|
Miltank posted:society isn't a business or a car or window blinds or your foot. This sort of "common sense" wisdom is useless. Purposefully inflicting harm on society in an effort to motivate a populist uprising is bad.
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
its not about inciting uprising its about not accepting neoliberalism from the democrats. e: the real 2016 election is likely to be the democratic primary
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Miltank posted:society isn't a business or a car or window blinds or your foot. This sort of "common sense" wisdom is useless. It is useless when you talk finance, but not accellerationism. You don't will harm on the society just to teach it a lesson.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Miltank posted:its not about inciting uprising its about not accepting neoliberalism from the democrats. Uhm that's not accelerationism. That's voting for the Green Party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Amergin posted:I never understand the hatred for accelerationism here. As soon as it's mentioned everyone just flippantly labels it the "teenagers' political choice" and walks away all Maybe because accelerationism hurts people who have something to lose? Which is, like, 99.9% of the US population?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:54
|
|
like they actually posted a clarifying response.
|
zoux posted:Uhm that's not accelerationism. That's voting for the Green Party. whats the difference?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
I think voting for the Green Party is the definition of inflicting self harm to better a populist movement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Look at it in the private sector: do you propose needed reforms to avoid harm to your company/employer, or do you actively cause harm to your company then propose reforms? 1) I thought you had me ignored? 2) So the government is like a business except when that analogy goes against your beliefs on how the government should be run? EDIT: Alter Ego posted:Maybe because accelerationism hurts people who have something to lose? Which is, like, 99.9% of the US population? As was mentioned before: If the current policies are still hurting those people, would you rather take short term pain for long term gain or drag everything out?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Looking at SCOTUS chat from another thread, what is keeping Obama from appointing 2 more justices out of the blue? I thought that was a power he had.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Amergin posted:1) I thought you had me ignored? It's not short term pain, as you so smugly suggest. As was mentioned before, accelerationism in no way guarantees some sort of grand populist uprising. FYI, your gimmick works better when you're not being cartoonishly evil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Looking at SCOTUS chat from another thread, what is keeping Obama from appointing 2 more justices out of the blue? I thought that was a power he had. Wouldn't that lead to the inevitable Republican president putting in three? It seems self defeating.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
What makes an accelerationist so sure that their philosophy will be the one to emerge triumphant from the wreckage?Cheekio posted:Looking at SCOTUS chat from another thread, what is keeping Obama from appointing 2 more justices out of the blue? I thought that was a power he had. The number of justices is set by Congress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Looking at SCOTUS chat from another thread, what is keeping Obama from appointing 2 more justices out of the blue? I thought that was a power he had. This says it's limited to 9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
haveblue posted:What makes an accelerationist so sure that their philosophy will be the one to emerge triumphant from the wreckage? Ideological purity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
haveblue posted:What makes an accelerationist so sure that their philosophy will be the one to emerge triumphant from the wreckage? Just ask the German communists oh, wait.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:Just ask the German communists oh, wait. The liberals in Germany actively chose fascism over any kind of leftism, even the social democrats. I just hope the teapartiers take pity on my mexican heritage when the end comes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
haveblue posted:What makes an accelerationist so sure that their philosophy will be the one to emerge triumphant from the wreckage
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Ask Hamas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The number of justices is set by Congress. Ganon posted:This says it's limited to 9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869 Thanks. Just making sure there are no silver bullets that Obama could pull out of thin air to fix things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
Miltank posted:it could happen which gives us a better shot than if we keep voting for center-right democrats. If you can't do it when things are nice then how are you going to do it when things are poo poo? Why would it be easier?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Ganon posted:This says it's limited to 9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869 Additionally the court packing plan FDR proposed was the Judiciary Act of 1937, he just didn't start submitting justices for approval to the senate. e: CoolCab posted:Just ask the German communists oh, wait. Its not like they came in a close second or anything! Thanks liberals for literally choosing Hitler. e2: oh wait they totally would have won if not for Stalin splitting the SPD and KPD. Thanks Stalin for literally choosing Hitler. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:If you can't do it when things are nice then how are you going to do it when things are poo poo? Why would it be easier? Force democrats or a replacement party to embrace left wing populism by rejecting centrism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Voting for a policy you hate will somehow strengthen candidates who do agree with you. Are you assholes insane?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Voting for a policy you hate will somehow strengthen candidates who do agree with you. It's essentially the current Tea Party tactic of using extremist populism to draw your party away from the center. Only instead of replacing McCain with Cruz, we'd replace Clinton with Warren. I don't think to be accelerationist you necessarily have to vote for the most fringe Tea Party Republicans, but at the very least you vote for far-left candidates in primaries and if those candidates fail, you DON'T vote in the general election (or vote for the milquetoast Republican candidate). The problem is liberals have no balls (exhibit A: this thread) and want to be as pragmatic as possible to save people pain, even if it means effectively electing female Romney. Amergin fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
