inbuilt cultural conditioning.
Which is difficult but your solution to that difficult problem appears to be a combination of lecturing and not admitting any mistakes whatsoever.
In terms of convincing people as opposed to alienating them, you’re spectacularly bad at this. I could give you a million dollars and you’d not score in a brothel
Bear in mind, we already have pretty similar political outlooks and I couldn’t be arsed anymore. What chance people on the periphery are going to convert? I don't think many people here are good allies even to relatively liberal/Democrat principles. All people do here is hobbyist escapism. Fleetfeet was the last example I remember of someone trying ally stuff: On July 29 2026 14:01 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 29 2026 12:07 Billyboy wrote:On July 29 2026 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 10:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:I can't even tell what they are arguing about. I don't think they even have fundamentally different political stances. + Show Spoiler +I don't think GH understands 'vote blue no matter who' is a temporary, practical stance, and everyone's version of leftism is a more long standing philosophical stance.
Vote blue no matter who doesn't mean you are happy with the candidates the Democrats are putting up. It just means they are at the time, less bad than the opposition. Does it suck that this encourages/allows the Democrats to constantly run candidates who are... subpar to say the least? Absolutely. But what are you going to do specifically in that election? Your options are limited vote blue, vote red, vote independent or don't vote. You can do OTHER stuff in the meantime, but you still need to make this decision on the actual election.
You can still be advocating for 'non reformist reforms' or still be organising on the side, but none of that is going to stop the ongoing election from happening. What are you going to do? Vote for the Republican/conservative on the other side who are openly advocating for things you don't want? That would be, at best, some form of accelerationism.
As Jankiska has mentioned repeatedly now, he would not support Klobuchar/Buttigieg because they are against, say.. universal healthcare (though I question how much how much they, like any liberals are against it so much as pre-compromising with the opposition before staking their positions as liberals tend to do). I'm sure HE believes they should stop infighting with the left on that issue and just be for universal healthcare.
But if they did, hypothetically win the next Dem primary, and are running against... Rubio or Trump3 or Vance, what are you going to do? Not vote for Klobuchar/Buttigieg?
Noone is saying you shouldn't vote/canvass/organise against them in primaries or just outside of that specific election in general. And I understand voting for them surrenders leverage to the 'center', where they have no reason to listen to the left if the left votes for them anyway. But would you really advocate for not voting blue in an actual election where the alternative is actively worse?
Is your stance? 'Fuck it, let the right invade Cuba, or tarriff everyone,' or whatever else those ghouls stand for?
Because that's why people talk about harm reduction. To do otherwise is accelerationism, 'we'll let the Republicans win, and if they make things bad enough the Dems will have to compromise with the left'
There aren't people here (that I can tell), certainly that would describe themselves as leftists, who are philosophically 'vote blue no matter who', there are a bunch of leftists who aren't accelerationists, so the practical short term options for them are to vote blue or let their country burn(more so than it already is). Think it is pretty obvious we do. Do you also not have any policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage? Did I stumble on the Blue MAGA version of "Who won the 2020 election?" Classic GH, gets an opportunity to explain himself and possibly gain an ally, but because he can’t and wants to protect his ego, he attacks. Don’t worry doubleup, it’s him not you. Speaking of ally, GH has previously mentioned that their pronouns are "they", presumably they/them/themselves/their etc. Not calling you out because I think you're intentionally being a shitter, just letting you know in case you missed it. They also didn't try to make me kiss their ass first or praise them in exchange. They just did the thing that aligned with their principles. Remember when I said: You guys really don't appreciate how miserable you (either actively or by what you allow around you) make these spaces for people other than whiteclub/adjacent guys. You have to understand you all are a major reason why there aren't more women and Black people here and around various scenes and why we typically would rather just not be around you whether that means making our own spaces or just abandoning an interest because the community around that interest is too toxic for an individual to tolerate. + Show Spoiler +
Historically/evidently the primary way to get white men (and their lackeys) to be less bigoted shitheads in the US is to force them against their will and let them retroactively explain how it was really their idea/intent all along. That's something that connects all these issues.
