If there’s one lesson to be learned this year, it’s that politicians who compromise with fascists are still miles better than just uncompromised fascism.
This feels like trying to explain to someone that you can have 2 different infinities, and one is larger than the other. Both are bad, but one is clearly worse.
“What’s the difference if you end up at the same place?”
The difference is that 2 genocides is not the same place as 1 genocide. It is reasonable to criticize the people supporting a genocide while at the same time recognizing that the people wanting more genocides are not the same.
The difference is that 2 genocides is not the same place as 1 genocide.
You are already a fascist. You have already approved the genocide of a nation for the sake of what? Saving minorities in America? Guess what you will send them straight to the furnace the moment they become “expedient” to sacrifice for your own gain.
I don’t live in the US, there are no consequences for me as a result of Trump being president. Significantly more people are being harmed under Trump and I actually give a shit about other people instead of putting some idealized moral high ground above actual human lives.
People were being harmed under Biden, our foreign and domestic policy has consequences for the vast majority of the world, you’re either a moron or lying
“Everything America does directly affects everyone else in the world. You only care now because of this. I cared before and that’s why I did nothing to stop this.”
“I won’t vote for someone who isn’t speaking about X” is an idealized moral high ground when the alternative is not only X getting worse, but even more X happening.
“I won’t vote for someone who isn’t speaking about X” is an idealized moral high ground when the alternative is not only X getting worse, but even more X happening.
Fuck you you genocidal prick. Substituting genocide for “x” is disgusting. It’s not “oh there’s just this one bad thing”. It’s genocide. It’s literally the worst possible thing you can do on this planet. And you’re saying other people have an idealised moral high ground because they think GENOCIDE is something that should never be done.
The meme is the trolly problem, and this guy is saying “it doesn’t matter if you pull the lever, someone dies either way, it’s exactly the same!”
Except in the actual situation is more like “if you pull the lever the trolly will divert from running over group A and will run over group B. If you do nothing the trolly accelerates and runs over both groups A and B.”
I’m saying it’s worth pulling the lever while you work on a solution to stop the trolly. Someone arguing against that either doesn’t care about group A, or cares more about not being involved than in actually saving lives.
Hell yeah brother. Personally I think Hitler was fucking great and would vote for him in a heartbeat if it meant stopping Himmler from being in charge. /s
At what point did I say Democrats were fucking great? They are absolute shit and people need to stand up for something better.
You also need to live in fucking reality a realize that stopping things from getting a lot fucking worse is worthwhile while you work on trying to get something better.
Also, Republican’s are the Nazi’s here. You refused to vote against Hitler.
Exactly. They fund genocide because it’s politically expedient. The opposition funds genocide because they love killing brown people
It’s conceivable to convince one side that genocide is no longer politically favorable. You’re never going to convince the other side to stop wanting to kill brown people. There is no third option with prospects to win.
They are rainbow capitalist because of former material conditions. Besides bombing the Middle East because of alleged inherent homophobia and steal their oil or bombing the Middle East because they are slur and steal their oil - is in the end a matter of rhetoric only.
I’d say that’s a ridiculous choice and it’s time to organize with the masses against the system that presented it to us; rather than undermine that effort by treating the system as legitimate and shaming others for not seeing the candidates and their futures the way I did.
Hand me two cups of shit, I still have free will to throw them back in your face. The system can force feed if it wants but you won’t see me voluntarily picking a shit cup and eating shit.
I’d say that’s a ridiculous choice and it’s time to organize with the masses against the system that presented it to us
Agreed
rather than undermine that effort by treating the system as legitimate and shaming others for not seeing the candidates and their futures the way I did.
Nah that’s dumb. I don’t give a shit about “treating the system as legitimate”. The system is what it is, and it will continue to be the system until it isn’t anymore. That’s gonna take more than a handful of people refusing to acknowledge the system’s “legitimacy”.
Hand me two cups of shit, I still have free will to throw them back in your face. The system can force feed if it wants but you won’t see me voluntarily picking a shit cup and eating shit.
It is doing that though. You get the option to vote for which of the two cups they force feed you, and everyone else. We are not presently in a position to throw anything back right now. When we are, I’m all for it. But part of that is choosing the smaller cup of shit while we gather strength.
