|
Iamgoofball posted:100% of accelerationists are upper middle class whites who have never experienced poverty living in a gated community in suburbia who think they will never actually see the bad parts of the collapse they advocate for because they're sheltered morons Do you have a source for this claim? Because it doesn’t match my personal experiences nor does it make much sense logically. Why would upper-middle class white people want to upturn the system that has given them a comfortable life? Accelerationism is typically embraced by people who feel they have nothing to lose by scrapping the current system. Not by affluent residents living within gated communities—although I will defer to any credible sources you have that dispute my statement.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 14:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Kagrenak posted:When has a "collapse" (specifically not revolution, collapse) actually led to anything getting better, historically? Isn't the Black Death credited for doing a lot to destabilize feudal relations, helping to accelerate the end of feudalism? edit: And Japan's loss in WW2 was pretty dang bad, but directly led to them getting democracy, women's rights and so on Gripweed fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Dec 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 14:35
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Isn't the Black Death credited for doing a lot to destabilize feudal relations, helping to accelerate the end of feudalism? Japan's loss involved an occupying power imposing those ideals on them through censorship, rebuilding, co-opting the symbols of the old regime such as the emperor and using them to build support for the new one, purging government officials with the old ideals and ensuring the rehabilitation and reinstalment of previously purged officials with the new ideals. It is not in any way equivalent to a free-for-all civil war. There was not at any point anything close to resembling a power vaccuum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 14:48
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:No, we wouldn't. The Republican who won in 2020 after covid-19 killed an unprecedented 100,000 Americans would've gotten to appoint the same seats since Mitch kept them vacant. There's no anti-Trump wave in 2018 with no Trump. Tnega posted:That is a comforting speculation, that conveniently ignores the reality that there were already calls not to confirm any of Clinton's nominees. Maybe Clinton would have thrown Roe under the bus to get anyone through the confirmation process. Well, sure, if we assume that the Republicans hold the Senate in 2016 and 2018 and 2020, along with a Republican also winning office in 2020, then Roe probably would have been in trouble regardless. Of course, that was not part of the initial hypothetical either of you were responding to, absolutely none of those would be obvious, immediate, inevitable consequences of a Hillary win. Politics would have looked very different in 2017 after a Trump loss. And if Mitch is able to hold a Supreme Court seat open for four more years without the slightest electoral blowback against the GOP, then clearly the American people don't give the slightest poo poo about saving Roe anyway. Which we know isn't true, based on the widespread electoral backlash against GOP anti-abortion policies. the_steve posted:I personally believe you're working on the faulty assumption that the Dems don't want to move right in the first place. If leftism is such a big election-winner, then all of those right-wing Dems would have been primaried by leftists ages ago, and plenty of purple-state Republicans would have lost their seats to far-left challengers. Instead, leftist Dems seem to have almost no political success outside of the bluest seats. Personally, I'm quite shocked to see people still uncritically championing the idea that leftism is the way to win elections, given that by now we have tons of evidence suggesting that it isn't true! Hell, Biden himself is great proof of that, given that he's the furthest-left president we've had since the 70s (if not earlier), and we're talking about how he's surely going to lose his reelection to an openly-fascist 78-year-old walking spray tan. The Top G posted:Do you have a source for this claim? Because it doesn’t match my personal experiences nor does it make much sense logically. Why would upper-middle class white people want to upturn the system that has given them a comfortable life? They're so used to having that comfortable life, no matter how bad things get for everyone else, that they don't really consider the idea that they could lose that comfortable life in a collapse. It's not "people who feel they have nothing to lose", it's "people who don't even realize how much they have to lose". That's why accelerationism has traditionally been an idea mostly explored by the ivory tower segments of the left (academics, philosophers, college kids, and internet bloggers) while being largely ignored by the actual poor and downtrodden (labor, civil rights movements, etc).
