(this is a sarcastic post meant to highlight the absurdity of some of the “greater good” rhetoric we’ve been hearing, especially around leaving vulnerable populations like disabled people behind in case of revolution, basically accelerationism)
You must log in or register to comment.
this is why so many people had an issue with the Democrat party platform of “let’s sacrifice Palestine”
The entire concept of “accelerationism” is complete nonsense. First of all, none of the people advocating for it are willing to say, “Yes, I am perfectly happy to become homeless and starve to death in order to foment the revolution.”
And what are people gonna do? Take up arms? We’re just gonna wait until everyone is starving but armed with an AR-15 and then hope the state doesn’t crush us with nukes? It’s highly privileged absurdist faux revolutionary nonsense.
I know that you’re really concerned about being stabbed with knives. But you just need to accept the Hard Truth that you not being stabbed with knives is losing political issue! Really, that’s why we’re losing elections. You can’t have everything that you want. And you need to see where the other side is coming from…
vs
I know that you’re really concerned about being stabbed with knives. One of these candidates is implicitly okay with you being stabbed with knives, and the other wants to personally stab you with even more knives. I recognize the injustice in this and will therefore vote for neither of them! (the worse one won and now you’re being stabbed with even more knives)
Who will win? (spoiler: I don’t know but certainly not you because you’re too busy being stabbed with knives)
Is that the youtube poop person?
Essentially the ‘left’ on the topic of Palestine
“The left, american left, and right should join hands to fight american right”
No war but the class war. Everyone you disagree with is an ally in waiting except billionaires.
Until you somehow “deal” with the billionaires. Then you’ll all kill each other.
Lol humanity existed before oligarchs and kings.
It didn’t. Someone is always in charge.
A straight up Moldbug bootlicker. Get bent. No monarchies, no Kings, in America.
Lol, capitalist education system at work.
Hurdur. Name a period of time where people weren’t ruled. Either in a tribe or in an empire. There is a leader or group of leaders in charge. There has never been a time when that isn’t the case. People naturally create governing hierarchies.
You know there is a difference between wise people being listened to because of experience or just because it’s been smart and suggesting rules everyone then agrees on and a feudal lord or class thereof that are exploiting a poorer majority with threats of violence and living a lavish lifestyle. There are still existing tribes in Asia or Amazonas that don’t even have words for mine and yours because the concept of owning is so foreign to them. Everything is shared. To say that they are being ruled comparably to medieval and modern systems just doesn’t make sense.
looking at you, Sarah McBride 👀
Tankies justifying slave labor “only 10% of industries were built with gulag forces” calling socialist countries that succeeded with market socialism revisionist “Tito is a revisionist prick delaying global Revolution” and then not even batting an eye to the worse state capitalism that USSR and china engaged in “it improved the lives of people! No, it wasn’t authoritarian! And yes, the party members we sent to gulags and killed were DEFINITELY anti revolutionists and not trying to stop the state capitalism that was forming.”
Tankies… calling socialist countries that succeeded with market socialism revisionist “Tito is a revisionist prick delaying global Revolution”
Hate to break it to you but supporting Tito would make you a tankie in the eyes of most people on Lemmy who use the term (though you may get a pass for denouncing others).
Personally, I like a hybrid system. You know the famous Laffer Curve? Laffer was a hack who just used it to justify tax cuts, but he did have a point. At a 0% tax rate and a 100% tax rate, the government is bringing in zero revenue. However, the shaped of the curve in between is unknown. He just arbitrarily assumed that wherever tax rates happened to be at, the optimal rate was lower. I say we actually study it and harness the principle.
Personally, I like the idea of using this principle not just as a crank tool to justify tax cuts, but as a way to maximize redistributive spending. Figure out what tax rate allows you to have the absolute most generous social welfare system possible, and set your tax policies to that rate. I like the free market, but as a practical tool, not for its own sake. I want to keep the free market around…chained to a treadmill, set to the maximum speed possible that won’t cause it to die of exhaustion.
That curve is so stupid on so many levels, wow.
But also, when we talk about socialism, we don’t mean “capitalism but we tax the rich”. A socialist society would not even need taxes, in the liberal sense. When the means of production are controlled democratically by the workers, by extending democracy from the political to the economic, who would you even tax, and who would the money go to?
It’s a big problem that people have been so convinced that capitalism and liberal democracy are the only way to organize society. We can do better!
