|
A big flaming stink posted:And do you think people are just naturally "vindictive shits"? Like do you think that is just a genetic reality of white people???? No, but I also don't think the people inculcated into being shits can change. At least not on a statistical level. The hope for the future lies in there being less terrible white people, both in terms of lowering the % of terrible and the % of white. Both of these things ARE happening, which is why I still remain relatively hopeful. 7c Nickel fucked around with this message at 22:00 on May 18, 2019 |
#
?
May 18, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
There's one political party that has basically dedicated itself to exacerbating the worst instincts of white people: their vindictiveness, their rigid refusal to cede their place in society, their racism and selfishness. So, you know, make sure not to vote against them! The other party isn't perfect, either!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
it’s not a binary, you don’t have to choose between the fascists and the fascist-enablers like a valid solution to the trolley problem is to challenge the constraints and tell the proctor to gently caress off
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Phone posted:it’s not a binary, you don’t have to choose between the fascists and the fascist-enablers It literally is. And not choosing helps whoever you were least aligned with. I like your AV btw, reminds me of stuff from https://rekall.me/. 7c Nickel fucked around with this message at 22:05 on May 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
Phone posted:it’s not a binary, you don’t have to choose between the fascists and the fascist-enablers Oho, did your country change its election system in the past 3 hours? Or what arms depots did you seize?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:No, but I also don't think the people inculcated into being shits can change. At least not on a statistical level. The hope for the future lies in there being less terrible white people, both in terms of lowering the % of terrible and the % of white. Both of these things ARE happening, which is why I still remain relatively hopeful. not only does this speak to a horrific level of cynicism regarding one's fellow human, not only does this belief of demographics as destiny stand on incredibly fraught ground, but you do realize that the time required for these terrible white people to die out will result in the death of billions, right? this sort of ideology is only useful for the smug satisfaction of watching everything descend into hell. Mellow Seas posted:There's one political party that has basically dedicated itself to exacerbating the worst instincts of white people: their vindictiveness, their rigid refusal to cede their place in society, their racism and selfishness. 7c Nickel posted:It literally is. And not choosing helps whoever you were least aligned with. who could have possibly expected people to be less than thrilled with the dichotomy of fascists and fascist enablers?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:not only does this speak to a horrific level of cynicism regarding one's fellow human, not only does this belief of demographics as destiny stand on incredibly fraught ground, but you do realize that the time required for these terrible white people to die out will result in the death of billions, right? Yes, millions and millions of people are going to die because a large enough percentage of the population is poo poo. I am not smug or satisfied about this but "That sounds horrible so it can't be true!" is not actually an argument. You will not change this by not voting, you will only make things worse faster. quote:who could have possibly expected people to be less than thrilled with the dichotomy of fascists and fascist enablers? The thing is, that as poo poo as things are they CAN ALWAYS BE WORSE.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:How do you square that with the fact that the Democratic Party has been moving left for the past 20 years or so? Everything I've seen during my lifetime suggest that electoral success creates room for movement to the left. I mean right now Biden is leading the pack after we lost to the right wing. Isn't that the exact opposite of what you think should happen? I forgot this thread existed, so I'm gonna respond to this even though it was from a few pages ago. Democratic politicians, like all politicians, respond to threats that could cost them their jobs. This is why it makes more strategic sense to get mad at Nancy Pelosi than it does to get mad at Mitch McConnell. McConnell is objectively worse and more harmful, but he doesn't give a poo poo. And he rightfully doesn't give a poo poo, because his constituency isn't going to vote him out for anything that he does. Someone like Nancy Pelosi is still reachable and that's precisely because there's a very real threat that her constituency will abandon her. We can control Nancy Pelosi to some degree, but we can't control Mitch McConnell at all. Leftward movement in the Democratic party isn't because of electoral wins, and it's frankly insulting to the people who have put in real effort on the ground to suggest that it is. The Democratic party has moved (painfully, and with great resistance) leftward as a response to popular movements within their base. They're moving left because they're under attack from the left and they've reached the limit of what they can win by appealing to to the right-wing of the party or to swing voters.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Am I not clear enough, that voting is not a method of making threat, and not voting also is not?