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 14:55
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:Japan's loss involved an occupying power imposing those ideals on them through censorship, rebuilding, co-opting the symbols of the old regime such as the emperor and using them to build support for the new one, purging government officials with the old ideals and ensuring the rehabilitation and reinstalment of previously purged officials with the new ideals. It is not in any way equivalent to a free-for-all civil war. There was not at any point anything close to resembling a power vaccuum. And that’s not even mentioning a bombing campaign so severe that the two nuclear bombs going off weren’t even the deadliest raids! Or a near famine due to all trade being cut off. Not exactly something you can do just by hoping you can self-collapse the system for the sake of watching it burn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 14:57
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:Japan's loss involved an occupying power imposing those ideals on them through censorship, rebuilding, co-opting the symbols of the old regime such as the emperor and using them to build support for the new one, purging government officials with the old ideals and ensuring the rehabilitation and reinstalment of previously purged officials with the new ideals. It is not in any way equivalent to a free-for-all civil war. There was not at any point anything close to resembling a power vaccuum. We can quibble about the precise definition of "collapse" but the idea that societal collapse, where the old structures break down and things suck and a lot of people starve to death has never led to positive changes afterwards is just historically incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 14:57
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:We can quibble about the precise definition of "collapse" but the idea that societal collapse, where the old structures break down and things suck and a lot of people starve to death has never led to positive changes afterwards is just historically incorrect. OK but we're discussing accelerationists and generally in the US this presents itself as people voting for the worst guy possible because its going to awaken the sleeping masses and they are going to revolt because it sucks so much. Post-war Japan was an occupying military power remaking the country's institutions in its image. It was not the masses rebelling against said power because things sucked (they did) and then getting great living standards in their rebellion. Post-war Japan and Germany was used to justify the US' interventions and subsequent failed nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan too. That was a failed experiment that created an enormous amount of human suffering that ended up accomplishing precisely nothing just like accelerationism will. Post-war Japan was far more compelling evidence for the failed nation-building idea than it is for accelerationism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 15:16
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:OK but we're discussing accelerationists and generally in the US this presents itself as people voting for the worst guy possible because its going to awaken the sleeping masses and they are going to revolt because it sucks so much. OK but that wasn’t what Kagrenak asked, they wanted any historical example of societal collapse turning things around for the better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 15:22
|
|
|
Bellmaker posted:The US was built on genocide and the bones of marginalized communities, the lack of a red line isn't some kind of new revelation. It’s surprising when the ones who lack the red line are the ones so worried about how much harm Trump will do will still vote for someone who is doing an tremendous amount of harm. Then again, that is also not new.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:It’s surprising when the ones who lack the red line are the ones so worried about how much harm Trump will do will still vote for someone who is doing an tremendous amount of harm. Then again, that is also not new. It really isn’t surprising, in my opinion. Most people who vote look at elections in relative terms, how the “realistic” candidates square up against each other. Most people don’t pretend like voting is an endorsement of everything that the candidate believes in/does.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 15:58
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:We can quibble about the precise definition of "collapse" but the idea that societal collapse, where the old structures break down and things suck and a lot of people starve to death has never led to positive changes afterwards is just historically incorrect. It's not a quibble, your lack of knowledge has led you to argue in favor of colonialism when you where trying to argue for accelerationism. Japan was in a horrible place after WW2, but the government didn't collapse so much as it was seized wholesale by the US. The goverment, the information, everything was still intact, it was just placed under control of a foreign power under threat of violence to serve the interests of that power. It used a much lighter touch than any colonial project I can think of and Japan is fairly autonomous these days, but US involvement is best understood as a colonial project done to prep for the cold war. Collapse doesn't refer to Godzilla stomping on a country and making things worse in a way that changes a government, it refers to the destruction (or collapse) of centralized civillian government. We actually have a pretty good example of collapse in Japan, as the collapse of the central civillian government directly preceeded and defined the Sengoku period. If you're arguing for accelerationism, that's the go-to period you should cite examples from when reviewing how accelerationism effects material conditions, rights and the structure of government.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