Heh Penis Prager
This is the fart side shat
Difficult to raise this amongst friends but one 2022 story came to mind
https://www.vox.com/policy/385549/trans-sports-transgender-biden-harris-democrats-titleix
PS: obviously my conflict is about “fight for 1% of athletes vs. lose election to Hitlerguy and harm like 50% of the population”, to oversimplify greatly
reminds me of 2003, when the bush regime convinced everyone that their marriage would somehow be worthless if they let the gays get married.
and it worked, the stupid fucks bought it. iraq paid badly for it tho, whoo hoo…
Liberals will say shit like this and then be baffled why leftists don’t want to fall in line behind the party of moderate fascists.
You throw trans people under the bus and you also lose, of at least depress turnout, of everyone who supports trans rights. You also make it clear to every minority that if they’re in the crosshairs next, they’ll be sacrificed next for the same reasons of political convenience. Jews represented <1% of the population of Weimar Germany, and you may be familiar with a poem about what happened after they came for them.
Furthermore, by ceding ground to the Republicans on this you make them look correct and you discredit your own side for having previously denounced their position as bigoted, which makes people more likely to support Republicans. We saw this happen with the border, when the Democrats turned from “Building the wall is racist” to “We’re the ones who are actually going to build the wall,” they didn’t win over moderate republicans, instead they lost on virtually every demographic. The people who are pro-immigration hated it and the people who are anti-immigration saw their views as being validated and if they had any lingering reservations about voting Republican, those reservations vanished.
Framing politics as a Trolley Problem is extremely stupid, and fundamentally not how the world works, it’s liberal brainrot and one of the reasons Democrats are worthless. They literally did this “strategic” sacrifice with Palestinians and immigrants (and it’s not like they fully supported trans rights either) and they still ate shit with the worst electoral map since the Republicans took California. When throwing trans people to the wolves doesn’t work, which minority will you sacrifice next?
The problem with this is that it assumes Democrats have no agency. Democratic politicians have treated trans issues like those crusty old male Dems who don’t like saying the word abortion.
Dems have never provided loud and full-throated support to trans issues. Go watch the recent John Oliver video on trans sports. There are very very good arguments on why excluding trans people from sports is incredibly anti-scientific and just thinly disguised bigotry. But Democratic politicians have never bothered developing the talking points to defend trans people, like they have for other core issues.
Look at how Kamala responded when asked about trans issues. She didn’t provide full-throated support to trans people. Her reply was simply, “I’ll follow the law.”
Democrats have completely failed to defend trans people. They’ve quietly passed a few state level anti-discrimination laws, but in terms of rhetoric, they’ve completely ceded the space to conservatives. The only mainstream voices talking about trans issues have been the anti-trans bigots. The Democrats have instead just called the whole issue a distraction and hoped it would all just blow away.
They’re right that it is a distraction, an artificial one concocted by Republicans. But that doesn’t mean they can just ignore it.
Propaganda works. And if you don’t do the hard rhetorical work to fight it, it eventually does change public opinion.
Propaganda works. And if you don’t do the hard rhetorical work to fight it, it eventually does change public opinion.
yeah it never works on you, no sir… we’re all a lot better because everyone stood by their principles and punished the bad biden/harris team, yep, so much better.
those trans people, they’ll be safe now.
those kids in gaza, I’m sure now that trump’s won he’ll make sure they’re safe.
Yeah this all punishing those bad bad dems you’ll show 'em.
stupid fucking liberals, when will they learn their lesson.
working out great.
Trans people were being maimed and killed under Biden too, nothing changed for the trans people in the red states, violating the 14th amendment under Biden’s watch. Trump won’t care, Biden could have cared and chose not to.
Kids in gaza were being murdered and bombed under Biden too, nothing changed for them when a blue guy signs off on bombs or a red guy signs off on bombs. Trump won’t care, Biden could have cared and chose not to.
One is honest in being evil and hating people. It’s in the name “Republican.” The other pretends to tolerate you, and then throws you under the bus come election season to appeal to the greater evil’s voting base, who wants the most evil and won’t vote for a lesser evil.
keep telling yourself they’re the same bud.
lie to yourself all you want. calling it the same is ridiculous and you know it.
ya done fucked the pooch on this one so bad it’s going to wreck the whole fucking thing, but hey, you stuck to your convictions, no matter how short sighted.
gonna block you now, have a wretched life living through the consequences you brought on yourselves.
Hey look another privileged firstworldoid telling minorities that He Knows Better
We would have been better off without trump. you’ve empowered the fuckwit.
great fucking work.
YOU would have been better off. The brown people your country genocides? Business as usual .
But you’re a coward and you would have gleefully sacrificed them if it mean’t notbhaving to be bothered fighting fascism at home.
Sorry your favorite genocider lost, coward
I voted Harris and said Republicans are worse, but sure man, your bubble won’t pop when Trump uses America’s decades long polices domestically. Sorry I acknowledge trans people outside of the month of November every 4 years.