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I forgot this thread existed, so I'm gonna respond to this even though it was from a few pages ago. I'm not sure we're really disagreeing here? In my view, all the labor and agitation is necessary to show/generate the weight behind them that can translate to electoral success. Demonstrating that success builds on itself. Conversely, failure makes people, not just elected official but voters too, look elsewhere and usually that's to who won (the right 99% of the time). It's an almost entirely bottom up point of view. And even if their work doesn't translate to electoral success, that doesn't mean that their point of view isn't correct or that they shouldn't advocate it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I forgot this thread existed, so I'm gonna respond to this even though it was from a few pages ago. Really? Historically the party moved farthest left under LBJ and FDR. Big wins created the room for big shifts. Same thing happened with the Republicans moving right, only they’ve seen more big wins the past 50 years. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 08:13 on May 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 08:09
|
|
|
Radish posted:"Primary them if they are so bad" flew out the window when the DCCC made the public policy of black listing people that worked with challengers. gently caress that fake argument. How dare you accuse dems of rigging the primary process, hope you didn't spill your borscht, BORIS!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Oh and also never vote for a neoliberal, not matter what, doesn't matter if it's a primary or the general.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
twodot posted:You are not. For example, I agree that me personally not voting for Clinton in 2016 in Washington state was no real threat, because Washington was always going to vote for Clinton in any circumstance. However, you're here posting in the protest voting thread for some sort of reason, and that reason is either that protest voters are a threat against your desires, or some other reason that I'll leave you to fill in the blanks. Regardless of your reason, I'll venture you wouldn't be posting here if protest voting didn't constitute some sort of threat.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Really? Historically the party moved farthest left under LBJ and FDR. Big wins created the room for big shifts. Same thing happened with the Republicans moving right, only they’ve seen more big wins the past 50 years. Probably the party was at its furthest left under Nixon.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Probably the party was at its furthest left under Nixon. Even if so, that’s a development in the immediate aftermath of the LBJ years, and the shift was well underway before Nixon took office. The real thing in my post is “how far a shift relative to a short time earlier”, not pinpointing the exact time the farthest left guy was nominated.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Even if so, that’s a development in the immediate aftermath of the LBJ years, and the shift was well underway before Nixon took office. The real thing in my post is “how far a shift relative to a short time earlier”, not pinpointing the exact time the farthest left guy was nominated. But then you'd have to look at the transformations of the party from 1968-1972 and conclude that yes in fact massive shifts are entirely possible. We went from smoke-filled rooms deciding nominees (with only ~15% women as delegates) to an actual primary (and ~40% women) in less than 4 years.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
Phone posted:it’s not a binary, you don’t have to choose between the fascists and the fascist-enablers Sure, I guess "kill both sets of people" is a valid solution to the trolley problem.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Sure, I guess "kill both sets of people" is a valid solution to the trolley problem. Well when fascists and fascist enablers are on the tracks,
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
I still can't find a good reason why assholes who say they're going to gently caress me, plan to gently caress me, and will gently caress me when in power are just owed my vote, no conditions asked. Even the last few things they should be helping with since its not against their bottom line, they're ok with making sure I know they'll just gently caress me on that too. They also make sure I know if I want to help change things so they're not loving me, they're going to gently caress me trying to change it. Getting hosed every which way, and people even stick up for them saying "yeah you're getting hosed bad but... hey those other guys are going to gently caress you a bit worse, so you better support our fuckers no matter what, no how much they say they want to gently caress you." Very, very tired of feeling and being told I'm obligated to support people loving me over, and getting the stink eye when I hopelessly vote for people that at least don't want to gently caress me.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
Also, special gently caress you shout-out to people who demand you tell them how you voted. Like, what's the point of a secret ballot if not telling people your choices just gets you ostracized anyway?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
