If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they're lying.
Evidence or GTFO.
Starting to think centralizing the internet into platforms owned by far-right billionaires might have been a bad idea.
I swear to God, "whataboutism" just means, "You stated a fact I don't like." Of course it's relevant that the guy criticizing ICE was someone who could've actually done something about them and chose not to. What a load of bull.
Are you sure on that? My understanding of Marxism is that they believe even fair elections are rigged, so to speak, because they are bourgeois election and they discourage all participation in any election that is a bourgeois election.
Common misconception, but yes,, I'm quite sure. Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments? - V.I. Lenin
Even if only a fairly large minority of the industrial workers, and not “millions” and “legions”, follow the lead of the Catholic clergy—and a similar minority of rural workers follow the landowners and kulaks (Grossbauern)—it undoubtedly signifies that parliamentarianism in Germany has not yet politically outlived itself, that participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses. Whilst you lack the strength to do away with bourgeois parliaments and every other type of reactionary institution, you must work within them because it is there that you will still find workers who are duped by the priests and stultified by the conditions of rural life; otherwise you risk turning into nothing but windbags.
That's an analysis that I agree with. I don't think that Lenin's goal of revolution is necessarily applicable to modern day conditions, but I think there are other methods like strikes that could be encouraged by a radical party.
By calling it out and stating exactly what they are doing, and how, you bring awareness to it and it shows the world that it is rigged. My hope is that then other countries will take economic action and populations across the world will begin to boycott thing i.e. The World Cup and USA made goods.
I think countries are more likely to take action based on the US's bizarre and imperialistic foreign policy, which directly affects them, than the prospect that elections might not happen.
The thing is that there's so much horrible shit that the administration is doing right now, in front of our eyes, that I don't really see much point in messaging about what they might do. At that point, if elections do happen, then everyone who said they wouldn't looks silly and discredited, and the administration gets to dismiss the opposition as doing paranoid fearmongering.
What do you believe the Democratic party should be doing then? You’ve made it clear what you think they will do. Of you were in their position how would you deal with the rigged election situation?
Well look, I fundamentally disagree with their approach, but if we're talking about messaging strategy then I think we have to stay within the realm with what's actually plausible. Since they're committed to an electoral approach, they can't cast doubts on the election because it could decrease turnout. They have to operate on the assumption that the elections will happen, and focus on criticizing things like ICE, while promising things that will materially improve people's lives, like Mamdani's approach.
The Democrats to be talking more about the possibility of election manipulation by the GOP and making the public aware of their intent to fight any such plans, I imagine?
Why? To what end?
There is a political theory that says you should continue to participate in rigged or unfair elections, while explicitly calling them out as rigged, for the purpose of reaching people who are invested in electoralism and convincing them to engage in direct, mass action, such as strikes or revolution. That theory is called Marxism-Leninism. The democratic party are not Marxist-Leninists. They have no interest in getting people to abandon electoralism in favor of other means of resistance, they want the exact opposite of that.
There's another political theory that says you shouldn't focus your efforts on elections but should instead focus on building dual power through things like mutual aid networks. This theory is called Anarchism. The democratic party are not Anarchists. If you want to take that strategy, then you shouldn't even be looking to the democratic party, because it is a political party.
So why on earth would a party that is completely committed to electoralism as the only avenue of affecting change go around telling people the elections are rigged? It's nonsense. It goes against everything they believe in.
They are intrinsically tied to the system and they will continue to uphold the system until the day comes that they get dragged away to a torture dungeon in El Salvador. It's technically correct that they should change, but I don't see how it's remotely possible that they would change to anything like the extent necessary.
And what exactly does the author imagine as an alternative?
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
These people were around when Obama was president (and wanted to publicly execute him too). We already returned to medieval shit when they started torturing alleged "terrorists" and detaining people indefinitely without trial at Guantanamo Bay.
You gotta understand that there's a significant portion of the American population that is explicitly anti-intellectual, that mistrust reason altogether because it might get in the way of faith and therefore be evil. Only one in four Americans believes that humans were created by evolution without divine intervention, and that's about doubled compared to 20 years ago. I used to live near where the Scopes Trial took place and I can assure you that they're still mad about it 100 years later.
That's before you even factor in the massive amounts of money corporations put into propaganda to promote right-wing ideas, the entire far-right media sphere, all the podcasters and streamers they have that we don't have. And before you factor in the declining economic conditions, and our horribly fucked up political system.
I really think a lot of foreigners have this really rosy picture of the US because they only really know the big cities.
Dystopian fiction: The regime alters photos to make people look happy and smiling, to hide their cruelty.