Her reply was simply, “I’ll follow the law.”
Well, that’s more than she was willing to do for Gaza.
and now gaza is safe, and everyone clapped.
oh wait, no, trump wants to annex it.
along with greenland and canada and the panama canal.
something tells me these populations would have preferred the ‘I’ll follow the law’ candidate happily vs the ‘i’ll annex your country unilaterally’ shitbag.
but you don’t fucking care about any of them lol. you got your principled win, good for you, and now the trans folks will be persecuted actively, gaza will be torn apart and sold to the highest bidders, and american kids are going to die invading our former allies.
great fucking work, your principles are fantastic.
gaza will be torn apart and sold to the highest bidders
Sorry, now that’s going to happen? What the hell did you think was happening before?
“fight for 1% of athletes vs. lose election to Hitlerguy and harm like 50% of the population”
Republicans who got on the “Freak out about transgender policy” lost their elections in droves in 2022. Several big swing Senate seats flipped because guys like Blake Masters and Herschel Walker couldn’t stop screaming slurs at campaign rallies. We’ve seen Republicans scrub out over and over again by downing too much of their own kool-aid.
Democrats didn’t lose 2024 because they were too nice to Transgender people. They lost because they were too nice to Liz Cheney. Harris made a big show of aligning with neoconservatives on everything from immigration and trade to military policies against Russia and China to the stubborn endorsement of the Palestine genocide. All of this shit polled worse than support for Transgender civil rights. Harris had no problem throwing the country in front of Hitlerguy to endorse the tear-gassing of Columbia University and the Kids In Cages on the Texas/Mexico border.
Even then… even if you can argue with a stack full of polling papers that Harris knew with perfect certainty and well in advance of the November vote that an impassioned speech in defense of transgender athletes would doom her campaign and subject the US to Hitlerguy, so what? She didn’t do this and she still fucking lost.
So she and the rest of her squishy latte liberal cohort threw away a big chunk of LGBTQ support for what? What did Dems gain by embracing reactionary policy?
So she and the rest of her squishy latte liberal cohort threw away a big chunk of LGBTQ support for what? What did Dems gain by embracing reactionary policy?
Why are you asking what the dems gained? You’re the one now worse off?
What did you gain by not voting for her?
On one hand I don’t fucking like Liz Cheney… on the other hand… I think you should welcome (almost) anyone against an enemy like Trump. I thought that at the time, and now with the additional information we’ve gained since then (and I personally learned) only reaffirm that to me. We don’t have to glorify Liz Cheney later.
But not voting for Kamala because the coalition allowed Liz Cheney in is probably just as dumb as not voting for Kamala because somehow… Trump isn’t WORSE on Palestine?
There is not a “single issue” that won for them beyond voter manipulation. They did the same thing as 2016 and did targeted ads and segmenting people on social media. Mass voter suppression in the south (Russian bomb threats in Georgia… the disenfranchisement across multiple states…etc) FB & Twitter owned by them. TikTok in question but absolutely started showing even more right wing content after the election. I’m sure one issue (or two) might be more influential, but that’s only because of the coordinated reach of their voter manipulation.
We have ALL been targeted with propaganda and segmented from each other. They continue to do it now. They lie and Fox News, which something like 60% of the country, carries their lies for them. Bots barrage social media every where. Tech-bro toelickers and tankies promote right wing, anti-globalist propaganda everywhere. (Anti-globalism is primarily right wing, Kremlin propaganda to disconnect The Americas (primarily US ofc) from Europe).
Be wary of bots that feel like they’re your ally, too.
"But the 63 per cent of the German people who expressed their opposition to Hitler were much too divided and shortsighted to combine against a common danger which they must have known would overwhelm them unless they united, however temporarily, to stamp it out.”
Excerpt From The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich Shirer, William
I think you should welcome (almost) anyone against an enemy like Trump.
I would much rather have the people who hate the Cheney’s guts in my coalition than have the Cheney’s. How many people do they even represent? Who doesn’t hate them, and with good reason?
But not voting for Kamala because the coalition allowed Liz Cheney in is probably just as dumb
First off they didn’t just “allow” Liz Cheney, they actively campaigned with her. But secondly and more importantly, it’s not about whether it was right or wrong for that to influence people’s decisions, it’s about the fact that it likely did. Call it “dumb” or “irrational” all you want, if voters were all rational and intelligent then maybe we wouldn’t have to think or care about messaging or image at all, but that’s not the world we live in.
The influence of “bots” is highly overstated and is basically just a way of dismissing legitimate criticism and preventing any kind of self-reflection or learning from mistakes.
It was a pathetic attempt to reach “middle of the ground” voters.
Did you not read that I opened with I hate Cheney? I suppose “don’t fucking like” may not have been forceful enough.