It should be punishable for people to try and silence you Amerigin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Amergin posted:It's essentially the current Tea Party tactic of using extremist populism to draw your party away from the center. Tea Partiers aren't using a strategy of voting for leftist candidates in order to push Cruz into power. They are...dun dun dun...voting for the candidate they want, namely Cruz himself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
No, see, Hillary of House Clinton will totally be able to tell the difference between the people who wholeheartedly support her in her milquetoast centrist horseshit and those who just held their noses and pulled the lever, because SCOTUS or something. A vote for Clinton is a vote for policies THAT WE ALL HATE. It is functionally identical to voting for a Republican with the one caveat that supreme court nominees actually do matter. Whether or not SCOTUS nominees are worth your explicit endorsement of policies that are contributing to the downward spiral this country's in to almost the exact same extent as Republican policy is a personal value judgment I guess. sit on my Facebook fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Amergin posted:It's essentially the current Tea Party tactic of using extremist populism to draw your party away from the center. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a cat rubbing dingleberries off on your carpet forever, the dingleberries are "SCOTUS PICKS" and the carpet is "america's face" The cat is the DLC
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
So is this one of your actual opinions or is this just more of you testing your get out of trouble for shitposting free pass. Seriously though why is this still going on, it hasn't been funny for months.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Tea Partiers aren't using a strategy of voting for leftist candidates in order to push Cruz into power. They are...dun dun dun...voting for the candidate they want, namely Cruz himself. Did anyone suggest voting for rightists as the path to pushing the Democrats left? No, people suggested voting for actual leftists leftists (even if they won't win), which is basically what the Tea Party has been doing. zoux posted:Uhm that's not accelerationism. That's voting for the Green Party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:So is this one of your actual opinions or is this just more of you testing your get out of trouble for shitposting free pass. You have a terrible sense of humor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Making things get worse faster is like the definition of accelerationism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Did anyone suggest voting for rightists as the path to pushing the Democrats left? No, people suggested voting for actual leftists leftists (even if they won't win), which is basically what the Tea Party has been doing. A lot of people are suggesting that we don't vote at all if there are no leftist candidates, leaving political power in the hands of those we disagree with completely. You don't win at tug-of-war if you don't pull.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
anonumos posted:A lot of people are suggesting that we don't vote at all if there are no leftist candidates, leaving political power in the hands of those we disagree with completely. You don't win at tug-of-war if you don't pull. Can we get a constitutional amendment banning analogies being used in politics because this poo poo is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Force democrats or a replacement party to embrace left wing populism by rejecting centrism. Why would things getting worse obligate them to make things better? Society can always go backwards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Can we get a constitutional amendment banning analogies being used in politics because this poo poo is ridiculous. Well fine. Leftists, stay home. Don't participate. Don't choose. Let the other guys choose for you. Surely that will bring about a glorious parade of leftist candidates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
*about to get domed by obese evangelical fascists and fall into a burning ditch* "Ahahaha, it begins! Won't liberals' faces be red."
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:*about to get domed by obese evangelical fascists and fall into a burning ditch* If you want to picture the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face which is saying "sure showed them!" - forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Well fine. Leftists, stay home. Don't participate. Don't choose. Let the other guys choose for you. Surely that will bring about a glorious parade of leftist candidates. Well that's not what I meant in the slightest, just that government and politics is too complex and that any analogy quickly falls apart because of that and is why argument by analogy doesn't work well here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
anonumos posted:Well fine. Leftists, stay home. Don't participate. Don't choose. Let the other guys choose for you. Surely that will bring about a glorious parade of leftist candidates. Well what do you suggest as the alternative? Die slower, but be happy because we get a few cheap symbolic victories? Obviously not voting for them is worthless unless it communicates the fact that they need to change, but if a whole bunch of people vote for, say, some left wing independent instead of Hillary, do you really think that's accelerationism? Is it "just letting the other guys win"? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 16:48
|
|