It doesn't pass the sniff test as unintentional at this point. + Show Spoiler +What do you do bar pontificating that merits such a pious attitude? Other people do do things, + Show Spoiler +but you just dismiss it unless it entirely aligns with your worldview and that’s why you’ll perpetually fail in any attempts at community organisation. And you seemingly can’t grasp this even when people are figuratively punching you in the face with the point What do they do? What do you do? I’ve only been a Union rep for 15 years in my workplace, but obviously I’m doing fuck all Being a union rep isn't "fuck all"?
I mean I've gone over it multiple times, but I started knocking doors and making calls for Obama back in 07. I personally swung my district from Hillary to Obama with an impassioned speech to my caucus between rounds (not sure how I feel about that now, sorta wish Hillary won in 08 lol). I was an active member of the party for ~a decade where I would attend meetings, help organize, coordinate with elected officials on projects, participate in rallies/protests, and obviously continued the basics of knocking doors/making calls and voting blue no matter who.
Somewhat disillusioned and distraught after Obama basically abandoned his primary rhetoric when it came to governing, I thought Hillary was inevitable and focusing on building the best set-up to secure me and my loved ones (regardless of politics) was the best use of my energies. I was ready to basically abandon serious political engagement and just focus on securing my personal/loved ones well being.
Then Bernie came along. I was inspired and became probably the most politically active person here (at least as evidenced by how we were all describing our participation in the 2016 primary process). I was doing all the things I was doing before and then some despite it being very clear, even in very liberal/Bernie friendly WA, that the Hillary wing were the people in charge of the party apparatus and they were oppositional not just to Bernie, but the policies we were pushing for.
I went on to become a delegate for Bernie Sanders and at the state convention this tension was captured in something that's stuck with me since. When at the 2016 state convention for Democrats in WA they voted against recognizing trans women as women when it came to gender representation in leadership (my impassioned pleas were insufficient this time). There were lots of little slices, but that (plus the primary process generally) left a gaping hole in any hope I had for the party (because of what it represented, not that I thought they'd never fix that particular thing about gender representation).
After Bernie's 2016 run I recognized Democrats as practically hopeless and looked to see what else was out there. Having been called a socialist/communist from my right for supporting Bernie and absolutely not a socialist/communist from my left I figured that was a good place to look.
That's when I had to decipher what the hell all this "social democrat", "democratic socialist", "Leninist", "Maoist", "revolutionary socialism" etc. was actually supposed to mean, what the differences were, and if/why they mattered. That took a while and there were less (easily accessible) resources for that in 2016 than there are now in 2026. In that process I joined groups like DSA, I collaborated on social work with social democrats, still went to some Democrat party meetings, and helped form multiple mutual aid network projects. Over the last decade or so of that and other works I've arrived where I am today politically.
I still do a lot of those things/work with the groups I've mentioned. Nowadays I focus more on community outreach programs where we go into communities, ask them about what problems they're facing and work together on finding solutions that have demands of the system but are not dependent on it (to try to condense the concept of Freire influenced mutual aid and parallel power into a more colloquially understandable frame).
Opposition to FLOCK cameras is an example of that where we're engaging in a multi-pronged approach here (keep in mind it's Democrats/those to their left and right arguing with centrist/corporate/thirdway Democrats on this) currently.
That's not a comprehensive list but it's the gist of it. That said, I wasn't exactly asking about you, I meant what it is you are so confident others are doing and why you think it's so much better than that?
On September 04 2026 00:59 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 00:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 04 2026 00:23 Jankisa wrote:On September 04 2026 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 04 2026 00:04 Jankisa wrote:On September 03 2026 22:33 LightSpectra wrote:
"The center-left will call us self-righteous idiots on social media? Fine. Let them create their vapid digital noise. While they are laughing/crying on Bluesky about the latest idiotic thing uttered by a Republican and voter apathy (or where/whatever), we will be on the ground building the literal networks of survival. When the system inevitably fractures under its own greed, the working class won't run to the liberals who spent decades telling them to compromise. They will run to the people who actually built the infrastructure to keep them alive."
+ Show Spoiler +
Some serious Rorschach vibes there, I always found it funny how morons idealized that guy when he was designed as a critique of extreme moral absolutism and right-wing political philosophies.
