I'm gonna mute this one
-
So wait for a charismatic and perfect savior. We see what happens every time someone of this stature reaches the actual federal election stage.
I'm talking about what people can do here and now, which is built coalitions and not have purity tests about who is in it, just focus on single-issues like the right has done successfully over and over and over.
For some reason whenever someone says "compromise" every lefty immediately pictures "submitting on trans rights and abortion" or something.
I'm saying as individuals, you and me, scared lemmy browsers who don't think they have power: build social connections, make more friends, build activism groups, start in local communities and keep it fixated on solving ONE populist problem that we can get a much wider array of people behind, like childcare or school lunches or yes healthcare and unions, social security or other public safety nets and the whole long laundry list of items we want, but instead of overwhelming a population, local or national, with a huge list of inclusivity and ideals, we attack one thing at a time. I have watched the right do this over and over and each time they fucking WIN.
Again, your notions of an ideal candidate you would vote for are spot-on, I would vote for that person in a heartbeat, most would, but that person doesn't exist and they won't exist until they can ride on the momentum of grass-roots movements to tackle populist issues. The democrat party is not our ally here, not without a mandate under it and if we're more clever about building those mandates and then tying them together when it's time, we might have success.
But I'm getting really pessimistic here. Voter turnout is not the problem. Everyone, everywhere, is avoiding mixing. The atomization of our world is the problem. We had the highest voter turnouts and youth involvement in the last several elections than we've ever had, and they voted Trump. That's my whole point, that's the key we have to fight against, how someone like a brazen fascist and idiot can sway so many people, and it starts with re-mixing our values and perspectives and this may take some kind of "compromise" that may make a lot of isolated lefties really uncomfortable, like having conversations with people you don't like, like accepting people who hate you into your protest so you can both tackle a problem you both hate. If we can cross that boundary we can start mixing together again and pulling people out of this programming that corporate media does. Isolationism is killing our whole world and all our hope for the future.
wrote last edited by [email protected]So wait for a charismatic and perfect savior.
Did you not read what I said? I'm talking about taking up concrete policy positions. Profoundly uncharismatic people like Biden, Harris, Clinton can do that. And yes, it will gain them votes.
Well not Biden obviously because he's been non compos mentis for the past three years, but you get the point.
-
How exactly are you going to campaign with no money lol
Spend a moment or two thinking and trying to be smart, okay?
-
So wait for a charismatic and perfect savior.
Did you not read what I said? I'm talking about taking up concrete policy positions. Profoundly uncharismatic people like Biden, Harris, Clinton can do that. And yes, it will gain them votes.
Well not Biden obviously because he's been non compos mentis for the past three years, but you get the point.
I tried. If anyone gets what I'm saying, power to them and the kernel of hope rides in their hands. Otherwise I'm done. Peace.
-
We are facing a huge problem that nobody seems to be able to identify, which is not voter turnout. The sad, horrible truth is the last couple election cycles we had record turnout and more young people involved than ever before... AND THEY VOTED FOR TRUMP. It's going to happen all across the world as more and more people have access to their little algorithmic ideology bubbles.
So what's the problem? Atomization of groups. Everyone is isolated and not exposed to each other's perspectives and it's making a vacuum that corporations are easily leveraging to get their right-wing puppets installed so they can make line go up. This atomization is literally turning people delusional, and if we don't push back on it we are going to lose not just the USA but all democracy and organization.
We fight it with activity and community and socialization. If it takes screaming at people to get off their asses, I will do that and I will do it in ways that piss people off if it gets attention.
You berate neurodivergent and queer people specifically
Exactly the kind of bad-faith, seething, atomized perspective I want to fight by forcing people like YOU to listen to people like ME who will say things to piss you off and make you reconsider what someone else is saying. We need to do that not on Lemmy but out in bars, in family gatherings, in social media, in public lectures, in town council meetings and so on. Withdrawing now will kill you all. I am being dead serious. This avoidance of conflict except with people who want the same outcome as you is ruining our entire world.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I already talk politics on normie social media, and in bars, and even to colleagues sometimes. I do all these things, for all the good it might do. You don't fully understand who you are talking to, the demographic you are trying to address, anymore than you understand politics outside of America. Queer and Neurodivergent people are already some of the most radicalised people who fight the most. They make up a good chunk of the alt-right, and much of the alt-left too. You have just spent too much time talking to the chronically online individuals or whatever the term is.