I didn’t say it wasn’t influential. If you stopped responding emotionally or with the intent to derail and attack, you’d realize I literally said specific topics could be more important than others (once again, Palestine another highly controversial one I see you completely skip past). But it’s the reach and targeting of these messages to those they resonate most with that is why they are so dangerous. Peter Thiel; Trump investor & close to all the tech bros funding things; was the 1st outside investor in Facebook. It was never “liberal.”
Nothing I said implies we don’t think about messaging. By now the inaccuracy of your attacks come off as firehose of falsehoods.
Your dismissal of bots and propaganda is not only stupid, it’s dangerous. Propaganda has influenced EVERY democracy.
Tell me, which of these was not reportedly influenced and pushed by Russia or is not Russia friendly and has it pushed ties with Russia, both by propaganda & by literally influencing people with money? (Both people to lie for them in media, and politicians to vote for them)
MAGA/US, Brexit/UK, Marine La Pen/France, Bolsonaro/Brazil, AfD/Germany, Polliviere/Canada… the list goes on.
Are you blind? A bootlicker?
And absolutely nothing I’ve said has ever indicated we don’t have a lot to deal with internally. But to fail to acknowledge that we wouldn’t be here without our enemies helping these guys get here is to deny reality. I’d rather not drink the Kremlin Tea, thanks.
read the quote at the bottom of my first post again. That is the most important message anyone can take away from these posts.
Did you not read that I opened with I hate Cheney?
I never claimed otherwise? Very confusing reaction.
If you stopped responding emotionally
Excuse me? In what way was my response “emotional?”
or with the intent to derail and attack
By now the inaccuracy of your attacks
What “attacks” are you talking about? All I did was disagree with you on certain points.
Propaganda has influenced EVERY democracy.
They’ve got propaganda, we’ve got propaganda, everybody’s got propaganda, and always has. The Democratic party has plenty of money to get their message out, the problem is their message sucked and didn’t resonate.
MAGA/US, Brexit/UK, Marine La Pen/France, Bolsonaro/Brazil, AfD/Germany, Polliviere/Canada… the list goes on.
All of those were driven by material conditions, yes propaganda had an effect but the reason the propaganda resonates and has influence is because of people being dissatisfied with the liberal status quo.
Ah, bootlicker/propaganda bot it is.
Every statement you’ve made has been in bad faith, purely attempting to derail the argument and make readers glaze their eyes over.
You’re doing it now, even in this response.
You’re just hand waving things and saying all things are equal. I’m sure the $160 million from cryptobros and $250+? million from Elon made no difference at all. Fox News is watched by 60% of the country. Got a similar stat for a “leftist” program you can show is like actually propaganda?
Bet you’ll argue that because we were imperial, we should let Russia and China be imperial and conquer Taiwan/Ukraine too?
No, the NEOliberal status quo. We have never been a leftist nation. Our Overton window is very far to the right. Bernie is like a single step to the left of the center. Check out any other major democracy.
Part of this entire argument we are having HINGES on the fact that many corporate donors are basically conservatives even if slightly “socially liberal”… cause their money comes first. That even, they too, focus on. Both the neocons and neolibs have maintained this order since the 60s until MAGA came along to reshape the presidency into a “CEO dictator.”
You’re basically telling me to choose MY words carefully. Right back at ya, buddy. Attacking "liberal"ism is straight kremlin propaganda.
You, the tech bros, and Russia get along well it seems.
The influence of “bots” is highly overstated and is basically just a way of dismissing legitimate criticism
Ah, bootlicker/propaganda bot it is.
Well, that didn’t take long 🙄
Every statement you’ve made has been in bad faith, purely attempting to derail the argument and make readers glaze their eyes over.
I love when people just say shit. Like, you haven’t pointed to any actual reason why anything I’ve said is “bad faith” or “emotional.” Really just rolling out all the go-to methods of categorically dismissing any and all criticism, huh?
Fox News is watched by 60% of the country
Lmao no it isn’t. You got a source for that number?
No, the NEOliberal status quo. We have never been a leftist nation. Our Overton window is very far to the right. Bernie is like a single step to the left of the center. Check out any other major democracy.
Yeah, no shit? Why are you telling me this as if I don’t already know?
Attacking "liberal"ism is straight kremlin propaganda.
Lmao. A liberal is a supporter of capitalism, as a socialist, of course I’m opposed to liberalism. I guess every socialist in the world is a “Kremlin propagandist” in your view.
Why do you think the right-wing, free market “Liberal Democrats” of the UK are called that?
Democrats didn’t lose 2024 because they were too nice to Transgender people. They lost because they were too nice to Liz Cheney.