Funny how GH sounding like him further validates the horse shoe (3 pronged one) theory for me. Why do you think pretty much all serious political scientists (regardless of political leanings) dismiss horseshoe theory (not even your asinine extension of it) as pop culture tripe? That's like saying that serious scientists dismiss Goodwin's law or Murphy's law, not something that I'm interested in, these are observations made by people and I don't think that they necessarily belong in the realm of science. + Show Spoiler +To me, horse shoe theory (like I mentioned, I do believe there is an equally extreme middle option as well) is pretty much self evident because I've been alive for 35+ years and spent quite bit of time discussing politics in real life and on the internet. Except what I said is true and what you said is misleading at best. Godwin's and Murphy's "law" obviously aren't meant as actual laws of science and serious scientists do use/consider them as adages. "Horseshoe theory" (forget the version you made up yourself) isn't an adage that serious political thinkers (forget "science") find useful, it's a rhetorical tool (not an analytical one) used to maintain the status quo by delegitimizing socialist critiques of the status quo. + Show Spoiler +
I like how you are lecturing me on something that is based in dualism and then completely skipping the part where it also criticizes the other part of the political spectrum.
Shows how serious of a political thinker you are!
Less think-ee! More Do-ee! *starts chant*
|
The other thing interesting with fringe people is they seem to jump to the completely other side not transition through if it was a line. Dave Rubin and Ana Kasparian come to mind.
That being said I’m not sure how much left right even matters any more, politics seem to mostly be about being against the others and how many clicks you can get with sick burns.
|
On September 04 2026 02:13 Billyboy wrote:
The other thing interesting with fringe people is they seem to jump to the completely other side not transition through if it was a line. Dave Rubin and Ana Kasparian come to mind.
That being said I’m not sure how much left right even matters any more, politics seem to mostly be about being against the others and how many clicks you can get with sick burns.
If you have a "I can't wait for society to collapse so my ideology can rise from the ashes" kind of disposition, you're already like-minded with everyone else that's enthusiastic for society to collapse.
Campists (authoritarian leftists that support Russia etc. despite being capitalist countries) and fascists both want the United States and EU to decline, so it's not a surprise they're going to have a lot of shared talking points, despite the fact that they're at least theoretically in opposition to each other.
|
United States44372 Posts
GH trying to prove he’s not an authoritarian by proving they don’t even exist and therefore he can’t be what he obviously is. Like okay, but we can all see you.
|
On September 04 2026 05:14 KwarK wrote:
GH trying to prove he’s not an authoritarian by proving they don’t even exist and therefore he can’t be what he obviously is. Like okay, but we can all see you. I honestly don't even know what you're talking about, but I have to ask:
Are you doing this intentionally to make some sort of point or did you coincidentally forget and miss my reference?
On September 03 2026 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2026 22:05 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 13:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2026 09:24 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 02:14 LightSpectra wrote:
I see you've chosen the laughingstock route. Don't get mad when people refuse to engage with you when you consistently meltdown when pressed too closely 🤷 Quelle fucking surprise GH alienates another potential ally and doesn’t understand why Who could have fucking thunk it? "Another potential ally" for what exactly? I mean almost anything? + Show Spoiler +No man is an island and all that
This shit doesn’t work without forming alliances and convincing people, by its very nature and having to overcome a lot of inbuilt cultural conditioning.
Which is difficult but your solution to that difficult problem appears to be a combination of lecturing and not admitting any mistakes whatsoever.
In terms of convincing people as opposed to alienating them, you’re spectacularly bad at this. I could give you a million dollars and you’d not score in a brothel
Bear in mind, we already have pretty similar political outlooks and I couldn’t be arsed anymore. What chance people on the periphery are going to convert? I don't think many people here are good allies even to relatively liberal/Democrat principles. All people do here is hobbyist escapism. Fleetfeet was the last example I remember of someone trying ally stuff: Show nested quote +On July 29 2026 14:01 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 29 2026 12:07 Billyboy wrote:On July 29 2026 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 10:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:I can't even tell what they are arguing about. I don't think they even have fundamentally different political stances. + Show Spoiler +I don't think GH understands 'vote blue no matter who' is a temporary, practical stance, and everyone's version of leftism is a more long standing philosophical stance.
