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/)A

anarchiddy

@ anarchiddy @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts
2
Comments
739
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • I've repeatedly said I didn't care if you, specifically, were a liberal. When you asked me several times, I acquiesced with "probably", but nothing you were saying was 'proving' your position relative to liberalism - if anything it was making more suspicous. I never went through your history because it's immaterial to me if you, specifically, are the type of liberal I'm being critical of. Mostly I was just glad you weren't as bad as others who routinely complain about people castigating liberals, but you're still incredibly disingenuous with your own accusations. Take whatever you want from that as a concession.

    Now if it was this scenario where the DNC could hear me here saying that I was planning to vote for them anyway to keep Trump out of power, that would bother me a lot, because that actually would produce this impact you’re talking about which could increase the genocide in the world.

    When people all get together and say, "what the democrats are doing is absolutely horrible, but it's incredibly important to vote for them anyway", and then accuse anyone not explicitly declaring their intention to vote for them of being dishonest about their intentions, of course it's going to reinforce that behavior. And why would I assume you think otherwise? Why would you take issue with people sharing reporting that you think is 'misrepresentative' if it isn't because that reporting might shift public opinion in a meaningful way? It's not out of principle that you tone police those political news comms - if anything it's because you believe the best way to minimize genocide is to elect democrats over republicans, and that means protecting public opinion against popular resentment.

    Yes, i'm interpreting your behavior. Yes I know you insist that's not what you're doing or why you're doing it. But you've given me no reason to believe otherwise other than a few quotes affirming that the genocide is a problem, and a bunch of examples of justifying your electoral position by comparing democrats to how bad the republicans are in comparison. Honestly, though - and I feel like i've said this a few times already - i don't give a shit if i'm describing you. I never set out to prove that you're a liberal. If you really think that what i'm describing as liberalism in practice, then fine.

    Fixing that sounds great, but I’m disgusted in general with this big Lemmy contingent who seem to be a lot more vocal about not voting than they are about any other strategy for fixing US support for genocide. That’s a shit strategy, straight up.

    Those people aren't being vocal about not voting, they're describing why electoral politics are a huge part of the problem, and that voting can't fix it. Yes, democrats are the harm reduction option. Yes, trump is a fascist. No, voting does not even begin to fix the problem with our liberal democracy, and insisting everyone make their intention to vote a prerequisite for being considered an honest broker online is the problem i'm talking about. That it remains the central issue in your diatribes serves only to reinforce my opinion of you.

    IDK, I feel like you sort of halfway absorbed and halfway failed to absorb what I was telling you about my own viewpoint on protest and effective advocacy for change, and you’re still kind of stuck in this strawman model of “the enemy” who doesn’t believe in protest and so you have to lecture me, or doesn’t believe in criticizing Democrats and so you have to lecture me

    Because you continue to carve out exceptions to what you claim to believe, like this:

    What I was talking about was OP and the little gang of people who’ve been spreading the narrative that the Democrats are the worst thing, basically indistinguishable from fascism, and are now having trouble hiding their eagerness to double down on assuring everyone that it’s all the Democrats’ fault and this whole thing was inevitable

    If that's not a hyperbolic comment about people expressing their distaste for the inadequacy of democratic policy and governance, I don't know what else to call it.

    You’ll just yell at them that they’re okay with genocide and being aware that they absolutely are not

    I'm not sure where you've gotten that assessment, I haven't told you that you're OK with genocide. I can see how you might have gotten there, though.

    It's fine, you seem committed to your misinterpretation and your attachment to your label. You can have it.

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • You said liberals oppose strikes.

    I have absolutely no idea where you think I said this. I think you're shadowboxing someone else.

    This is what I was saying about your definition of “liberal” being shifty in a way where it can change to support whatever you’re trying to argue at any given time

    It's not being cagey, it's just not a description or list of policy positions. You even just said that the framework has changed a bunch of times since Locke. It's an ideological framework for democratic systems of governance, and i've repeatedly explained why that framework is problematic.

    As the source you sent me pointed out, the definition has changed over time,

    Yup.

    and since then more radical alternative has emerged, which “liberalism” often opposes.