Tom Guycot posted:I still can't find a good reason why assholes who say they're going to gently caress me, plan to gently caress me, and will gently caress me when in power are just owed my vote, no conditions asked. Even the last few things they should be helping with since its not against their bottom line, they're ok with making sure I know they'll just gently caress me on that too. They also make sure I know if I want to help change things so they're not loving me, they're going to gently caress me trying to change it. It's because the people doing that have reduced your humanity down to the parts they can exploit for their own agenda. They don't see you as a human being with needs, they see you as a demographic that has no choice but to support the Democratic Leadership. It's not about making your life better, it's about your vote propping up the status quo that sustains their privileged existence. Case in point: note how none of the privileged white males demanding that Democratic Leadership be blindly supported have offered up any way to adjust the problem of the dcccd actively working to undermine the rights of women. Because to them the real problem is not Democratic Leadership undermining the rights of women, the real problem is women/minorities who won't support Democratic Leadership while it publicly screws them over. They want compliant minority's who live on the plantation and tell everyone how great life is here. They don't want human beings capable of independent thought who insist that their elected officials do not publicly betray their interests.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Really? Historically the party moved farthest left under LBJ and FDR. Big wins created the room for big shifts. Same thing happened with the Republicans moving right, only they’ve seen more big wins the past 50 years. Alternately, the party was moving left and the Great Society was a response to that. This seems more likely to me, since LBJ literally began spearheading it as part of his 1964 re-election campaign. Crucially, this wasn't a leftist policy that he chose to pursue after being elected on a more centrist platform, so I don't find it a compelling argument that his win somehow created room for a leftward shift. He was smart enough to see the way that the winds were blowing and it kept him in office. I also think that you're reading something into my post that isn't there. I'm not saying that Democrats need to lose in order for the party to move left, I'm saying that leftward movement within the party is largely independent of electoral wins. I'll take wins over losses every time since we need Democrats in power to actually get policy enacted, but we also shouldn't be afraid to just coldly discard politicians who clearly aren't going to budge. Every now and then that's going to mean losing an election and that loving sucks, but the alternative hurts more people over the long run.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
Okay but I do not see these shifts as independent of election results. How much of the 60s realignment is down to Democrats being dominant, moving on civil rights, and the south taking a hike? I don’t think you get there as quick without LBJ. If Nixon wins in 60, I think we’d have seen the parties in post-war stasis for longer. I also doubt Bernie would now be a household name if Obama hadn’t won in ‘08. The Democrats would still be struggling to pass some kind of version of Obamacare instead of debating what’s next.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Okay but I do not see these shifts as independent of election results. How much of the 60s realignment is down to Democrats being dominant, moving on civil rights, and the south taking a hike? I don’t think you get there as quick without LBJ. If Nixon wins in 60, I think we’d have seen the parties in post-war stasis for longer. I also doubt Bernie would now be a household name if Obama hadn’t won in ‘08. The Democrats would still be struggling to pass some kind of version of Obamacare instead of debating what’s next. Both the Civil Rights reforms of the 60s and the New Deal were direct consequences of American leftists being on the verge of rising up and causing a civil war/breakdown in the system. The thing about comfortable moderates is that they only respond to threats, and they only respond to the biggest threat they perceive to their current status quo. The New Deal and the Civil Rights Act were caused by the comfortable moderates feeling threatened. Once the threat subsided so did the progressive legislation. Our leaders need to feel like their power is insecure if they betray their constituents. This is an extremely simple concept to wrap one's mind around, I don't understand the struggle here.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 04:38
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:Also, special gently caress you shout-out to people who demand you tell them how you voted. Like, what's the point of a secret ballot if not telling people your choices just gets you ostracized anyway?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Both the Civil Rights reforms of the 60s and the New Deal were direct consequences of American leftists being on the verge of rising up and causing a civil war/breakdown in the system. The thing about comfortable moderates is that they only respond to threats, and they only respond to the biggest threat they perceive to their current status quo. The New Deal and the Civil Rights Act were caused by the comfortable moderates feeling threatened. Once the threat subsided so did the progressive legislation. In particular it was the thread of Communism and the USSR, the Communist Party was growing in large numbers during the early 1930s and the USSR was hammering the US internationally during the 1960s for JIm Crow and it’s human rights practices. The reason the Democrats in particular got so confident in the 1990s was that the big threat from the left was finally gone.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 13:19
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Really? Historically the party moved farthest left under LBJ and FDR. Big wins created the room for big shifts. Same thing happened with the Republicans moving right, only they’ve seen more big wins the past 50 years. so we need a catastrophic economic collapse inducing the bourgeoisie to forestall america going full communist and also to kill the current president? OH SHIUSER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