Vote blue no matter who doesn't mean you are happy with the candidates the Democrats are putting up. It just means they are at the time, less bad than the opposition. Does it suck that this encourages/allows the Democrats to constantly run candidates who are... subpar to say the least? Absolutely. But what are you going to do specifically in that election? Your options are limited vote blue, vote red, vote independent or don't vote. You can do OTHER stuff in the meantime, but you still need to make this decision on the actual election.
You can still be advocating for 'non reformist reforms' or still be organising on the side, but none of that is going to stop the ongoing election from happening. What are you going to do? Vote for the Republican/conservative on the other side who are openly advocating for things you don't want? That would be, at best, some form of accelerationism.
As Jankiska has mentioned repeatedly now, he would not support Klobuchar/Buttigieg because they are against, say.. universal healthcare (though I question how much how much they, like any liberals are against it so much as pre-compromising with the opposition before staking their positions as liberals tend to do). I'm sure HE believes they should stop infighting with the left on that issue and just be for universal healthcare.
But if they did, hypothetically win the next Dem primary, and are running against... Rubio or Trump3 or Vance, what are you going to do? Not vote for Klobuchar/Buttigieg?
Noone is saying you shouldn't vote/canvass/organise against them in primaries or just outside of that specific election in general. And I understand voting for them surrenders leverage to the 'center', where they have no reason to listen to the left if the left votes for them anyway. But would you really advocate for not voting blue in an actual election where the alternative is actively worse?
Is your stance? 'Fuck it, let the right invade Cuba, or tarriff everyone,' or whatever else those ghouls stand for?
Because that's why people talk about harm reduction. To do otherwise is accelerationism, 'we'll let the Republicans win, and if they make things bad enough the Dems will have to compromise with the left'
There aren't people here (that I can tell), certainly that would describe themselves as leftists, who are philosophically 'vote blue no matter who', there are a bunch of leftists who aren't accelerationists, so the practical short term options for them are to vote blue or let their country burn(more so than it already is). Think it is pretty obvious we do. Do you also not have any policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage? Did I stumble on the Blue MAGA version of "Who won the 2020 election?" Classic GH, gets an opportunity to explain himself and possibly gain an ally, but because he can’t and wants to protect his ego, he attacks. Don’t worry doubleup, it’s him not you. Speaking of ally, GH has previously mentioned that their pronouns are "they", presumably they/them/themselves/their etc. Not calling you out because I think you're intentionally being a shitter, just letting you know in case you missed it. They also didn't try to make me kiss their ass first or praise them in exchange. They just did the thing that aligned with their principles. Remember when I said: Show nested quote + You guys really don't appreciate how miserable you (either actively or by what you allow around you) make these spaces for people other than whiteclub/adjacent guys. You have to understand you all are a major reason why there aren't more women and Black people here and around various scenes and why we typically would rather just not be around you whether that means making our own spaces or just abandoning an interest because the community around that interest is too toxic for an individual to tolerate. + Show Spoiler +
Historically/evidently the primary way to get white men (and their lackeys) to be less bigoted shitheads in the US is to force them against their will and let them retroactively explain how it was really their idea/intent all along. That's something that connects all these issues.
It doesn't pass the sniff test as unintentional at this point.
|
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On September 04 2026 01:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 00:53 WombaT wrote:On September 04 2026 00:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 04 2026 00:44 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 23:53 Vivax wrote:On September 03 2026 08:54 Sermokala wrote:
Bush is in Arabian Sea fighting people without wifi From beyond the grave. On September 03 2026 22:05 WombaT wrote: I could give you a million dollars and you’d not score in a brothel
I volunteer. I’d be happy to do if I had that amount of liquidity! On September 03 2026 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2026 22:05 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 13:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2026 09:24 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 02:14 LightSpectra wrote:
I see you've chosen the laughingstock route. Don't get mad when people refuse to engage with you when you consistently meltdown when pressed too closely 🤷 Quelle fucking surprise GH alienates another potential ally and doesn’t understand why Who could have fucking thunk it? "Another potential ally" for what exactly? I mean almost anything? + Show Spoiler +No man is an island and all that
This shit doesn’t work without forming alliances and convincing people, by its very nature and having to overcome a lot of inbuilt cultural conditioning.
Which is difficult but your solution to that difficult problem appears to be a combination of lecturing and not admitting any mistakes whatsoever.