Kalit posted:It really isn’t surprising, in my opinion. If someone voted for Trump, do they support everything he does? I've seen a lot of people get rightfully mad at Trump voters because of the things Trump has said and done. I don't think that most people support everything their choice believes in/does, however genocide is a pretty big issue and shouldn't be brushed aside. It should be a deal breaker and it's hosed up that people don't think supporting a genocide is a deal breaker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 16:10
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:If someone voted for Trump, do they support everything he does? I've seen a lot of people get rightfully mad at Trump voters because of the things Trump has said and done. Honestly, I can't think of the last time a president and most of congress haven't [accidentally or purposefully] attempted or directly supported attempts of genocide. It sucks, but the alternative is not voting, having said support of genocide escalating even higher, and watching more and more marginalized people in our country suffer. If you have (somehow) never voted for a politician who has supported genocide, good for you I guess. Meanwhile, I'll vote for politicians who have made a meaningfully better life for those who need the most help. It's not that hard of a calculation in my mind, so go ahead and be offended.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:OK but that wasn’t what Kagrenak asked, they wanted any historical example of societal collapse turning things around for the better. But Japan isn't an example of that because their society didn't collapse, it was taken apart and reassembled by a foreign occupation with a detailed plan and state actors in control of the situation nearly 100% of the time. But I'll take the black death one as something close to it. So what you're (Mid Life Crisis) saying is that you're comfortable citing the historic example of 60% of the population needs to die, destabilizing an entire continent for several years as support for the efficacy of accelerationist methods? Even then, how long did a positive outcome from all this actually take to occur? Nothing better immediately replaced feudalism after it began to decline, what came after wasn't any better for people on the ground. At least revolutions and independence movements have examples where they've provided results within a generation. Feudalism also could have ended through other types of social change which wouldn't have had to involve the death of half the population. Forces such as: the growth of cities and other larger population centers creating harder to control areas, the growing cost of maintaining a noble household leading to the decline of small lords and the creation of professional armies leading to centralized control. Now that I'm typing this part of it, the end of feudalism could actually be seen as the opposite of a collapse of society in the way we are talking about, as it led towards a coalescing of power towards central authorities. All of this also hides the fact that feudalism came about because of a series of collapses in the 11th century leading to fragmented fiefdoms. So even your example of something bad being ended because of social collapse only had the conditions to arise due to earlier collapse. If we look at modern examples of social collapses in the global south, we can also find many examples of a movement back towards feudalism as a natural development from the devolution of the State's monopoly on violence. What reason would one have to think this wouldn't be the tendency here? Gripweed posted:We can quibble about the precise definition of "collapse" but the idea that societal collapse, where the old structures break down and things suck and a lot of people starve to death has never led to positive changes afterwards is just historically incorrect. What mid life crisis is advocating isn't a revolution, they aren't posting about how to bring about change through upheaval. They're not saying we should be angling towards a proletariat revolution now, they're not arguing for that. Their posting is about causing things to get so intolerable that eventually someone else down the line performs a revolution in the ashes, with no plan for what this is or what that looks like. It's very different from a revolution that causes upheaval along the way. theCalamity posted:If someone voted for Trump, do they support everything he does? I've seen a lot of people get rightfully mad at Trump voters because of the things Trump has said and done. General elections in the US are just basically the trolley problem. The practical support and endorsement you are lending with your general election vote is the delta between two candidates. If candidate A supports bad policies 1 and 2 and candidate B also supports those but also policies 3-10, then your decision is on those. The abolishment of bad policies 1 and 2 are just off the table. But at the same time it's understandable how participation at all leads to a feeling of tacit endorsement, even if I don't think this is the case personally. The real tragedy is the fact that the Democrats didn't do better in the primaries to elect a candidate who would maybe actually reign in Israel's ethnic cleansing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