    Marxism-Leninism is at odds with Trotskyism, but they're both 'marxist'. Liberalism describes a bunch of different particular denominations of the same underlying framework. Does that make sense?

    That’s what MLK was saying.

    Err, no? MLK was criticizing moderate liberals who were claiming to agree with the civil rights on principle but were complaining about the inconvenience of the demonstrations, arguing (much like liberals in 2024 were) that they should wait for a better season. He wasn't complaining about libertarians, he was complaining about the 'progressives' who were standing in the way of liberation.

    But at the time liberalism emerged, there was aristocracy or nothing.

    Kind of? I mean there had been plenty of democratic systems since the Greeks and Romans, but broadly speaking, sure. John Locke was considered quite radical at the time, but liberalism as it came into focus after the french revolution took on a considerably more 'moderating' focus. But while Locke was certainly a radical at the time, his foundation is most closely related to classical liberalism and libertarianism today, both broadly reactionary and "conservative" in the modern american sense. The 'social' liberalism you're most familiar with probably didn't start taking shape until at least Kant in 1784, or more reasonably 1789 with Bentham. All of them, though, still centered around 'individual liberty' and framed their thoughts on democracy around it. All of the formative problems with liberalism that i've described has been there since the founding.

    Like I said, it seems like your whole concept of it is as a limiting factor on progressive movements (which is certainly an element in the modern day), but that’s not the whole of liberalism and those progressive movements didn’t even exist in the beginning form of it. Liberalism was the progressive movement

    That isn't my whole concept. Liberalism being a framework for the limits of the ideal democratic system is only it's reason for being, but that's not what it is. It's a set of political ideals that centers around the liberties of the individual. That applies just as much to modern progressives as it does to Locke and libertarians.

    and then you proceed to explain to me why I take issue with the uncommitted movement.

    Because your understanding of the uncommitted movement, and how protest is meant to work in-general, is quite limited. People expressing discontent with democrats online is an extension of that movement. So is asserting the reality of how that issue was shaping their unpopularity at the time - both of which you have been critical of, even in your own examples. You've expressed concern with that type of messaging 'influencing voters', even though bringing those issues into the public conversation is precisely the point of protest. You repeatedly assert your utilitarian calculus on others who are expressing despair with their options. Admittedly I am making a broader assessment of your intentions than you've explicitly stated, but you're still misunderstanding the issue with liberalism i'm describing. It's not a set of policy positions or opinions

    I am asking you a question about your definitions, using various specific referents (myself, congressional Democrats, Bernie Sanders, Biden, users on Lemmy who are accused of being liberals)

    Liberalism is a way of understanding political organization that centers around individual liberty and abides by a system of ideals that are together functionally incapable of resisting fascism. I don't know how much more explicit I can be. Sometimes someone with progressive positions can be a liberal, especially when they abandon them in favor of protecting liberal institutions. I can't tell you what category every person or user fits in because I don't have some magic 8 ball that tells me.

    What I am saying is how some of your definitions fall apart or become contradictory once you have to apply them to specific people yes or no, and then defend the application of the label to those specific people.

    I know what you're complaining about. I've been trying to tell you that it isn't a matter of policy, it's a matter of ideology. The policies that result from liberal thinking are not always consistent, because they are situationally dependent on opposing forces. Is Biden a liberal? Yes. Is Sanders a liberal? Probably not, but on occasion it can seem like it. Schumer? Pelosi? Jefferies? Harris? 100% certified. And not because they hold specific positions, but because the rationalization of those positions abide by liberal principles (does this or that policy or action infringe on individual liberties? Does this or that policy grant me greater influence to protect individual liberty? Does this or that policy depend on the practicalities of a capitalist system of governance?).

    Which is why I think it’s a bad idea to use “liberal” as a key part of your argumentative style.

    Well it certainly seems to frustrate you, but I think that has more to do with your political framework necessitating clear declarative categories than with the coherence with my definition of liberalism.

    Does that make sense?

    Frankly? No. It might frustrate your understanding of the world but it in no way hinders my own.