In terms of convincing people as opposed to alienating them, you’re spectacularly bad at this. I could give you a million dollars and you’d not score in a brothel
Bear in mind, we already have pretty similar political outlooks and I couldn’t be arsed anymore. What chance people on the periphery are going to convert? I don't think many people here are good allies even to relatively liberal/Democrat principles. All people do here is hobbyist escapism. Fleetfeet was the last example I remember of someone trying ally stuff: On July 29 2026 14:01 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 29 2026 12:07 Billyboy wrote:On July 29 2026 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2026 10:59 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:I can't even tell what they are arguing about. I don't think they even have fundamentally different political stances. + Show Spoiler +I don't think GH understands 'vote blue no matter who' is a temporary, practical stance, and everyone's version of leftism is a more long standing philosophical stance.
Vote blue no matter who doesn't mean you are happy with the candidates the Democrats are putting up. It just means they are at the time, less bad than the opposition. Does it suck that this encourages/allows the Democrats to constantly run candidates who are... subpar to say the least? Absolutely. But what are you going to do specifically in that election? Your options are limited vote blue, vote red, vote independent or don't vote. You can do OTHER stuff in the meantime, but you still need to make this decision on the actual election.
You can still be advocating for 'non reformist reforms' or still be organising on the side, but none of that is going to stop the ongoing election from happening. What are you going to do? Vote for the Republican/conservative on the other side who are openly advocating for things you don't want? That would be, at best, some form of accelerationism.
As Jankiska has mentioned repeatedly now, he would not support Klobuchar/Buttigieg because they are against, say.. universal healthcare (though I question how much how much they, like any liberals are against it so much as pre-compromising with the opposition before staking their positions as liberals tend to do). I'm sure HE believes they should stop infighting with the left on that issue and just be for universal healthcare.
But if they did, hypothetically win the next Dem primary, and are running against... Rubio or Trump3 or Vance, what are you going to do? Not vote for Klobuchar/Buttigieg?
Noone is saying you shouldn't vote/canvass/organise against them in primaries or just outside of that specific election in general. And I understand voting for them surrenders leverage to the 'center', where they have no reason to listen to the left if the left votes for them anyway. But would you really advocate for not voting blue in an actual election where the alternative is actively worse?
Is your stance? 'Fuck it, let the right invade Cuba, or tarriff everyone,' or whatever else those ghouls stand for?
Because that's why people talk about harm reduction. To do otherwise is accelerationism, 'we'll let the Republicans win, and if they make things bad enough the Dems will have to compromise with the left'
There aren't people here (that I can tell), certainly that would describe themselves as leftists, who are philosophically 'vote blue no matter who', there are a bunch of leftists who aren't accelerationists, so the practical short term options for them are to vote blue or let their country burn(more so than it already is). Think it is pretty obvious we do. Do you also not have any policies/points that the corporate/establishment/moderate/thirdway/Klobuchar/Buttigieg/whatever Democrats need to stop infighting about and concede to those to their left in order to not self-sabotage? Did I stumble on the Blue MAGA version of "Who won the 2020 election?" Classic GH, gets an opportunity to explain himself and possibly gain an ally, but because he can’t and wants to protect his ego, he attacks. Don’t worry doubleup, it’s him not you. Speaking of ally, GH has previously mentioned that their pronouns are "they", presumably they/them/themselves/their etc. Not calling you out because I think you're intentionally being a shitter, just letting you know in case you missed it. They also didn't try to make me kiss their ass first or praise them in exchange. They just did the thing that aligned with their principles. Remember when I said: You guys really don't appreciate how miserable you (either actively or by what you allow around you) make these spaces for people other than whiteclub/adjacent guys. You have to understand you all are a major reason why there aren't more women and Black people here and around various scenes and why we typically would rather just not be around you whether that means making our own spaces or just abandoning an interest because the community around that interest is too toxic for an individual to tolerate. + Show Spoiler +
Historically/evidently the primary way to get white men (and their lackeys) to be less bigoted shitheads in the US is to force them against their will and let them retroactively explain how it was really their idea/intent all along. That's something that connects all these issues.