The Top G posted:Why would upper-middle class white people want to upturn the system that has given them a comfortable life? BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:Japan's loss involved an occupying power imposing those ideals on them through censorship, rebuilding, co-opting the symbols of the old regime such as the emperor and using them to build support for the new one, purging government officials with the old ideals and ensuring the rehabilitation and reinstalment of previously purged officials with the new ideals. It is not in any way equivalent to a free-for-all civil war. There was not at any point anything close to resembling a power vaccuum. Main Paineframe posted:It's not "people who feel they have nothing to lose", it's "people who don't even realize how much they have to lose". theCalamity posted:It’s surprising when the ones who lack the red line are the ones so worried about how much harm Trump will do will still vote for someone who is doing an tremendous amount of harm. Then again, that is also not new. If you are tolerant enough of this country's misdeeds to go to work every day and pay your taxes instead of self-immolating on the steps of the Capitol, then you're tolerant enough of them to vote in favor of a party that supports a bad bipartisan policy if you are doing it with the goal of improving and saving the lives of countless oppressed and marginalized people. The way you are using your vote is selfish. You are using it to self-aggrandize and make yourself feel superior to others who are willing to participate, and helping absolutely nobody.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 16:38
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Isn't the Black Death credited for doing a lot to destabilize feudal relations, helping to accelerate the end of feudalism? Yeah, it opened the door for wage labor and modern capitalism by creating a labor shortage. We just had this happen already though. You want Second Pandemic?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Well, sure, if we assume that the Republicans hold the Senate in 2016 and 2018 and 2020, along with a Republican also winning office in 2020, then Roe probably would have been in trouble regardless. Of course, that was not part of the initial hypothetical either of you were responding to, absolutely none of those would be obvious, immediate, inevitable consequences of a Hillary win. Politics would have looked very different in 2017 after a Trump loss. This is laughably incorrect. Leftist positions and programs to enact meaningful material change poll extremely well. Leftist programs that have been implemented (like social security, the 40 hour workweek, COVID checks, etc) become wildly popular with the electorate. You can't use a lack of electoral success to prove that leftism doesn't work, because both parties sabotage outsiders and outsider positions at every available opportunity. And the US mass media upholds the status quo at all times as well. Your "tons of evidence" is nothing but fruit from the poisoned tree. This argument is every bit as ridiculous as Republicans claiming that "socialism doesn't work, just look at Central America" while completely ignoring America's long record of interfering in Central American politics to make sure that socialism doesn't work!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 16:42
|
|
|
Koburn posted:I'm really not confident that the enthusiasm for Biden is there for 2024. Mostly I just find it hard to believe he's really running again. I know 80 year olds and I wouldn't want to be in a car driven by them, but one being in charge of the most powerful country in the world is okay? (yes I know Trump is almost as old.) I always found these age argument a bit silly, as if the President is going to be riding a horse into battle or engaging in fisticuffs against political opponents. Being the President is largely a desk job where you delegate power to bureaucrats in the executive branch, and occasionally sign bills or appoint people to positions (this is largely handled by your staff as well, except for maybe SCOTUS picks). This means your effectiveness as president is not necessarily tied to your physical capability - it's tied to who you pick to run your administration. This is how Trump was able to do so much damage despite being a fat lazy slob - he picked a bunch of ghouls to dismantle as much of the government as they could in four years. Even Reagan, who had a literal degenerative brain disease, was able to effectively govern in his second term via his staff. Seph fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Dec 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 16:47
|
|
|