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • That's great - good job. Like I said before, I have no interest in going through your history to examine your bonafides.

    What I was commenting on was this:

    If I thought the DNC consultants who make up their awful strategy read Lemmy, I probably honestly would have approached it very very differently than I did. However I do not. I do not think posting on Lemmy influences Democratic politicians. I do think it influences voters (in some pretty tiny way), and so my main input to it is going to be centered around “how can voters behave in a way which will minimize genocide.”

    Good enough if that simply means discouraging apathy and disengagement. But what I hear in this is, 'i cater my contributions to this conversation in such a way to encourage people to vote democrat in a conversation about their complicity in genocide', and I see that as incredibly unprincipled. More than that - protesting isn't like some private conversation with the strategists at the DNC. The point of protesting is to bring the issue out in the open in order to shift public opinion - that's what actually pressures a politician to the negotiation table. Whinging about people harping on how the democrats were handling the situation isn't subterfuge if the thing being criticized is legitimate.

    But I'll gladly admit that your history doesn't seem as bad as some others here, and that does provide some comfort. But like I said - I was never really interested in categorizing you, it was you who first asked me, and you who read something into this meme to be personally aggrieved by. It's immaterial to me if you're a liberal.

    Democrats being told that they're becoming less popular because of how they handle criticism isn't subterfuge - as far as I can tell that's just reporting on reality like it was sundays weather forecast.

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • No, it isn't "i want to influence voters", it's the fact that the way you talk about democrats (and when) is dependent on how doing so will impact their odds of losing to fascists, even when the topic of conversation is about how democrats are themselves collaborating with fascists.

    I don't care if that makes you a liberal by whatever definition you want to use for yourself - I care that you ignore your convictions and turn a blind eye to atrocity when it's politically inconvenient, and I care that democrats do, too.

    Whatever word you want to use for that is fine with me.

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • It sounds like your entire conception of what “liberal” doesn’t have much at all to do with this article you sent me, and is kind of centered around this one thing:

    This willingness is tempered by an aversion to sudden, cataclysmic change, which is what sets off the liberal from the radical.

    Kind of - it's true that liberalism was originally conceived as a way of limiting revolutionary democracy from devolving into radical populist movements, but what's important about it is the way it constructs its framework to do that. Liberalism chose to focus on 'individual liberty', but that comes with problems. Edmund Burk saw individual liberty and egalitarianism as a way of ensuring that the aristocratic class - which was well educated and already governed over productive systems - could guide democratic norms and resist the pull into populist hysteria. The side effect of this framing is that it gives space for other systems of power (e.g. capital and governance over the means of production) to accumulate without a real way of setting a limit.

    The next two hundred years of liberalism split into two factions that sought to either rectify that problem or dismiss it as a non-issue, but it had already handicapped itself by setting individual liberty as its guiding principle. It meant that even the American flavor of liberalism - which sought to regulate capital through democratic reform - could only conceive of that question through the lens of individual liberty, and still had no way of establishing a limit to the accumulation of individual power other than by the question: 'could this amount of power be used to threaten the liberty of individuals?'. This meant that capital could freely accumulate without regulation, so long as it never abused that power to the detriment of individual liberty.

    Basically, it sounds like you’re defining liberalism as “allegiance to the government and rejection of methods of change outside of the formal government structure,” and kind of nothing else beyond that.

    No - even though that's what liberalism initially sought to accomplish, it's more broadly the way it goes about it that concerns me. Having a stable government that resists reactionary populism is a metric of success of any political system, but how they go about doing it is what distinguishes them.

    By this definition Biden is not a liberal, since he supported basically every strike aside from the rail strike that took place under his term.

