Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)M

MarxMadness

@ MarxMadness @lemmygrad.ml

Posts
0
Comments
353
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • MAGA family member (we'll call them Alex) broke down and cried because they are scared that "the criminal illegal aliens are coming to get them!"

    Jump

  • Thanks for linking to that Red Sails post -- that's what I had in mind. I think it significantly overstates its case.

    Accept instead that they have been avoiding those truths for a reason. You were able to break through the propaganda barrier, and so could they if they really wanted to.

    It's not that they could look past the propaganda if only they really wanted to, it's not even that they're avoiding the cracks in their worldview. They see the cracks, but they justify them in the manner I described above.

    I think the way you get to reachable people is by attacking those justifications, not pointing to the cracks that they already see.

  • Happy Birthday, Karl Marx!

    Jump

  • The existence of coins does not imply a capital-based society, in the same way the emergence of personal computers in the 70s does not mean the economy of the 70s was highly computerized.

    Check out David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years for some anthropology on how exchange worked in early societies. Trading currency for goods or services was the exception, not the rule.

  • Happy Birthday, Karl Marx!

    Jump

  • o7

  • MAGA family member (we'll call them Alex) broke down and cried because they are scared that "the criminal illegal aliens are coming to get them!"

    Jump

  • If it is any consolation, they are not brainwashed.

    There's something to the idea that a lot of people aren't particularly interested in learning, or even in stuff as minor as not repeating bullshit. But I've never fully bought the "no one is really brainwashed, they could just read a book" idea, because it really underestimates the strength of various types of group psychology. Think church congregations, MLMs, sports fandoms, pressure from peer groups, or anything else people get invested in despite seemingly obvious material incentives to back away.

    I think a lot of people justify those situations to themselves with ideas like:

    • This group has its problems, but the alternative is worse
    • The problems this group has aren't really that bad, and enduring them is worth something
    • The problems in this group happen to people who deserve them
    • This group gives me a real shot at something really good

    Identifying which of these ideas "brainwashed" people are clinging to and attacking that seems like a better approach than simply writing them off (setting aside your true incorrigibles, who it does make sense to write off).

  • MAGA family member (we'll call them Alex) broke down and cried because they are scared that "the criminal illegal aliens are coming to get them!"

    Jump

  • I’ll just start screaming and swearing at these people if they want to start shit with me.

    Honestly, what's the goal here? If other approaches aren't going to get through to them, I get trying something else, but this doesn't sound like it'll work either. If you're no longer trying to reach them, this might feel good a little in the moment, but it's going to stress out you and the family more on your side pretty soon. It seems like it could only get those people to pay less attention to what you say as well.

  • There is no international law

    Jump

  • What is this from?

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • people right now who didn’t understand they were voting for nazis

    I don't think these people exist in any significant number. Even if they do, the mythical swing voter has such inscrutable and varied politics that there isn't any message that will work reliably.

  • "Well, they did sign up for this actually." Trump on voters concern for higher living costs

    Jump

  • this has gone way beyond anything that can be explained by political partisanship alone

    I think you underestimate how strongly partisanship and loyalty to a leader can work. It's a smaller-scale version of "my country, right or wrong," or akin to booing the ref for a call against your team even when it's an obvious one.

  • NSFW Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Several? How big was your elementary school?

  • Removed Deleted

    Jerkoff

    Jump

  • You're just repeating yourself. It's not any more convincing this time around.

    You deserve everything you voted for Palestine to get.

  • Removed Deleted

    Jerkoff

    Jump

  • Differing treatment of nonprofits falls under "driving off the cliff at 95 vs. 100 mph." The bare minimum approach to the climate crisis would be something on the scale of the Green New Deal. Better treatment of nonprofits is probably more than canceled out by approving more fracking permits, too.

    I'm also of the opinion that taking over the Democratic Party from within is a better strategy than trying to destroy it and start over, if only because of how large a task the latter is.

    without the Democrats even having a proper seat in office, how are they supposed to even pass any policy, no matter how leftward they go on the political spectrum?

    As we're seeing with Trump, you can do a lot with executive power and declaring an emergency. Over time you can translate this into more legislative support if what you're doing is actually good.

    if the left continues fracturing and refusing to vote for them because “both sides are the same,” then all that happens is they keep shifting more and more right

    Democrats chasing the right dates back to the 70s. It is what is causing the left wing of the party to stop voting for them, not the other way around. As Bernie showed, even a moderate social democrat can bring in those voters and then some. You also see lower-level candidates win by outflanking Democrats from the left, e.g., the whole progressive prosecutor movement.

    Besides, the only way to get a politician to move towards you is to threaten not to vote for them. They don't chase voters they have in the bag; they chase voters who are on the fence. That's part of why they've been moving right -- they think they'll pick up more voters from the center than they'll lose from the left. The task is convincing them that unless they move left, they'll lose.

  • Removed Deleted

    Jerkoff

    Jump

  • I said you voted for genocide because you voted for a party doing genocide. That's not the condescending shit you're doing, that's leveling a direct criticism.