As I said here we had a landslide loss for the right wing party. Mainly because the British people won't tolerate the kinds of scandals that the politicians got up to, certainly we wouldn't tolerate Trump here. The outcome though was the left wing party doing the bad stuff instead. It's not about compromise when people's rights are on the line. I am not saying don't vote where you are, and I certainly voted where I am. It's just at this point that strategy isn't working as well as it should. While screaming at people is great, I don't even know what to tell them to do. Whoever I would tell them to vote for either won't get in, will do harmful things, or are far too radical for normal people to go for, or some combo of the above. Not really convinced that screaming works either. Honey catches more flies than vinegar. Especially with someone like you who is screaming at the wrong people in the wrong way for probably the wrong reasons.
-
So wait for a charismatic and perfect savior. We see what happens every time someone of this stature reaches the actual federal election stage.
I'm talking about what people can do here and now, which is built coalitions and not have purity tests about who is in it, just focus on single-issues like the right has done successfully over and over and over.
For some reason whenever someone says "compromise" every lefty immediately pictures "submitting on trans rights and abortion" or something.
I'm saying as individuals, you and me, scared lemmy browsers who don't think they have power: build social connections, make more friends, build activism groups, start in local communities and keep it fixated on solving ONE populist problem that we can get a much wider array of people behind, like childcare or school lunches or yes healthcare and unions, social security or other public safety nets and the whole long laundry list of items we want, but instead of overwhelming a population, local or national, with a huge list of inclusivity and ideals, we attack one thing at a time. I have watched the right do this over and over and each time they fucking WIN.
Again, your notions of an ideal candidate you would vote for are spot-on, I would vote for that person in a heartbeat, most would, but that person doesn't exist and they won't exist until they can ride on the momentum of grass-roots movements to tackle populist issues. The democrat party is not our ally here, not without a mandate under it and if we're more clever about building those mandates and then tying them together when it's time, we might have success.
But I'm getting really pessimistic here. Voter turnout is not the problem. Everyone, everywhere, is avoiding mixing. The atomization of our world is the problem. We had the highest voter turnouts and youth involvement in the last several elections than we've ever had, and they voted Trump. That's my whole point, that's the key we have to fight against, how someone like a brazen fascist and idiot can sway so many people, and it starts with re-mixing our values and perspectives and this may take some kind of "compromise" that may make a lot of isolated lefties really uncomfortable, like having conversations with people you don't like, like accepting people who hate you into your protest so you can both tackle a problem you both hate. If we can cross that boundary we can start mixing together again and pulling people out of this programming that corporate media does. Isolationism is killing our whole world and all our hope for the future.
Except talking to people I don't agree with is exactly what I do. I am doing it to you now! Think about that! I regularly get in arguments online with the opposite side on reddit. I talk to people here I don't agree with too. I've spent plenty of time talking with people offline too, though often with less aggression. I doubt I am the only person doing this. In fact I have seen evidence of others doing this. So I am not sure where you get your ideas from to be perfectly honest.
The above is actually the exact opposite of what leftists are normally told to do, yet so many do it anyway. I am really wondering what is going on in your head mate. Me thinks you are delusional. Having people argue against each other often justs radicalises them further, this is a known fact. It doesn't help "deatomize" them or whatever you are talking about.
As for working with people you hate: you shouldn't be forced to protest with people who hate who you are because of prejudice. That's not something you should ever ask of anyone. It's perfectly reasonable to use violence against such people in fact. It might even be effective. Things are often solved through killing after all, that's what war is. That's how the Nazis were beat last time.