    You really need to take a step back from specific policy decisions if you actually want to understand this. Biden isn't a liberal because he supports worker unions - what makes him a liberal is they way in which he weighs his positions against how it does or does not threaten broader systems of individual liberty. The way he handled the rail strike in 2022 is actually a pretty good example of this - he ended up blocking that strike (and in the process undermining the long-term collective bargaining power of the rail unions), because allowing it to go through threatened the stability of the capitalist economy. Liberalism is happy to concede to worker demands so long as they don't impact the functioning of their individualist economy. This enshrines the 'ratcheting effect' into our system, because it shields capital from the threat of collective organizing. Liberalism is happy(or maybe confortable..?) to watch injustices happen if taking action threatens liberalism's dominant position, and will couch that decision in heroics for having saved us from the chaos of extended conflict.

    something like the “uncommitted” movement is at least organized in a fashion where it seems like it could produce an improvement, by putting pressure on the Democrats, so that sounds fine. Just not voting for Democrats and hoping they’ll figure it out and move to the left seems pretty much guaranteed to give us something along the lines of the catastrophe that happened

    Yeaaaa, except that's not really where your criticism is being directed at. You're taking issue with people involved with the uncommitted movement engendering a sense of apathy, since their protest of the democratic party necessarily involved persistently pointing out how complicit they actually were. You might project that onto people actually 'choosing not to vote', but there are eligible voters in every election that opt out of voting. The only to be upset this time is that those non-voters were being given ample reason to feel apathetic, but that isn't the fault of protestors bringing the genocide into the national conversation, that's the fault of democrats for trying to ignore it.

    What makes this a liberal idea is how the political calculus is constructed and the underlying assumptions within it:

    • how much does taking action against Israel threaten individual liberty (within the us) and the influence of liberal governance
    • how much does protesting the democrats threaten individual liberty (within the us)

    The amount of harm being done in Gaza is never a part of that calculation, it's only ever a question of how much does this or that action threaten individual liberty. Democrats did the math and figured that turning on Israel made losing to the fascists more likely, but if that's the only question they ever pose to themselves, there is nothing preventing them from sliding further and further toward fascism/oligarchy and it never happens that they stand up against evil despite the risk of personal harm to themselves and liberalism. They become passengers and unwilling (at best) collaborators to fascists, rather than true anti-fascists.

    It’s going to mean that I’m going to have to spend an entire week clarifying what I believe and what I support, because you have such a strong narrative in your head that “PhilipTheBucket is a liberal -> PhilipTheBucket opposes protest movements if they might hurt Democrats’ chances -> because that’s how liberals are and he’s a liberal and I know that.”

    I can only comment on what I hear from you, and I hadn't even tried to assign you that label until you repeatedly asked me to. I have a firm understanding of what liberalism is - or at least, the broad framework within that diverse ideological discipline that distinguishes it from other political movements. Whether you fit into that category is immaterial to me. But that doesn't change my criticism of liberalism as I see it pop up into political discourse on lemmy, or my criticism of you when you participate in it.

    Of course, if your whole point is just to trash me for being “a bad liberal,” then it suddenly does become really difficult to distinguish between them, and you can constantly keep swearing that I said the first one.

    There is no such thing as a 'good' liberal. There are only good times where liberals don't stand in the way of liberation politics, and bad times when they do. It just happens that we're in very, very bad times, and so liberals look pretty fuckin' bad by extension.

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • Which part of this were you disagreeing with?

    I'm pointing to the statement that places you in the same category as the 'white moderate' that MLK castigates in LfB. I don't even need to find you a list of users I was referencing, because the evidence for your liberal perspective is right there in the next quote.

    You're in the picture, buddy.

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • Least racist lib.

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • I don’t think most US Democratic politicians are liberals.

    It might help a little if you were to provide your understanding of 'liberal', because to me it seems like it's confused at-best. My working definition of liberal is this one, and my chief criticism against it is that it provides no framework or acknowledgement of power existing outside of 'government' nor way of preventing that power from superseding it. My definition fits congressional democrats just as well as internet forum users who write apologia for why liberation politics are unfeasible (at any given moment) because they lack support from capital or from 'moderates'. Nothing you've said so far makes me think you're not a liberal as I've described it, but I'll wait for you to try defining it yourself before hitting you over the head with it too many times.

    But then the people on Lemmy who generally get accused of being “liberals,” I don’t think are fascist collaborators.