It doesn't pass the sniff test as unintentional at this point. + Show Spoiler +What do you do bar pontificating that merits such a pious attitude? Other people do do things, + Show Spoiler +but you just dismiss it unless it entirely aligns with your worldview and that’s why you’ll perpetually fail in any attempts at community organisation. And you seemingly can’t grasp this even when people are figuratively punching you in the face with the point What do they do? What do you do? I’ve only been a Union rep for 15 years in my workplace, but obviously I’m doing fuck all Being a union rep isn't "fuck all"? I mean I've gone over it multiple times, but I started knocking doors and making calls for Obama back in 07. I personally swung my district from Hillary to Obama with an impassioned speech to my caucus between rounds (not sure how I feel about that now, sorta wish Hillary won in 08 lol). I was an active member of the party for ~a decade where I would attend meetings, help organize, coordinate with elected officials on projects, participate in rallies/protests, and obviously continued the basics of knocking doors/making calls and voting blue no matter who. Somewhat disillusioned and distraught after Obama basically abandoned his primary rhetoric when it came to governing, I thought Hillary was inevitable and focusing on building the best set-up to secure me and my loved ones (regardless of politics) was the best use of my energies. I was ready to basically abandon serious political engagement and just focus on securing my personal/loved ones well being. Then Bernie came along. I was inspired and became probably the most politically active person here (at least as evidenced by how we were all describing our participation in the 2016 primary process). I was doing all the things I was doing before and then some despite it being very clear, even in very liberal/Bernie friendly WA, that the Hillary wing were the people in charge of the party apparatus and they were oppositional not just to Bernie, but the policies we were pushing for. I went on to become a delegate for Bernie Sanders and at the state convention this tension was captured in something that's stuck with me since. When at the 2016 state convention for Democrats in WA they voted against recognizing trans women as women when it came to gender representation in leadership (my impassioned pleas were insufficient this time). There were lots of little slices, but that (plus the primary process generally) left a gaping hole in any hope I had for the party (because of what it represented, not that I thought they'd never fix that particular thing about gender representation). After Bernie's 2016 run I recognized Democrats as practically hopeless and looked to see what else was out there. Having been called a socialist/communist from my right for supporting Bernie and absolutely not a socialist/communist from my left I figured that was a good place to look. That's when I had to decipher what the hell all this "social democrat", "democratic socialist", "Leninist", "Maoist", "revolutionary socialism" etc. was actually supposed to mean, what the differences were, and if/why they mattered. That took a while and there were less (easily accessible) resources for that in 2016 than there are now in 2026. In that process I joined groups like DSA, I collaborated on social work with social democrats, still went to some Democrat party meetings, and helped form multiple mutual aid network projects. Over the last decade or so of that and other works I've arrived where I am today politically. I still do a lot of those things/work with the groups I've mentioned. Nowadays I focus more on community outreach programs where we go into communities, ask them about what problems they're facing and work together on finding solutions that have demands of the system but are not dependent on it (to try to condense the concept of Freire influenced mutual aid and parallel power into a more colloquially understandable frame). Opposition to FLOCK cameras is an example of that where we're engaging in a multi-pronged approach here (keep in mind it's Democrats/those to their left and right arguing with centrist/corporate/thirdway Democrats on this) currently. That's not a comprehensive list but it's the gist of it. That said, I wasn't exactly asking about you, I meant what it is you are so confident others are doing and why you think it's so much better than that? Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 00:59 Jankisa wrote:On September 04 2026 00:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 04 2026 00:23 Jankisa wrote:On September 04 2026 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 04 2026 00:04 Jankisa wrote:On September 03 2026 22:33 LightSpectra wrote:
"The center-left will call us self-righteous idiots on social media? Fine. Let them create their vapid digital noise. While they are laughing/crying on Bluesky about the latest idiotic thing uttered by a Republican and voter apathy (or where/whatever), we will be on the ground building the literal networks of survival. When the system inevitably fractures under its own greed, the working class won't run to the liberals who spent decades telling them to compromise. They will run to the people who actually built the infrastructure to keep them alive."
+ Show Spoiler +
Some serious Rorschach vibes there, I always found it funny how morons idealized that guy when he was designed as a critique of extreme moral absolutism and right-wing political philosophies.