-
I tried. If anyone gets what I'm saying, power to them and the kernel of hope rides in their hands. Otherwise I'm done. Peace.
So much for talking to people you don't agree with. It seems you can't or won't hold up to your own ideals of engaging with others in good faith.
-
I'm angry at leftists helping elect trump thus creating MORE genocide.
You mean the genocide that Harris said that she was going to support?
It's always amazing to me that Democrats get mad at people who couldn't stomach voting for genocide, instead of getting mad at the people who ran a pro-genocide campaign.
-
I tried. If anyone gets what I'm saying, power to them and the kernel of hope rides in their hands. Otherwise I'm done. Peace.
wrote last edited by [email protected]"My house is on fire and there's NOTHING I can do"
"Maybe call 911, leave the house, get the fire ext..."
"NOTHING, I SAY! NOTHING!"
-
You mean the genocide that Harris said that she was going to support?
It's always amazing to me that Democrats get mad at people who couldn't stomach voting for genocide, instead of getting mad at the people who ran a pro-genocide campaign.
Also apparently leftists have to temper our criticism of a genocide by mentioning that Trump is always somehow worse despite there being no evidence that it is materially any worse under him - that's literally a counterfactual - but somehow this person gets to criticise us for mentioning a genocide without acknowledging that it is actually a genocide.
It's genocide denial, but they're not denying it's happening, they're just denying that it's worth talking about, which is maybe worse?
-
I'm angry at leftists helping elect trump thus creating MORE genocide.
wrote last edited by [email protected]If mentioning a genocide helped elect Trump, then doing the genocide helped Trump far more, so I don't know why you're not attacking the dems for that.
The genocide charge wouldn't carry any weight if it wasn't true.
Why is this genocide more important to you as a political football than as, you know, a genocide?
You're a genocide denier. You're not denying it's happening, you're just denying it's worth talking about, which is maybe worse.
-
Also apparently leftists have to temper our criticism of a genocide by mentioning that Trump is always somehow worse despite there being no evidence that it is materially any worse under him - that's literally a counterfactual - but somehow this person gets to criticise us for mentioning a genocide without acknowledging that it is actually a genocide.
It's genocide denial, but they're not denying it's happening, they're just denying that it's worth talking about, which is maybe worse?
I always read it as "It's not a big deal, as long as it's my team doing it". See also: Sending immigrants to torture prisons, rape, caring about corporations more than people, suppressing the working class, war, etc.
-
How is this liberalism?
Liberalism is a political-economic ideology that gives a friendly face to capitalism. While market discipline enforces inhumane measures like a park bench that prevents homeless people from sleeping on it, simultaneously the same society produces the friendly face "solution" of a small, overburdened charity organization to help homeless people.
So the state, which has the authority to enforce public park design, or, you know, regulate housing, won't help. The liberal solution to systemic social inequity is charity.
-
You mean the genocide that Harris said that she was going to support?
It's always amazing to me that Democrats get mad at people who couldn't stomach voting for genocide, instead of getting mad at the people who ran a pro-genocide campaign.
Well, enjoy the textbook ethnic cleansing that was announced. On top of the continued genocide. Good job!
-
If mentioning a genocide helped elect Trump, then doing the genocide helped Trump far more, so I don't know why you're not attacking the dems for that.
The genocide charge wouldn't carry any weight if it wasn't true.
Why is this genocide more important to you as a political football than as, you know, a genocide?
You're a genocide denier. You're not denying it's happening, you're just denying it's worth talking about, which is maybe worse.
I'm not denying it's worth talking about. I'm saying that "not making the genocide even worse" is more important than feeling morally superior on the internet. Some people obviously disagree.
-
I think you might be reading too much into that statement. They were saying that the Democrats have failed to differentiate themselves on that specific issue, and that's an objective fact.
They also said that Trump was the worst option.
I agree with them that we shouldn't have to keep quiet about what a shit human being politician A is, on the off chance that it might cause a complete idiot to vote for politician B who is just as bad on that issue and worse in just about every other way.