Kalit posted:If you have (somehow) never voted for a politician who has supported genocide, good for you I guess. Meanwhile, I'll vote for politicians who have made a meaningfully better life for those who need the most help. It's not that hard of a calculation in my mind, so go ahead and be offended. Voting for someone who is actively supporting a genocide is not making lives meaningfully better. Quite the opposite actually. Kagrenak posted:General elections in the US are just basically the trolley problem. The practical support and endorsement you are lending with your general election vote is the delta between two candidates. If candidate A supports bad policies 1 and 2 and candidate B also supports those but also policies 3-10, then your decision is on those. The abolishment of bad policies 1 and 2 are just off the table. But at the same time it's understandable how participation at all leads to a feeling of tacit endorsement, even if I don't think this is the case personally. I don’t think of it as the trolley problem or at least I’m not the person standing at the lever deciding who gets to be ran over or not. I see myself and others like me on the tracks. That’s why this kind of thinking terrifies me. Misunderstood posted:This just isn't how the average person thinks about voting. There is no "red line," outside of "I do not see any advantage to this candidate being elected." Misunderstood posted:The way you are using your vote is selfish. You are using it to self-aggrandize and make yourself feel superior to others who are willing to participate, and helping absolutely nobody. theCalamity fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Dec 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Voting for someone who is actively supporting a genocide is not making lives meaningfully better. Quite the opposite actually. Notice how I didn’t say “all lives”. I thought that I wouldn’t need to explicitly include [many additional] to that sentence 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:20
|
|
|
Kalit posted:It really isn’t surprising, in my opinion. Do we know this for real across different times and places? I suspect for a lot of people it's more like supporting one's sports team no matter what, but I cannot declare this confidently. Have you studied about this issue?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:21
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:Japan's loss involved an occupying power imposing those ideals on them through censorship, rebuilding, co-opting the symbols of the old regime such as the emperor and using them to build support for the new one, purging government officials with the old ideals and ensuring the rehabilitation and reinstalment of previously purged officials with the new ideals. It is not in any way equivalent to a free-for-all civil war. There was not at any point anything close to resembling a power vaccuum. Also Japan has also been basically had one right-wing party (LDP) ruling since 1955 with a couple small gaps so I wouldn't exactly hold them up as a bastion of positive change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Notice how I didn’t say “all lives”. I thought that I wouldn’t need to explicitly include [many additional] to that sentence My statement still stands. I'll also argue that the ones who are being genocided as we speak need the most help at the moment and their lives are not being improved by voting for people who support the genocide against them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Well, sure, if we assume that the Republicans hold the Senate in 2016 and 2018 and 2020, along with a Republican also winning office in 2020, then Roe probably would have been in trouble regardless. Of course, that was not part of the initial hypothetical either of you were responding to, absolutely none of those would be obvious, immediate, inevitable consequences of a Hillary win. Politics would have looked very different in 2017 after a Trump loss. The GOP did hold the Senate in 2016, and they held the Senate in 2018 despite the blue wave against Trump. Then covid hits, and the 2020 election takes place after 12 years of Dem Presidents. There's no reason to think President HRC would lead to Dem control of the Senate during her term unless you're just writing fanfic where those loving leftists stopped #GirlBoss from ushering in eternal liberal glory, or you think that Trump and Trump alone was the problem and if he was slain in '16 then the rising tide of fascism in the US would've just fizzled out once the object of their hatred for thirty years was in office. Kalit posted:Meanwhile, I'll vote for politicians who have made a meaningfully better life for those who need the most help. The Gazans?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:26
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Calling those who don’t want to vote for people who support genocide selfish is a hell of a characterization. I don’t do this to make myself feel superior. I do it because I don’t want to vote for someone who supports genocide. It's selfish because you're prioritizing your own feelings about getting cooties by voting for a Democrat over the lives of the Ukrainian children who will get hit by shaheds when Trump stops supplying air defense. Literally the only advantage of not voting is that you don't get cooties. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:It's selfish because you're prioritizing your own feelings about getting cooties by voting for a Democrat over the lives of the Ukrainian children who will get hit by shaheds when Trump stops supplying air defense. Literally the only advantage of not voting is that you don't get cooties. No, I'm prioritizing not supporting genocide. The diminishing of genocide using terms "moral purity" and "cooties" is eye opening. It's like some of you are saying that not wanting to vote for people who support genocide is childish and immature.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:It's selfish because you're prioritizing your own feelings about getting cooties by voting for a Democrat over the lives of the Ukrainian children who will get hit by shaheds when Trump stops supplying air defense. Literally the only advantage of not voting is that you don't get cooties. If you feel it is selfish to not vote for someone who is one of the people responsible for an ongoing genocide then you lose the right to get mad when people point out what you are saying really means, or to chide people for whom it is a red line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