    I disagree, but not because they're frothing at the mouth for genocide. Liberalism is a philosophical framework that functionally separates an individual's objections to the realities of capitalist and imperial systems from the agency to actually address them. "I support you in the goal you seek, but I cannot support your methods of direct action". You might actually think that democrats are committing genocide and that they should be removed from office - but it's your liberalism that prevents you from taking action against them. Hell, even the sitting democratic congresspeople might actually believe they are complicit in genocide, but their belief in liberal systems is what forces them into collaborating instead of resisting. It's the same logic that prevents workers from joining a union or conducting a worker strike - the system of capital traps them by tying their material well-being to the well-being of the capitalist that exploits them:

    • "I agree we should have safer working conditions, but acting against the company risks me losing my job so I can't support a strike".
    • "I agree that democrats are fascist collaborators, but acting against them risks letting the fascist take the place of the fascist collaborator, so I can't support protesting them right now".

    Liberalism is a system that coerces objectors into being passengers to fascism instead of organizing against it. That's what makes it the 'moderate wing of fascism' - not because liberals secretly harbor fascist opinions. Is being a passenger better than being the driver? Maybe...? but it also ensures that we arrive at fascism either way, and that's what we're trying to avoid. To me, there's no need to delineate between liberals and conservatives because my working definition doesn't make them mutually exclusive. You can be a liberal as a democrat just as easily as you can be a liberal as a conservative. Are there democrats who aren't liberals? Sure, but I think you have the axis of your scale backwards.

    Your reaction to me saying most Democrats in government are center-right conservatives for example is super telling to me, where if we were talking about some other topic I feel like it’s likely that you would instantly agree with that

    I mean, sure, I guess an argument could be made to center an arbitrary scale on someone more like Sanders, which puts most democrats right of center. But my point is that using an arbitrary scale isn't helpful in addressing the core issues of liberal democracy. The most it does is re-frames the field of actors so that some democrats are on the other 'team', but that's only helpful for electoral politics, not liberation politics. You seem really keen on establishing an 'us vs them' dividing line but the the problem is more persistent than the individual actors we're talking about.

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • Sure they did, just not on western media.

    Still though, I don't think being marginally less public about committing atrocities makes the people doing them any less contemptible. That the western liberal heart is too soft and fragile to be exposed to the horrors being committed in their name makes their involvement in them more evil, not less.

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • I hate to break this to you but Israel and the US have both killed, raped, and tortured civilians and had footage of those atrocities on record.

    Nobody has asked you to rank the worst terror states and pick your favorite - that's a burden you've placed on yourself.

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • Yes, I was pointing to that contradiction. In your opinion, are liberal democrats fascist collaborators? I'm guessing that the question probably makes you feel a little uneasy. but that's just a guess.

    Am I a liberal?

    Sure seems like the shoe fits, but if you want to make a case for yourself i'm happy to discuss it.

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • that got terrorist at the head of the gouvernement

    That doesnt narrow the list down nearly as much as you think it does

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • You were not yelled down.

    Go and check the political memes comm from early to mid 2024. Check the mod logs of the politics comm from the same time period. There were several struggle sessions about specific users, complaining that 'all they do is post about Gaza' and being super paranoid that they were intentionally trying to throw the election. Several were accused of being paid operatives.

    I do not think posting on Lemmy influences Democratic politicians. I do think it influences voters

    Whoomp, there it is.

    Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

    Go take it up with MLK.

    When were you screaming about it in a way that didn’t also lead to “don’t vote for Democrats”?

    You'd have to go look at my previous accounts. I rotate accounts regularly and keep them as separated as possible.

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • True, but that first one is directly what the meme is referencing. You actually accused me specifically I think of trying to distract from the terrible tragedy.

    No, and no. The meme is referencing liberals walking out of the Democratic National Convention last year literally plugging their ears to protestors who were kicked out for demanding democrats stop supporting Israel's genocide against palestinians. Liberals then (and now) were refusing to address protestors demanding action against Israel's genocidal campaign. They sometimes separately acknowledged it as a tragedy but refused to take action against Israel. "I think this is a tragedy, but unfortunately there's nothing we can do until after the election".