This right here can’t be said enough. The problem isn’t policies that are too leftist. It’s the “liberals” that a working so hard to cozy up to conservatives. If we wanted moderate Republicans we’d vote for 'em. We want fucking leftists goddammit!!!
https://www.vox.com/policy/385549/trans-sports-transgender-biden-harris-democrats-titleix
What the Biden administration proposed on transgender athletes
In 2023, over strong objections of activists on the right and left, the Biden administration announced a proposed change to Title IX, the law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in any federally funded educational program. Their suggested change would prohibit outright bans on transgender athletes, but would permit schools to restrict transgender students from participating if they could demonstrate that inclusion would harm “educational objectives” like fair competition and the prevention of injury.
This more nuanced stance marked the first time the Biden administration took the position that sex differences can matter in school sports, something hotly disputed by leading LGBTQ rights organizations. The proposed rule also reflected research that suggests sex differences emerge over time, so the standard for inclusion in high school should not necessarily be the same as that in younger grades.
Contrary to the post-election grumblings from Biden allies in the Atlantic, the president has been virtually silent on his own administration’s proposal for the last 18 months. He’s never spoken about it, and it was never mentioned by any other Biden official, including in any White House briefing on transgender issues.
[⁝]
But there is some evidence that Republicans’ years of attacks have taken their toll on public opinion. Gallup found in 2023 that 69 percent of Americans believe transgender athletes should only be allowed to compete on sports teams that match their sex assigned at birth, an increase from the 62 percent who said the same in 2021.
Tellingly, Biden’s proposed policy on transgender athletes — allowing targeted restrictions for fairness and safety while rejecting blanket bans — would likely resonate more with average Americans than the hardline stances typically associated with Republicans, who leaned on transgender fearmongering in the midterms only to see their candidates flop, or Democrats, who many voters perceive as having no nuance on the topic at all. Yet the Biden administration’s reluctance to clearly communicate their middle-ground position left a vacuum that Republicans were happy to fill. It’s a dynamic that political observers say has become increasingly common: Democratic leaders stake out a position but, wary of internal rifts, default to strategic ambiguity even on issues where their stances might resonate with voters.
Interesting: nuance (do not restrict unless it would harm) was possible to beat Republicans on this policy. Internal rifts led them to stay silent on a stance (already being realized) that would resonate.
Really interesting. Thank you
So, how large does a minority have to be before they are no longer disposable?
Lincoln didn’t run on ending slavery, but plenty of abolitionists supported him, including Frederick Douglas
Douglass was also very involved in national politics, and as the presidential election of 1860 approached, he advocated for candidates with strong antislavery platforms. American voters received a ballot crowded with four candidates: Abraham Lincoln (Republican), John C. Breckenridge (Southern Democrat), Stephen A. Douglas (Democrat), and John Bell (Constitutional Union). Douglas’s belief in “popular sovereignty,” Breckenridge’s pro-slavery platform, and Bell’s aversion to the issue entirely left Frederick Douglass to endorse Lincoln and the Republicans, whom he believed were more antislavery than the divided Democrats.
It’s possible to be willing to jump in front of a bullet to save a trans brother and loudly tell everyone to shut the fuck up about sports until we codify the right protections into the constitution etc.
Back channels baby! Back channel fights on controversial topics. Fox News can’t demonize what they’re ignorant of.
But this is assuming this topic is popular on the left and it’s reportedly divisive (again, amongst those who are not hateful scumbags)
Back channels! Where you can say you’re doing something but aren’t actually doing shit!
Back channels are the only place where democrats oppose genocide, support unions, try to keep abortion legal, and are diligently working to make cannabis legal.
If you think that you can change the Constitution through back channels, then I need to know what you’re smoking.
Backchannel until [super]majority agreement achieved before going public!
If you aren’t going to fight for that “1% of athletes” even though you think they’re right just because they’re too politically inconvenient then I have zero faith you’ll fight for me when I’m politically inconvenient and actually need you to
Is our president a political inconvenience?
I think the point there was reasonable disagreements exist amongst us allies so we can focus on the 99% where we agree entirely
I haven’t mentioned… today… how sickening this is. Sorry to be talking so GOPy. That ain’t me
Its not that i don’t think people are worth fighting for. I just think focusing so much on fighting for these people, that we completely neglect to fight against the economic power houses trying to own and control the general population, is fucking weak.
there have been focus on social acceptance of minority groups for so long now, that the only people that still have a real problem being accepted is trannies. I mean they obviously should be more accepted, but it is a very small part of the population.
Can we please put a pause on the focus on social inclusion, and focus on defeating the fascists trying to own the world?
The portion of the population of trans people in the US is the same as the Jewish portion of the population of pre-Nazi Germany.