The point is I’m not going to lend you any legitimacy by picking up the shit and eating it myself, then turning at the people around me and asking why they aren’t eating it yet. I’m going to make it impossible for the shit peddler to hide their willingness and ability to abuse their power. If I’m eating shit either way, why would I do it in a way that makes it apparent to outsiders that I’m choosing to eat shit?
And no, when you scold people for not participating in a system, you are not just not “refusing to acknowledge its legitimacy”. You are promoting it, whether you care to or not. You are promoting the idea that everyone is choosing these options out of complete and true support of complete and unbiased information. This is especially true when people like you misrepresent and refuse to understand the arguments of those who choose to abstain or vote third party.
You are saying, “if you participate in this system, you could change the way things are going; and if you don’t, then you implicitly consent to it”, which is simply not true. Interestingly enough, you know how little power a person has when acting as an individual, which is why you minimize the reach of individuals when it comes to forms of political action other than voting, but you never apply it to the situation of voting where the ruling class has vast numbers of ways to influence people’s behaviors in whatever direction they want.
The change can only come when we have built the ability to move cohesively as a class, or a voting bloc if you will, that can either take power for itself or force our leaders to come to our table if they want our compliance. We can only build this by overcoming the resentment we hold for other members of our class, and putting one foot in front of the other; turning one person at a time towards the inner workings of the machine that the ruling class works so hard to hide. Not by stoking resentment and wasting our energy trying to manipulate an illegitimate system while we wait around for the movement to build itself.
The point is I’m not going to lend you any legitimacy
You keep saying that, but what does that even mean? What is “legitimacy”, in the way you’re using it?
Material authority? You don’t have to “lend” that, it’s enforced by the system; not participating doesn’t rob the system of its authority, it just means you don’t participate.
Ideological endorsement? That’s materially worthless, it’s just virtue signaling so you get to feel ideologically pure in your social circles.
I’m going to make it impossible for the shit peddler to hide their willingness and ability to abuse their power.
How does not participating do that? They still control mass media. A smattering of True Leftists refusing to participate is a whisper at a rock show. That’s not making anything impossible.
If I’m eating shit either way, why would I do it in a way that makes it apparent to outsiders that I’m choosing to eat shit?
“Hey outsiders, we’re being force fed shit. Blue team is serving it up by the ounce, Red team is serving it up by the pound. The more shit we eat, the sicker we get. Choosing the smaller quantity will make it easier for us to gather the strength we need to escape this situation.”
But in any case, voting is anonymous. Nothing is apparent unless you choose to make it so.
You are promoting the idea that everyone is choosing these options out of complete and true support of complete and unbiased information.
How did you come to that conclusion? I’m promoting the idea that the system is what it is, and in the current system some actions are more productive than others. I’m promoting the idea that we should base our behaviors on how effectively they support our goals, not how idealistic they are.
This is especially true when people like you misrepresent and refuse to understand the arguments of those who choose to abstain or vote third party.
I don’t refuse to understand anything. I’ve heard the arguments and found them lacking. None of them provide any practical advantage.
You are saying, “if you participate in this system, you could change the way things are going; and if you don’t, then you implicitly consent to it”, which is simply not true.
How is it not true? Participation in the system can change the way things are going, and non-participation is a voluntary disposal of that small bit of material effectiveness. Refusing to use a tool to affect an outcome is implicit consent to either outcome.
you know how little power a person has when acting as an individual, which is why you minimize the reach of individuals when it comes to forms of political action other than voting
When did I do that? I wholeheartedly promote other forms of political action. But it’s not an either-or choice. You can strategically vote for harm reduction while simultaneously using all the other tools in the political toolbox to actively push for positive change in ways besides voting.
but you never apply it to the situation of voting where the ruling class has vast numbers of ways to influence people’s behaviors in whatever direction they want.
Which is why I promote voting for harm reduction, whichever half of the ruling class is serving up smaller portions of shit. The people have been influenced to accept the duopoly, so we need to meet the people where they are and promote electoral actions that minimize the work we have to do elsewhere.
The change can only come when we have built the ability to move cohesively as a class, or a voting bloc if you will, that can either take power for itself or force our leaders to come to our table if they want our compliance.