Funny how GH sounding like him further validates the horse shoe (3 pronged one) theory for me. Why do you think pretty much all serious political scientists (regardless of political leanings) dismiss horseshoe theory (not even your asinine extension of it) as pop culture tripe? That's like saying that serious scientists dismiss Goodwin's law or Murphy's law, not something that I'm interested in, these are observations made by people and I don't think that they necessarily belong in the realm of science. + Show Spoiler +To me, horse shoe theory (like I mentioned, I do believe there is an equally extreme middle option as well) is pretty much self evident because I've been alive for 35+ years and spent quite bit of time discussing politics in real life and on the internet. Except what I said is true and what you said is misleading at best. Godwin's and Murphy's "law" obviously aren't meant as actual laws of science and serious scientists do use/consider them as adages. "Horseshoe theory" (forget the version you made up yourself) isn't an adage that serious political thinkers (forget "science") find useful, it's a rhetorical tool (not an analytical one) used to maintain the status quo by delegitimizing socialist critiques of the status quo. + Show Spoiler +
I like how you are lecturing me on something that is based in dualism and then completely skipping the part where it also criticizes the other part of the political spectrum.
Shows how serious of a political thinker you are! Less think-ee! More Do-ee! *starts chant*
Fair play
|
United States44372 Posts
|
On September 04 2026 08:18 KwarK wrote:
lol
I don't get the joke tbh. It feels like an exceptionally low bar to clear (respecting pronouns).
I assume there's a bigger GH vs Kwark battle going on in your head that makes "Hey yeah I fucked up, I've mentally held GH as 'he/him' in my head for 8 years, flipping that to they/them is gonna take a minute. My bad." too much of a concession, but like... why?
|
On September 04 2026 09:31 Fleetfeet wrote:I don't get the joke tbh. It feels like an exceptionally low bar to clear (respecting pronouns). I assume there's a bigger GH vs Kwark battle going on in your head that makes "Hey yeah I fucked up, I've mentally held GH as 'he/him' in my head for 8 years, flipping that to they/them is gonna take a minute. My bad." too much of a concession, but like... why?
You use someone's proper pronouns as a sign of respect once they ask you to use them. GH is the opposite of respecting people.
|
On September 04 2026 10:49 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 09:31 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 04 2026 08:18 KwarK wrote:
lol I don't get the joke tbh. It feels like an exceptionally low bar to clear (respecting pronouns). I assume there's a bigger GH vs Kwark battle going on in your head that makes "Hey yeah I fucked up, I've mentally held GH as 'he/him' in my head for 8 years, flipping that to they/them is gonna take a minute. My bad." too much of a concession, but like... why? You use someone's proper pronouns as a sign of respect once they ask you to use them. GH is the opposite of respecting people.
I know you think this makes it somehow acceptable but deliberately using incorrect pronouns as a punishment communicates that this community believes a trans/non-binary person's gender identity is conditional and can be revoked by others. Trying to make it socially acceptable to misgender "bad" trans people compromises the safety and dignity of entire communities.
I feel like this was pretty well covered for libs when Caitlyn Jenner was killing people with her car and endorsing Trump while winning woman of the year. It's still not cool to misgender her.
EDIT: I think it's clear the misgendering and lack of corrections is intentional and demonstrative of the community at this point.
|
On September 04 2026 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 10:49 Sermokala wrote:On September 04 2026 09:31 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 04 2026 08:18 KwarK wrote:
lol I don't get the joke tbh. It feels like an exceptionally low bar to clear (respecting pronouns). I assume there's a bigger GH vs Kwark battle going on in your head that makes "Hey yeah I fucked up, I've mentally held GH as 'he/him' in my head for 8 years, flipping that to they/them is gonna take a minute. My bad." too much of a concession, but like... why? You use someone's proper pronouns as a sign of respect once they ask you to use them. GH is the opposite of respecting people. I know you think this makes it somehow acceptable but deliberately using incorrect pronouns as a punishment communicates that this community believes a trans/non-binary person's gender identity is conditional and can be revoked by others. Trying to make it socially acceptable to misgender "bad" trans people compromises the safety and dignity of entire communities. I feel like this was pretty well covered for libs when Caitlyn Jenner was killing people with her car and endorsing Trump while winning woman of the year. It's still not cool to misgender her.
You need to understand when you have a history of disingenuous behaviour spanning a decade and come out to win an argument, there are going to be people questioning your authenticity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