You would have happily sat by as the Jews were sent to the ovens.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Suggesting that not being caught up in your fight for semantics, is the same as condoning mass murder. Disgusting.
How you take me for someone who sits happily by while fascists send anyone off to die is crazy man.
People’s passports and other basic identification documents are being revoked, the healthcare people need to stay breathing is being targeted for elimination, and the official policy of the administration is that trans people are pedophiles worthy of the death penalty. And you’re here spouting the T slur and dismissing the genocide that is right in front of you.
Yes, you would have happily sat by, and likely cheered on, as Jews were sent to the gas chambers. After all, Jews in pre-Nazi Germany were as unpopular as trans people in the US are now. You would have probably been throwing a few rocks on Kristallnacht yourself.
Fuck you. That shit is happening in your fucked up corner of the world, not in mine. You were the ones who lost your fucking country to the Nazis.
Now i gotta worry about your president threatening to invade my country, because you spent so much fucking time talking about minority social inclusion (which they fucking should have, and do have in my country) that you completely botched the job of keeping billionaires from just buying up your government.
Most of you need multiple fucking jobs to pay the rent and feed your kids, because you ate the propoganda that unions were out to abuse you they’ve been spewing for the last half century.
I think it is very honorable that you want to fight for social inclusion. But when are you gonna get on from that, and actually fight to improve working and living conditions for the working class? Not getting thrown into poverty if you break a leg?
Maybe changing your education system, to have a stronger public school system, don’t you think the social inclusion would happen more naturally if you just fucking educated your people?
It’s ridiculous to look at. You keep letting them buttfuck you, Meanwhile everything the American left has been yelling about for the past decade is social inclusion and forbidden words.
Fighting for the working class IS fighting for minorities. Incessant yapping about semantics is only driving the people who should be fighting with you away.
don’t you think the social inclusion would happen more naturally if you just fucking educated your people?
I doubt it. Bigots are too powerful. They’re good at getting their messages out. They raise bigoted children. They also strongly oppose any education that might help undo these bigoted views, so you really have a chicken-and-egg situation there.
That’s why it isn’t enough to just not be racist; you have to be anti-racist, and I think that by the same token it isn’t enough to just not be a transphobe…you have to be anti-transphobia. The bigots are organized and willing to fight, so the other side has to, too.
Can we please put a pause on the focus on social inclusion,
Ok. You’re no longer included.
Can we please put a pause on the focus on social inclusion, and focus on defeating the fascists trying to own the world?
One does not preclude the other. There is energy for both inclusion and revolution.
In fact, revolution is inclusion, is mutual-aid, etc. It’s a requirement. For every person “fighting” there are 10 more people supporting the people and the community that fascism and its shrinking safety nets leave behind
We are probably fighting the same people anyway, but can we please focus on their actual crimes instead of their harmful rhetoric?
Well, no you’re not really an ally yet, far as i can tell. Fix your head. “Trannies” sheesh son
Depends what constitutes an ally.
Would i throw fists over someone being a dick to a tranny? Definitely. Do i consider “allies” opinion on semantics as valid criticism? Hell no.
oop quick note man it’s “trans people” or whatnot will delete this once ya see
My whole point is, i don’t care about your obsession over semantics.
If someone gets hurt over trannies but not trans people, that is their problem. The trans people i know in my life (4 people, small target group i know), i don’t think of them as man turned woman, or woman turned man. I just see them as they want to be seen.
But bashing people over semantics when the difference is so small is ridiculous. Put your energy somewhere that matters.
While Hitler’s in power, gentleman’s agreement to defer discussion on words might make sense. Use the standard accepted lexicon today, get scofflaws out of Washington, return to this topic in happier times
Bashing?
Analogy - black people tell me not to use the n word, am I at a disadvantage for saying “black” instead of a slur? Would be a little odd to ignore feedback when it makes no difference to me… I ain’t married to “n***er” (censored it painlessly)
I’m irreverent as FUCK by the way ^ 10, quick make a dead baby joke (srsly I don’t give a shit about ouchie topics, I do try to be aight to folks tho)
Yeah no i don’t use the n word, and definitely don’t think the two compare to each other. I don’t see no trans people slaving for generation, being kept in low income areas and incarcerated left and right. And honestly, i think less of you for comparing the two.
Tranny is just… A shorter, more familiar version of the same word you want me to use.
Faggot doesnt refer to gays anymore, it refers to pussies. People too afraid to stand up to their fascist governments.
And retarded people refer to people who think reclaiming the word “retard” is a great social victory.
I am tired of censoring myself, when everyone is well aware what i mean, and all the different minorities i know in my life, know me as a guy who would always defend them if they had a problem.