Koburn posted:I'm really not confident that the enthusiasm for Biden is there for 2024. Holly & Elena from Politico posted:Biden’s battleground states footprint (or lack thereof) leaves Dems concerned Holly & Elena from Politico posted:In the swing states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada and Georgia, the Biden team has not announced any staff, lagging months behind Trump’s pace in 2019 when he was running for a second term. By May of that year, Trump’s reelection team had named nine regional directors in addition to other state directors. Holly & Elena from Politico posted:Interviews with more than 20 Democratic elected officials and strategists in battleground states, many of whom were granted anonymity to speak freely, reveal concerns that Biden’s comparatively sluggish rate of staffing up will make it more challenging for him to activate key voters, including African-Americans and Latinos. They also said it has left swing states without a clear point of contact in the Biden campaign for organizing travel and resource distribution, while also slowing voter protection plans and delaying other in-state hires. Pete, a longtime Democratic strategist who’s worked on multiple presidential campaigns. posted:“They’ve got to build a serious infrastructure in the battleground states, and they don’t have it right now,” Holly & Elena from Politico posted:The worries reflect a larger anxiety that Democratic officials have about the relatively slow ramp-up of the campaign and Biden’s weak polling in these states. But they also point to a more philosophical divide within the party over whether to make early investments in an on-the-ground presence or on ads and online organizing. It’s a debate accelerated in the pandemic era, when in-person campaigning largely halted among Democrats and political operations adapted by developing their tools online. a Biden campaign spokesperson posted:“Every cycle, anonymous sources and pundits vent to reporters, but make no mistake: this campaign is building strategically and aggressively to earn every vote and to win what will be a competitive election.” Holly & Elena from Politco posted:But the Biden campaign has also deliberately taken a different approach than other presidential campaigns. Unlike Obama, who oversaw a weakened DNC in the 2012 election, Biden has built up and leaned heavily on the national party apparatus this year. The campaign prioritized early TV advertising, plowing more than $13 million into ads airing in battleground states, according to ... That’s an unprecedented sum for a presidential campaign in an off year, as is the spending focused directly on Black and Latino voters, particularly through radio and digital ads. Holly & Elena from Politco posted:Among those innovations, the DNC is running pilot organizing programs in Wisconsin and Arizona to test ways to reach voters in a post-pandemic cycle. The national party has doubled its staff since 2017, while maintaining a 250,000-person national volunteer program. They’ve also placed communications staffers in the four early Republican primary states and Florida. Jim Messina, who managed Obama’s 2012 campaign, posted:“Anyone who mistakes headcount as a stand-in metric for communicating with voters doesn’t know much about the realities of the modern election cycle — or running a campaign built to win in one. Instead of using an outdated model burning through resources this early in the 2024 cycle, Democrats are being smart about when, where and how to invest in a ground game.” https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/09/biden-battleground-states-democrats-00130934 From the horse-race side of things, I think if you look at a site like Betfair they have independent third-parties swinging the election to Trump, whilst other sites like Betfair have the incumbent holding them off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:Oh no, they have a whole little fan fiction about why it wouldn't have made a difference, I've asked. (e: Oh, way beaten, by somebody actually unironically sharing it) By fanfiction do you mean when noted far right Trumpist John McCain publicly stated that no Republican senator would vote for any clinton scotus nominee? It's one thing to be demonstrably wrong on a topic. It's quite another to leverage your wrong beliefs into painting people who are correct on the topic as delusional.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:49
|
|
|
FistEnergy posted:This is laughably incorrect. Leftist positions and programs to enact meaningful material change poll extremely well. Not sure what my point is. FistEnergy posted:both parties sabotage outsiders and outsider positions at every available opportunity. Seph posted:This means your effectiveness as president is not necessarily tied to your physical capability - it's tied to who you pick to run your administration It's not even just the "riding a horse in battle" stuff - all of Biden's stuttering and airhead moments don't matter when he's in a meeting. It's just part of the pageantry. theCalamity posted:I’m not talking about the average voter here. I’m talking about people who will still vote for someone who is actively supporting a genocide as a way to "reduce" harm. theCalamity posted:Calling those who don’t want to vote for people who support genocide selfish is a hell of a characterization. I don’t do this to make myself feel superior. I do it because I don’t want to vote for someone who supports genocide. Like, "I don't want to vote for someone who supports genocide." Why not? What is that accomplishing? It's certainly not stopping genocide, considering the opponent's victory would do nothing to improve the situation. It's to make you feel better about yourself! You are just agreeing with me and saying you don't. Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Dec 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:It's selfish because you're prioritizing your own feelings about getting cooties by voting for a Democrat over the lives of the Ukrainian children who will get hit by shaheds when Trump stops supplying air defense. Literally the only advantage of not voting is that you don't get cooties. Not getting into the voting argument, but please don't minimize an actual loving genocide like this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:No, I'm prioritizing not supporting genocide. The diminishing of genocide using terms "moral purity" and "cooties" is eye opening. It's like some of you are saying that not wanting to vote for people who support genocide is childish and immature. That's all very nice that you get to feel good about yourself for not voting for a Democrat, but it doesn't stop any shaheds from hitting kindergartens. Fister Roboto posted:Not getting into the voting argument, but please don't minimize an actual loving genocide like this. There are several genocides going on. I'm only talking about the one in Ukraine. James Garfield fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Dec 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:That's all very nice that you get to feel good about yourself for not voting for a Democrat, but it doesn't stop any shaheds from hitting kindergartens. Wait till you see what Israel is doing with all the arms we provide them with
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:Well, if you want to think it's not selfish to accomplish nothing, and feel good about yourself for it I'm not doing this to feel good about myself. I'm doing it because not voting for people who support an ongoing genocide is the right thing to do. Misunderstood posted:while actively choosing to not mitigate the risks that marginalized Americans face, go ahead I guess. Misunderstood posted:Like, "I don't want to vote for someone who supports genocide." Why not? Because voting for people who support genocide is bad. Genocides are bad. Why vote for people who support genocide? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) theCalamity fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Dec 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:So does insanely restrictive immigration policy, with brutality visited upon violators. So does increasing funding for cops. So does Israel's war in Gaza. Biden cannot be a good president worthy of support when he is actively more responsible for a genocide occurring than anyone save Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli war cabinet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Because voting for people who support genocide is bad. Genocides are bad. Why vote for people who support genocide? Who are currently thinking about voting for next election out of curiosity?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 18:02
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:I'm not doing this to feel good about myself. I'm doing it because not voting for people who support an ongoing genocide is the right thing to do. What about voting for people who support the LGBTQ community or woman reproduction rights or unions? It very much feels like saying people should disregard domestic policies that help Americans for foreign policies that don't affect Americans. You can not vote for someone who supports genocide but your are also not voting for someone who might make lives of millions of vulnerable Americans better as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Wait till you see what Israel is doing with all the arms we provide them with Israel isn't really pertinent, since Trump winning will at best have no effect and probably lead to more US weapons for Israel. But Trump winning will stop US air defense to Ukraine which will lead to children being murdered by shaheds in kindergarten as part of an ongoing genocide. Turns out there can be more than one genocide at the same time. There's been an ongoing genocide in Myanmar since long before the start of this thread and this post is the first time anyone has said Myanmar in it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Israel isn't really pertinent, since Trump winning will at best have no effect and probably lead to more US weapons for Israel. But Trump winning will stop US air defense to Ukraine which will lead to children being murdered by shaheds in kindergarten as part of an ongoing genocide. Turns out there can be more than one genocide at the same time. There's been an ongoing genocide in Myanmar since long before the start of this thread and this is the first time anyone has said Myanmar in it. Poor Sudan gets left out of the genocide conversation every time but I doubt many people care about either parties positions on what is happening in any country in Africa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
If Joe Niden loses it will be his fault and that of the Democrats for running him in the first place, not the people who refuse to vote for him because of his complicity in a genocide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 18:09
|
|