Taintrunner posted:

it’s time to primary the mods.

sleeptalker posted:

Are you trying to suggest that voting for someone who isn't a rapist is a Russian plot?

Gazpacho posted:

nah i'm pointing out the futility of voting outside the party system for anyone who wants political outcomes and not revolutionary cred

Chuka Umana posted:

what if biden is the accelerationist option

like what if you're 100% sure that socialism will come if and only if Biden is president. would you vote for him then?

Chuka Umana posted:

would you vote for him then?

dex_sda posted:

gently caress off btich

Gazpacho posted:

nah i'm pointing out the futility of voting outside the party system for anyone who wants political outcomes and not revolutionary cred

exmarx posted:

ban any body who voted

exmarx posted:

ban any body who voted for obama or clinton too.

twoday posted:

Came here to post something similar to this.

I also don’t agree that this is the most effective strategy for discouraging people to vote for Biden, which I presume to be one of the main goals of the op. Think of the lurkers, or people from other forums who pop into c-spam once in a while and are unsure about whether to post here because c-spam is perceived by some to a be a hostile leftist bubble. Some of those people may be on the fence about voting for Biden or not. Now consider the following two scenarios:

quote:

I’m not going to speak definitively for the rest of the mod team on this, but I’m pretty sure that the rest of them would agree with me if I say that one of our current goals in c-spam is to make it a welcoming place for new people. If new people come here and stay here and read all the stuff we write, they may think it’s funny and convincing and stick around, and after being exposed to our views, start sharing those views. Rules like this make c-spam seem hostile and weird, and discourage people from reading it.

Your Marxist radicalization chamber isn’t going to radicalize anyone if you post a sign on the door of the chamber which says that moderates will be shot for trespassing if they enter.

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

Gazpacho posted:

nah i'm pointing out the futility of voting outside the party system for anyone who wants political outcomes and not revolutionary cred

Skyl3lazer posted:

Quoting Malcom X to advocate voting for Joseph R. Biden is uh, is something all right.

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

imo... knock biden all you want and you see my gang tag. and not saying don't condemn a person but don't be in such a hurry to do it either. i think you'll end up in a bad place if you make your war with the voters who made their own calculations to support biden over bernie. a lot of people thought biden would be better able to take on trump, were they wrong? maybe. but that's the decision they went with and it's worth considering why they drew that conclusion and what bernie could've done that would have captured the imagination of these voters -- particularly older african-americans, but that would've probably required a lot more groundwork laid in advance. you know some of these people were victims of KKK terror or when they were children and had relatives they knew murdered and never spoke about it with white people. do those voters think electing joe biden is going to solve racism? i dunno... but if you get super D&D about it and have a meltdown and condemn those people because of who they voted for the 2020 democratic party presidonkle primary... eh i wouldn't be in a huge hurry.

what's interesting about the moment we're in now is that the elections have become like an afterthought to this much larger and spontaneous movement, which has many working-class characteristics and is making its own independent demands although the liberals have been trying their damndest to co-opt it into ruling class approved channels. it's also an interesting contrast to the bernie sanders campaign which, for all its positives, was still in the mold of "please sir may i have some more." like what do you think would've happened if bernie got elected? was the ruling class going to just give up and surrender? politicians don't make history, the people do when they move in the streets en masse. the masses make history.

Skyl3lazer posted:

My suggestion is a simple one: a single warning to desist, then immediate banning of anyone who places the safety and well being of victims secondary to winning a political football game.

Skyl3lazer posted:

This isn't an argument against banning people advocating voting for rapists, this is a bernie vs biden primary argument, or an argument for or against electoralism. None of that is the point of this thread, which is that people shouldn't be allowed to advocate voting for rapists.


My dislike of joe biden (and of trump) on a political axis is completely immaterial to the point I'm making in this thread, which is that if someone has done a rape, then the person defending their actions (by advocating that you should vote for them) should be a bannable offense.

If I went up and said, "Vote for Donald Trump because he would Restore Order to our Country" or whatever, that is the same as saying, "It does not matter that Joe Biden raped a staffer of his, vote for him because he would Restore Order to our Country." I believe that this should, for self explanatory reasons, and as stated already, be a bannable offense.