This is the ideal perspective that leads to optimal outcomes for the general public?
Nah, but fighting so hard for something that you forget to… checks notes have basic human rights like healthcare and free education, is ridiculous.
You went so hard on one issue, that you drive half your population to vote for Nazis. Job well done, right?
I bet we could get even more of these conservatives on our side if we promised to repeal gay marriage. Let’s try that, too
Ooh, and we could get even more people if we promised to put the Jews in camps
more of these conservatives on our side
To clarify, screenshot quotes democrats
Trans folx in sports is the most narrow topic - I am discussing it as so. A very specific topic where not every ally is an agreement. A very specific topic that someone very orange did a great job of lying about constantly.
“Force humans into certain bathrooms” = different topic, for example
And democrats responded by breaking solidarity with a minority they consider disposable.
They sure got a lot of the republican votes they crave by showing simpering cowardice in the face of bigotry.
Once you make one unscientific concession to bigotry, you’ll make another. The problem with your strategy is that the opposition to trans athletes isn’t actually a good-faith attempt at securing fairness in sports. This isn’t some fair debate that reasonable minds can come together and hash out. If you surrender on this issue, the bigots just move on to the next one. And since you’ve already conceded to bigotry once, you’ve established the precedent that it is fine to pass laws based on pure unscientific bigotry. It starts with sports, but it doesn’t end there. Now people’s passports are being revoked because a bunch of cowards thought, “oh, it’s just sports, that’s not worth fighting over.” If you give these fuckers an inch, they’ll take a mile.
Do you think we would have won in 2008 if we made everything gay marriage all the time?
You wait for the right moment,with the right issues.
You think Trump won by running on sending US citizens to El Salvador?
This stupidity is why they always, always, always win,you fucking child.
You wait for the right moment, with the right issues.
MLK Jr. had a lot to say about this position. Desegregation and civil rights were once just as unpopular as trans rights are now. If you’re feeling impatient skip to the last passage, though that would be quite ironic given you are calling on trans people to be patient waiting for their rights.
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities “unwise and untimely.” Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas.
…
But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.
…
You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city’s white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.
…
One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: “Why didn’t you give the new city administration time to act?” The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”
…
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Jesus Christ.
Trans are less than 1% of the population, and as a brown person, we can’t hide what we are, even for a second.
But yeah, please tell me how trans is literally worse than the holocaust and slavery.
Btw, do you think civil rights would have gone better or worse if someone more closely aligned with Hitler gained power before WW2?
Trans are less than 1% of the population
And that makes protecting their rights unimportant?
But yeah, please tell me how trans is literally worse than the holocaust and slavery.
Did I say that, or did you imagine that I did?
Btw, do you think civil rights would have gone better or worse if someone more closely aligned with Hitler gained power before WW2?
I assume you’re saying this because you believe that Democrats advocating for trans rights cost them the election, giving it to Trump. The only way you could have come to this conclusion is if you heard it from some talking head and believed it without critical thought because it feels right to you. The thing is, it’s just completely false. The Democrats’ advocacy for trans rights has been lukewarm at best and overtly hostile at worst. Most of them have the same mindset as you, where they prefer to retreat from difficult topics like trans rights, ceding the narrative to conservatives while failing to create any consistent narrative of their own. That’s what cost them the election.
Ok, and who exactly do you think is making trans people’s rights a big issue?
2 groups:
-
Republicans
-
Trans people are fucking screaming like crazy too, don’t act like they aren’t, they literally leaning into every punch as hard as they can.
So the message is hijacked, and everyone is fucked by fascism, win/win for the other guys I guess.
So, your argument is that trans people should’ve shut up?
I see a couple of problems with this:
- You don’t control trans people. I don’t control trans people. The Democratic Party is already on your side here. They apparently didn’t think that trans issues were worth pursuing, because they were completely silent on the issue during the 2024 election.
This brings me to my second point:
- Where were you seeing these pushy trans people who were demanding their rights? Because I certainly didn’t see them.
You know what I did see? Republicans using trans rights as a wedge issue. And you’ve bought into it. That wedge is still working.
-
Referring to the cited source, the screenshot?
Strawman meme.
In reality you can agree with someone on a topic but disagree on the execution, and you’ll get called a fascist along with a bunch of personal attacks on your intelligence. Trump has infected everyone, even the left who now have become toxic as well. No ally is good enough, no leftist is leftist enough, and anyone even slightly to the right or even left of you is a “fascist”. This is very much an American problem, and I guess it makes sense how it happened, and they can’t see it from the inside, like us outside of the u.s can
I agree with your comment except for this being an American only problem. It seems lefties the world over are arguing amongst themselves over minutia. I was threatened to be “skinned alive” and called a “western chauvinist” on hexbear for saying China is a mixed economy 😂
Cool story
Why say anything if you literally have nothing to contribute?