People don't believe me when I say that D&D is the only actually hilarious forum on SA anymore but where else are you going to get purportedly smart people calling the LBJ administration "a big [electoral] win" e; hey how did that guy's presidency end, anyway? since you're in a telling-folk-poo poo mood and all?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:People don't believe me when I say that D&D is the only actually hilarious forum on SA anymore but where else are you going to get purportedly smart people calling the LBJ administration "a big [electoral] win" LBJ’s administration was a big win for left-wing policies, the last time any left-wing policy passed, really. Everybody knows his foreign policy was GWB-level bad or worse, you’re not owning anybody here.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
And his route to power was the guy who won the primary getting his head blown in half by a communist and that foreign policy was so disasterous it led to him declining to run for a second electoral term. the convention was fairly spicy that year, you may recall
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:LBJ’s administration was a big win for left-wing policies, the last time any left-wing policy passed, really. No I am owned because I forgot what a disaster 1964 was. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_elections Just an electoral bloodbath. Look at all that red.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
Sure if you tactically ignore how he got in, how he stayed in, and the nature of his exit fracturing the new deal coalition and are generally hazy on causality it would.... still appear that offering policies people want lead to victory, engaging in malicious policy leads to an electoral rout (and in this case shattering the liberal bloc leading to half a century of right wing darkness) and that Big Wins don't just immanently happen--they happen because candidates speak to issues. 64 didn't happen because of promises to work with segregationists, the republican running in 64 was Kind Of A Big Deal and 68 was a very important year you should learn literally anything about before stroking yourself to the thought of electoral victory because Blue No Matter Who. It's not just simple disagreement, you are hedging to a time period that very specifically illustrates the opposite of your point.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:There's one political party that has basically dedicated itself to exacerbating the worst instincts of white people: their vindictiveness, their rigid refusal to cede their place in society, their racism and selfishness. This is the reason why I'm voting for the Dem ticket in 2020 regardless of who it is. If Trump and the Republicans put yet another fascist on the Supreme Court who clearly prioritizes Christian Theocracy, White Nationalism, and Private Party over literally anyone and anything else, then nothing resembling liberal/left politics will matter again in this country forever. It'll be Hungary under Viktor Orban.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:This is the reason why I'm voting for the Dem ticket in 2020 regardless of who it is. If Trump and the Republicans put yet another fascist on the Supreme Court who clearly prioritizes Christian Theocracy, White Nationalism, and Private Party over literally anyone and anything else, then nothing resembling liberal/left politics will matter again in this country forever. It'll be Hungary under Viktor Orban. How is that prevented if they Garland a Biden?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:How is that prevented if they Garland a Biden? You can bet your rear end concentration camps for the homeless population will begin construction (at least) by the end of Trump's second term if he wins reelection with another fascist on the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:You can bet your rear end concentration camps for the homeless population will begin construction (at least) by the end of Trump's second term if he wins reelection with another fascist on the Supreme Court. Ok, but if Biden wins in 2020, aren't you just delaying the concentration camps by 4 years until Biden loses to Tom Cotton? Republicans will never let Biden appoint a SCOTUS nominee.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:so we need a catastrophic economic collapse inducing the bourgeoisie to forestall america going full communist and also to kill the current president? OH SHIUSER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST You joke, but you've pretty much hit the nail on the head why D&D circlejerking will never be able to arrive to a viable solution to the Nazification of America.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ok, but if Biden wins in 2020, aren't you just delaying the concentration camps by 4 years until Biden loses to Tom Cotton? I don't think Biden will be the nominee nor win election, and even if he did, we don't know what the Senate situation will be like, so hypothesizing whether a Dem President will be "allowed" SCOTUS nominees is a bit meh.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
Slutitution posted:I don't think Biden will be the nominee nor win election, and even if he did, we don't know what the Senate situation will be like, so hypothesizing whether a Dem President will be "allowed" SCOTUS nominees is a bit meh. Then how can you hypothesize with such certainty about what Trump 2020 would do for SCOTUS picks (and the consequences) if you think we can't determine the state of the senate? Maybe Trump wins in 2020 and Democrats gain control of the senate preventing additional terrible judges.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 20:02
|
|