An idiot is going to idiot no matter what you do, and it's not on us to cover up for liberals and their shit candidates.
If the Democrats want us to stop discussing what trash human beings their candidates are, there is a simple solution for that. I'm sure you can figure out what that is if you think about it.
No matter where you are in the world, this is going to affect you as well. You should be just as mad at the Democrats for putting an unelectable piece of shit up against Trump as I am, not making excuses for them and blaming leftists. We didn't have Jack shit to do with it.
The DNC had ONE job, put up a candidate that could beat a fascist dictator. That should have been the easiest job in the world.
They fucked up. And now we are all paying for it. Quit trying to shift the blame where it doesn't belong.
The American people had one job, not to elect the fascist. The DNC should have been able to ran a dirty diaper and win. The American people elected the president, not the DNC. This is on them. (Let alone the fact primary voters decide decided who the candidate was, not the DNC).
And now those voters are on the internet blaming the DNC, the voting machines, the weather and a thousand other things. Nah bros, this one is on you all.
-
The American people had one job, not to elect the fascist. The DNC should have been able to ran a dirty diaper and win. The American people elected the president, not the DNC. This is on them. (Let alone the fact primary voters decide decided who the candidate was, not the DNC).
And now those voters are on the internet blaming the DNC, the voting machines, the weather and a thousand other things. Nah bros, this one is on you all.
"The American People" are not a monolith, we are actually composed of a diverse group of hundreds of millions of people. Blaming every person in the country for the actions of some is reductive, myopic, and ignorant.
Your uninformed take is about as nuanced as claiming Sophie Scholl was just as responsible for The 3rd Reich as Adolf Hitler because she didn't do more to stop him.
Who knows, given your utter lack of understanding, you might well believe that.
I've already explained in great detail how it actually is the DNC and not the voters who decides who wins the primaries. If your reading comprehension is really that lacking, I'm not sure I can help you with your problem. If you still don't understand try having an adult explain it to you.
Good Luck with whatever your issue is. Hopefully you are fortunate enough to live somewhere that you have access to good mental health treatment.
-
I'm not denying it's worth talking about. I'm saying that "not making the genocide even worse" is more important than feeling morally superior on the internet. Some people obviously disagree.
So are you mad at the dems for making the genocide even worse by doing a genocide which helped them lose an election thus making the genocide worse?
Why is it leftsts' fault for telling the truth and not dems' fault for making it true?
Why do we have to be fair to the dems to agree that Trump's genocide would be worse when the dems worked so hard to make "worse" virtually unimaginable?
Why do we have to be fair to you by always saying Trump is worse but you don't have to be fair to us by acknowledging that there is an actual genocide?
Just because you have some mental gymnastics to explain why the dems' genocide is somehow something we shouldn't talk about doesn't mean you're not denying it.
-
Well, enjoy the textbook ethnic cleansing that was announced. On top of the continued genocide. Good job!
I will not, as I voted against it, which is more than the Democrats can say
-
I will not, as I voted against it, which is more than the Democrats can say
Was there a candidate that was against it? There were two options: genocide and turbo genocide. A vote "against it" (third party) is a vote that helped the winner.
-
"The American People" are not a monolith, we are actually composed of a diverse group of hundreds of millions of people. Blaming every person in the country for the actions of some is reductive, myopic, and ignorant.
Your uninformed take is about as nuanced as claiming Sophie Scholl was just as responsible for The 3rd Reich as Adolf Hitler because she didn't do more to stop him.
Who knows, given your utter lack of understanding, you might well believe that.
I've already explained in great detail how it actually is the DNC and not the voters who decides who wins the primaries. If your reading comprehension is really that lacking, I'm not sure I can help you with your problem. If you still don't understand try having an adult explain it to you.
Good Luck with whatever your issue is. Hopefully you are fortunate enough to live somewhere that you have access to good mental health treatment.
I'm not blaming "every single individual person". I'm blaming "the American people", who elected trump. Twice.