You had literally nothing to contribute, so I thought I’d tell you how cool your story was.
You’re a prime example of the problem people here on Lemmy. No respect, no empathy, just vitriol and hate with a leftist twist. There’s plenty of right wingers but I ignore them so I have noticed the toxicity rise on the left in the last couple of years. Toxic , if you have nothing to contribute, no solutions to put forward, only throwing shade at anyone to feel big. The other side of the coin to the current American political climate, you’re not the good guy. Try talking to people and not getting angry, try realizing that your opinions worth isn’t determined by how loud and insulting you are.
If you have all the political leanings of Bernie sanders, but the personality and need to shit on everyone like trump, you’re still shit, even if I’m still glad to have you on my side.
You’re the one who’s ranting. I made one sarcastic comment on your rant, and now you’ve followed it up with another rant. The vitriol and hate is coming from you.
The take I’ve been seeing more lately is that many on the left don’t internally support genocide, they’re just afraid of AIPAC money taking away their ability to do any good.
And that’s pretty bad. But the more we expose the core threat, the less they may fear them as hate for AIPAC overwhelms their ability to spew lies. Much like how hate for Musk overcame his spending on the WI election.
(But hey, I’m eager to learn. If anyone can show that people on the left are actively Zionist, or have personally motivated reasons for their silence, I’m curious about it)
PS: verytallbart makes some pretty funny YTPs off politics and far-right aholes.
The take I’ve been seeing more lately is that many on the left don’t internally support genocide, they’re just afraid of AIPAC money taking away their ability to do any good.
This is true but I don’t know how much. There’s some democrats explicitly and correctly calling out AIPAC as being an a far right PAC. Taking money from AIPAC needs to be seen as treacherous as taking money from NRA or the Heritage foundation.
It sounds like you’re talking about the Democratic Party, not the left. I think some in the party are true Zionists (like Chuck Shumer and Joe Biden) while others are just afraid to be visibly anti-Zionist out of fear of AIPAC.
ROFL, next they’ll say they just have a disagreement and it’s ok for people to disagree.
If this is about Palestine the problem is to accept they are righteous is to accept that Muslims have the right to jihad which I am against. My heart stops throbbing like it does for say, Ukrainians or Mexicans or Venezuelans, knowing the horrors jihad brings.
WAT
This isn’t about jihad. It’s about genocide. The Palestinians just want to keep their land.
Yes and no because they’ve called for jihad, both for Israel and for the world, because of this atrocity, so many fucking times now unofficially it can’t be ignored.
The land is for Palestinians, not for you to decide.
Jihad just means struggle. Jihad on my dirty dishes, jihad against zionists, jihad against drugs etc. They aren’t calling for a new caliphate. Stop with the white genocide fear mongering. You sound like a Rhodesian.
Jihad actually means struggle or fight against the enemies of Islam. Muslim refugees have literally have called for a global caliphate too, many times. No it’s not about white genocide it’s about them wanting to unite the world under Islam and culturally genocide all others. China and India learned this long ago and now the west is. Idk what’s going on in Rhodesia but it’s not hard to be against Islam if you aren’t Muslim, don’t want to be, and don’t want others to be, given the kind of rhetoric they spout and the violent behavior the Quran, in particular Surah 5, condones.
The land is for Palestinians, not for you to decide.
Who conquered it from Isreal who conquered it from the Canaanites.
Ah yes, because there’s nothing between “Accept and approve all Hamas atrocities” and “Bomb innocent Palestinian children”.
Sick of people pretending war still means total annihilation of one side. No one even wants to attack all Russian youths that are victimized by Putin.
True justice would mean stripping them both of religion if you really want to go there imo. As the victim, calling for Jewish genocide and for jihad because they are the victim is really bad.
Anything that gets you to target people with less power than you is a psy-op.
There is only one group of people to oppose. It’s a small group of extremely wealthy people. All their mouthpieces on the internet are irrelevant (and likely bots) and are best ignored/blocked.
There is one small, powerful group who are the only justifiable targets. Everything else is a distraction and likely a divide-and-weaken tactic.
One small group of powerful, wealthy people. That is the enemy. No one with less power than you is worth focusing on.
You’re absolutely right.
The billionaire owner class is at the root of all this. They own the politicians, they buy up the media outlets and bot farms to control the narrative, and they make our lives miserable in order to further pad their already incomprehensibly massive bank accounts.
Working class must look out for each other. We have so much more in common with our brothers and sisters across the aisle than we ever will have with these parasitic elites.