Dystopian reality: The regime alters photos to make people look sad and pained, to brag about their cruelty.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Oh it was awful. I was about your age back then, and I had been raised religious which I rebelled against by trying to be completely rational, to the point of trying to suppress all my emotions like a robot, which made me miserable. I had no self confidence, crippling social anxiety, and all sorts of bad ideas steering me in completely wrong directions.
I don't think I had met any openly queer people at that point and the first time I did I was like, "I don't get it, I would never express myself that way, because what would people think?" while of course completely sidestepping the question of how I actually felt or wanted to identify because again, suppressing my emotions. Spoiler alert: probably should've examined that!
The best decision I ever made in my life came a few years later when I studied abroad in Japan. It exposed me to a lot of different perspectives in the international house and also gave me interesting experiences to talk about which helped with my social anxiety (actively identifying and working on it with therapy techniques later on probably did more).
Politically, I had no real awareness of leftism and was into Ron Paul and libertarianism, because he was the loudest antiwar voice at the time. It's also a great ideology for if you've never had a boss or a landlord. I was mostly just glad to be rid of Bush, and I had some hope that Obama would end the war, prosecute people in the Bush administration for war crimes, and stop mass surveillance. I was very naive at that time.
I feel like this was a time before a bunch of movements or cultural tendencies became associated with the right. The problems were still there, but there were also some non-shitty people included in them:
- It was before Gamergate, but there was a lot of sexism in video game communities.
- I remember being into "transhumanist" ideas that would these days be associated with Elon Musk and his sycophantic techbro fanboys.
- Many prominent "New Atheists" either had or would break right and support the wars in the Middle East, with logic like, "We've already fixed sexism completely here in the West (and the feminists who don't agree with that are just a bunch of dumb broads), the big problem is Islam," ignoring the threat of Christofascism at home.
- Even stuff like 4chan, I had friends who were on /b/ back in the day who turned out normal and chill. There was an element of rebelling against the Pat Robertson, stick-in-the-mud, "D&D is witchcraft" types, and part of that was reveling in rule-breaking, and so they delighted in shock images and made fun of anyone who cared too much about things in response to that.
I guess the positives were that people were less divided and it was easier to have hope for the future. But like there were reasons why those things changed, either movements/groups showed their true colors, or valid criticisms of those groups became more widely accepted. I much prefer the division and conflict that we have now compared to the "post-9/11 world" where virtually everybody was in agreement about slaughtering Muslims. And yeah I had more hope for the future but it was because I though technology would fix everything for everybody and didn't understand how it could hurt workers and benefit capitalists, it was based on ignorance.
Militarize? We already spend more on the military than the next 9 countries combined. And we have 5 different wars going on right now that nobody can even name without googling.
Neither of those is a particularly new situation.
Lol what a load of bullshit. I remember when COVID was beginning, and lots of scientists were talking about how we needed lockdowns, and for a while, before it became a culture war issue, that was a perfectly acceptable stance.
Then the right decided to go full on, "It's my right to get sick and spread illness to my neighbors, and any attempts to stop that are literally 1984." So we got completely half-assed "lockdowns" that were little more than polite suggestions, and of course the right treated it as the worst thing to ever happen. The exact same mentality as when right wingers deliberately waste water out of spite during a water shortage because the government had the audacity to politely ask them to maybe consider conserving it.
While we in the West were being sacrificed so that the line would go up, while our grocery stores were packed with everyone panic-buying toilet paper, Vietnam's government for example was delivering free groceries straight to people's houses to encourage them to stay indoors.
Socialist countries generally listened to the science and took steps to keep people safe while capitalist countries did nothing and lied to us, sacrificing our lives and health for profits.
Yes. Motherfuckering liberals still out here like, "We had to murder hundreds of thousands of your civilians to save you from yourselves," even about a project that (entirely predictably) ended in complete, abject failure and left everyone worse off except oil companies and arms dealers.
It's incredible how much this 1800s colonizer mindset lives on in modern day people.
The implication is that the Iraqis were not forced into anything against their will, that the invasion and occupation was in their interests and for their benefit, and so this is dissimilar and the Greenlanders would resist harder than the Iraqis.
The reality is that the Iraq War was similar because they were both imperialistic wars of aggression for the purpose of seizing resources.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
No, I just don't like unprovoked wars of aggression and decades long occupations. Including when someone not named Trump is doing it, including when it happens to countries outside of the imperial core.
This would not be the occupation of Iraq, which was difficult enough. U.S. troops would need to force Greenlanders, citizens of a treaty ally, to become American against their will.
The Atlantic always manages to squeeze shitlib bullshit into every article, like this ridiculous Iraq War apologia. I see the source and I immediately know it's coming, every single time.
Well, the evil red fash tankies you hate so much made enormous sacrifices and contributions in order to bring them down.