Skyl3lazer posted:

For the past few months, it has been obvious to those of us following the U.S. Democratic Party Primary that Joseph R. Biden had credible rape accusations against him by several women, most prominently, Tara Reade. Now, in 2020 electoral politics in the United States, the "First Past the Post" system funnels voters in to a two-party viable system.

However, this does not create a justification of any sort with regards to voting for rapists and abusers. Yes, Donald J. Trump is also accused. Yes, it is likely at this juncture that Biden will also be the Democratic nominee on the ballot, especially since the party is attempting to cancel future elections.



It is my opinion that the moderators of our digital nation should discard this false dichotomy. They should reject the structure of electoral politics in the U.S., and reject the idea that voters are forced to choose between these two people. There is no justification more convincing in favor of voting for them, then the knowledge of their crime should be justification for not voting all together. My suggestion is a simple one: a single warning to desist, then immediate banning of anyone who places the safety and well being of victims secondary to winning a political football game.

Yes, the stakes of the election are high. Indeed, there are reasons to prefer one candidate over the other. But there is no reason that differences in policy should override the one commonality between Biden and Trump, and sadly indeed, with countless others in the world: They are rapists. They have violated their victims, and advocating that a rapist should be chosen to hold any position of authority should be a ban-worthy offense.

Skyl3lazer posted:

No, the entire point of my OP is that it does not matter who the candidate is, even for what office they are running, or their party alignment. Full-stop it should be a bannable offense to advocate voting for a rapist.


It isn't a marxist radicalization chamber effort. By arguing that there should be a discourse on if a candidate is good or not, even knowing they are a rapist, you are arguing that rape is somehow not an immediate disqualifying event. That someone can be a rapist, and it is OK because of other reasons.

If someone comes in and makes a past about how biden is better than trump or whatever, the immediate response should be 'hey please do not advocate voting for a rapist for any reason' and if they continue, they get a ban for advocating voting for a rapist, again, someone who has done rapes to people why is this actually a debatable point?

It's honestly pretty embarrassing to misread that hard, or to argue that this should be a policy for debate. If a lil baby lurker comes and posts about biden or whatever, there is a learning opportunity, but there is absolutely no reason after a good faith attempt to teach that any viewpoint other than "rapists shouldnt be voted for" is an opinion someone should be protected for having.


Quoting Malcom X to advocate voting for Joseph R. Biden is uh, is something all right.

Skyl3lazer posted:

This isn't an argument against banning people advocating voting for rapists, this is a bernie vs biden primary argument, or an argument for or against electoralism. None of that is the point of this thread, which is that people shouldn't be allowed to advocate voting for rapists.


My dislike of joe biden (and of trump) on a political axis is completely immaterial to the point I'm making in this thread, which is that if someone has done a rape, then the person defending their actions (by advocating that you should vote for them) should be a bannable offense.

If I went up and said, "Vote for Donald Trump because he would Restore Order to our Country" or whatever, that is the same as saying, "It does not matter that Joe Biden raped a staffer of his, vote for him because he would Restore Order to our Country." I believe that this should, for self explanatory reasons, and as stated already, be a bannable offense.

Skyl3lazer posted:

No, the entire point of my OP is that it does not matter who the candidate is, even for what office they are running, or their party alignment. Full-stop it should be a bannable offense to advocate voting for a rapist.

It isn't a marxist radicalization chamber effort. By arguing that there should be a discourse on if a candidate is good or not, even knowing they are a rapist, you are arguing that rape is somehow not an immediate disqualifying event. That someone can be a rapist, and it is OK because of other reasons.

Skyl3lazer posted:

If someone comes in and makes a past about how biden is better than trump or whatever, the immediate response should be 'hey please do not advocate voting for a rapist for any reason' and if they continue, they get a ban for advocating voting for a rapist, again, someone who has done rapes to people why is this actually a debatable point?

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

Skyl3lazer posted:

If a lil baby lurker comes and posts about biden or whatever, there is a learning opportunity, but there is absolutely no reason after a good faith attempt to teach that any viewpoint other than "rapists shouldnt be voted for" is an opinion someone should be protected for having.

Skyl3lazer posted:

It isn't a marxist radicalization chamber effort.