    And if you agree Dems are useless... what the fuck are you even saying anymore? They're useless, they're doing a genocide, but you still have to vote for them, because if you voted for someone opposed to the genocide, guess what, you actually voted for genocide!

    Incoherent all the way down.

  • Removed Deleted

    Jerkoff

    Jump

  • But if I’m going to do any kind of action to change that, I’m going to want the most favorable possible party in power.

    I also used to make this argument. And for a few decades after Democrats stopped routinely trying to do major things for their constituents (the 60s), it had some merit.

    But since the scientific community started really sounding the climate change alarm bells in the early 90s, we've had 20 years of Democrats in charge. They've failed to meaningfully address the issue, and failed to either keep Republicans out of office or implement policies strong enough to withstand Republican attacks. We tried it the way you're suggesting and it hasn't worked.

    We're at the point where either Democrats need to be forced to radically change their platform, or the party needs to be destroyed so we can get at least one decent option. It doesn't help that the last 30+ years of inaction means we can't afford another 30 years of making small changes and hoping against hope that some new technology solves the problem for us.

  • Removed Deleted

    Jerkoff

    Jump

  • I get the argument, I really do. I used to make it, too.

    But this guy:

    holding down the acceleration less, screaming about how he thinks we should go slower but isn’t taking his foot off the gas

    Was told 30+ years ago that we desperately need to hit the brakes. He has failed to do so because he's wholly in the pocket of fossil fuel companies, and knows he's among the most insulated from the worst effects of the crisis.

    The answer to "which would you rather convince" is that neither can be convinced. One just has to put up a bit of a facade because more of his voters take the issue (marginally) more seriously. If that guy hasn't done it in a generation, why would he do it now?

    It's also getting harder to justify the "accelerating less" part when Democrats do stuff like that article describes.

  • Removed Deleted

    Jerkoff

    Jump

  • It’s ok though, I understand you are struggling

    What do you think you are accomplishing by being such an insufferable ass?

    Democrats should be trying to win back voters like me -- voters who have supported lots of Democrats in the past, but who will not support genocide. They (and you) are instead telling those voters to fuck off. They (and you) make a lot of noise about wanting to win elections, but have no strategy besides browbeating voters, a strategy that just failed.

  • Removed Deleted

    Jerkoff

    Jump

  • Schrödinger’s China

    Jump

  • Recently:

    The case of Smart Shirts Limited vs Sheffield Hallam University was heard in the High Court, King's Bench Division, Media and Communications List. The judgment was delivered by Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre on December 17, 2024. The dispute centered around a libel claim brought by Smart Shirts Limited, a Hong Kong-based garment supplier, against Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) over a report and emails alleging connections to forced labor in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR)...

    The court determined that both the email and the report were defamatory at common law, as they could adversely affect the attitude of others towards Smart Shirts. The judgment emphasized that the publications were presented as factual findings based on extensive research, thereby influencing their perceived credibility.

    Notably, the truth is a defense in defamation cases. If I publish an article saying my extensive research shows you cheated on your taxes, you won't win a libel case against me if my research actually shows you did cheat on your taxes. That the university couldn't win by simply showing that their accusations were truthful is damning.

    See also:

    The resilient tale of an early morning Tiananmen massacre stems from several false eyewitness accounts in the confused hours and days after the crackdown. Human rights experts George Black and Robin Munro, both outspoken critics of the Chinese government, trace many of the rumor’s roots in their 1993 book, Black Hands of Beijing: Lives of Defiance in China’s Democracy Movement. Probably the most widely disseminated account appeared first in the Hong Kong press: a Qinghua University student described machine guns mowing down students in front of the Monument to the People’s Heroes in the middle of the square. The New York Times gave this version prominent display on June 12, just a week after the event, but no evidence was ever found to confirm the account or verify the existence of the alleged witness. Times reporter Nicholas Kristof challenged the report the next day, in an article that ran on the bottom of an inside page; the myth lived on. Student leader Wu’er Kaixi said he had seen 200 students cut down by gunfire, but it was later proven that he left the square several hours before the events he described allegedly occurred.

    This should also be viewed in context of the U.S. directly funding anti-China media. If you aren't real interested in factual reporting to begin with and you add a heap of intentionally negative propaganda on top, the only reasonable conclusion is that most of your accusations range from grossly exaggerated to bullshit.

  • Removed Deleted

    Jerkoff

    Jump

  • You looked at a party committing genocide -- the worst thing people can do to one another -- and made the decision to co-sign that. I voted for someone who opposed genocide.

    No matter how desperately you want to water down the choice you made, it's not the same as the one I made. You don't actually have to shuffle along with genocide because Democrats lied about some half-assed loan forgiveness or something.

  • Removed Deleted

    Jerkoff

    Jump

  • If they aren't trying to get my vote, why would I vote for them? They're telling me to fuck off!

    A party that's moderately responsive to its constituents would see their usual voters defecting and try to do something to bring them back. Democrats don't even clear that low bar.