    I haven't actually accused you of anything, but it does kind of seem like i'm describing you. It's not my fault you ascribe that label to yourself and hear that as a personal accusation.

    Well, but I don’t act that way. Am I a liberal?

    Don't you? Could have fooled me. I could have sworn you were one of those people who place blame on voters for the 2024 election outcome, instead of recognizing the democrats torpedoing their own coalition by demonstrating complete contempt for their own base.

    My issue with the meme was this wild strawman, lumping congressional Democrats and people on Lemmy into the same ideological category “liberal” and then making a bunch of sweeping statements I guess about both

    • They are talking about liberals, not a narrow group of congressional democrats
    • I don't see any mention of lemmy in this meme.

    I'd also point out that despite repeatedly agreeing that democrats are contributing to Israel's genocide, you've also repeatedly taken offense at the suggestion that liberals are fascist collaborators.

    the whole thing can be motte-and-baileyed back around so that all of a sudden I’m an asshole who believes all these wild things and doesn’t care about genocide

    You can claim to care about genocide and also deny that democrats are defending and collaborating with the fascists committing it. The latter certainly casts doubt on the former.

    Like who are 5 people who fit into this category who are revering Charlie Kirk and also won’t admit Gaza is a genocide?

    There were 60 out of 212 democrats who voted against a resolution honoring Kirk and to my knowledge only 10 democrats have ever referred to it as a genocide. By my math that's 193 democrats minimum who meet that description.

    Or do you believe that everyone the Lemmy consensus would describe as “liberal” also reveres Charlie Kirk, and also wants to silence any voices of Palestinian suffering?

    I believe those people would say something like, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”. Liberals are usually more upset that protestors may have killed momentum for their candidate than for their candidate openly collaborating in a genocide and giving protestors a reason to oppose them in the first place.

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • Id also point out that many of us have been screaming about this genocide for far longer than 8 months, but were yelled down by liberals for bringing it up while democrats were trying to campaign. I'm not going to trudge through your history for evidence that you cared about it before trump was president elect, but it's a little telling to me that 8 months ago is when you made that bold declaration.

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • Idk how often it needs to be pointed out that Americans dont have some special definition of liberal that has shed itself of all the problems of their European progenitors - they've simply forgotten all the ways in which liberalism runs ideological cover for exploitation.

    "I agree with this meme if I detach myself of the liberal label" seems like a moment of self-awareness to me. Im not trying to discourage it, but I think it's important to look at how electoralism has broken people's understanding of political discourse.

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • Stop skirting around what the meme is talking about

    "Look at this terrible tragedy" is not the same as "if we do not end our complicity in this active genocide, we risk losing everything"

    Liberals act as if their only option is to vote or not vote, but that's simply not the case. If your party is plugging their ears to the tragedy they are helping commit, your job isn't to make sure everyone knows how bad the other candidate is, it's to confront your party about why they're complicating what should otherwise be an easy choice by doing something objectively evil.

    2024 was nobody's fault but the democrats', for exactly the reason depicted in the meme. Instead of addressing the cries for acknowledgment in their base, they fucked us all.

    And here we are again, dealing with their choice to revere and defend the life's work of a neonazi while we are still waiting for them to acknowledge the genocide they helped commit and which continues a year later. I can't blow smoke for a party that continuously runs cover for fascists while plugging their ears to their own base.

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • normal political spectrum

    What does it matter where you are on an arbitrary spectrum if you're still participating in genocide?

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • Pretty much none of the "liberals" on Lemmy have anything other than horror for the killing that's happening in Gaza

    Feeling horror for the genocide isn't mutually exclusive to attempting to drown out the sound of their suffering and your and your party's complicity (which is what the liberals in the meme are doing, in case you're unfamiliar). Acknowledging that the genocide is happening and incredibly sad 😔 isn't very meaningful when you're actively trying not to talk about it.

    If youve complained about democrats being criticized for enabling Israel over the last year, then you're in this picture.

  • what happened to civility? smh.

    Jump

  • 6 months

    Sorry, what are you referring to that has only been screeched for 6 months?