Exactly, which is why I want harm reduction while we build that ability. We do not magically gain that ability by splitting the left-of-fascism vote. We don’t have that power yet. When we do, my recommended voting strategy will change accordingly.
We can only build this by overcoming the resentment we hold for other members of our class, and putting one foot in front of the other; turning one person at a time towards the inner workings of the machine that the ruling class works so hard to hide
Which is precisely why labeling those who don’t conform to our exact ideals “liberals” is counterproductive. In this very comment, you’ve stoked resentment for “people like [me]” who “misrepresent and refuse to understand”.
I’m all for radicalizing the working class, I just don’t think we accomplish that by not-voting/voting-3rd-party.
Not by stoking resentment and wasting our energy trying to manipulate an illegitimate system while we wait around for the movement to build itself.
Still don’t know what you mean by “illegitimate”, but I’m neither trying to manipulate it nor waiting passively for the movement to build. The amount of energy that voting takes is miniscule, and it contributes to popular consensus. That tiny amount of energy does not prevent us from building a movement. On the contrary, it allows us to secure the most favorable conditions available in which to actively build the movement.
They just do nothing to stop the fascists when they have power and do everything they can to compromise with them.
If there’s one lesson to be learned this year, it’s that politicians who compromise with fascists are still miles better than just uncompromised fascism.
What’s the actual difference? You end up at the same place with either one.
This feels like trying to explain to someone that you can have 2 different infinities, and one is larger than the other. Both are bad, but one is clearly worse.
“What’s the difference if you end up at the same place?”
The difference is that 2 genocides is not the same place as 1 genocide. It is reasonable to criticize the people supporting a genocide while at the same time recognizing that the people wanting more genocides are not the same.
You are already a fascist. You have already approved the genocide of a nation for the sake of what? Saving minorities in America? Guess what you will send them straight to the furnace the moment they become “expedient” to sacrifice for your own gain.
The first they came for poem comes to mind.
The only real difference is that there are consequences for you at home in the US and that’s the only part you actually care about
And a million dead kids because Trump killed usaid but go off I guess.
“But what about the american children” like I said
I don’t live in the US, there are no consequences for me as a result of Trump being president. Significantly more people are being harmed under Trump and I actually give a shit about other people instead of putting some idealized moral high ground above actual human lives.
People were being harmed under Biden, our foreign and domestic policy has consequences for the vast majority of the world, you’re either a moron or lying
American exceptionalism strikes again.
“Everything America does directly affects everyone else in the world. You only care now because of this. I cared before and that’s why I did nothing to stop this.”
Zero genocide isn’t an idealised moral high ground and it’s incredibly telling to see someone excuse it.
“I won’t vote for someone who isn’t speaking about X” is an idealized moral high ground when the alternative is not only X getting worse, but even more X happening.
Fuck you you genocidal prick. Substituting genocide for “x” is disgusting. It’s not “oh there’s just this one bad thing”. It’s genocide. It’s literally the worst possible thing you can do on this planet. And you’re saying other people have an idealised moral high ground because they think GENOCIDE is something that should never be done.
How do you find yourself typing something like this and not pause for thought?
What’s worse than genocide?
2 genocides.
I don’t know how to make this any more clear.
Seriously, how do you not pause for thought typing that out?
The meme is the trolly problem, and this guy is saying “it doesn’t matter if you pull the lever, someone dies either way, it’s exactly the same!”
Except in the actual situation is more like “if you pull the lever the trolly will divert from running over group A and will run over group B. If you do nothing the trolly accelerates and runs over both groups A and B.”
I’m saying it’s worth pulling the lever while you work on a solution to stop the trolly. Someone arguing against that either doesn’t care about group A, or cares more about not being involved than in actually saving lives.
Hell yeah brother. Personally I think Hitler was fucking great and would vote for him in a heartbeat if it meant stopping Himmler from being in charge. /s
At what point did I say Democrats were fucking great? They are absolute shit and people need to stand up for something better.
You also need to live in fucking reality a realize that stopping things from getting a lot fucking worse is worthwhile while you work on trying to get something better.
Also, Republican’s are the Nazi’s here. You refused to vote against Hitler.
Himmler was also a Nazi, genius, that was the point of the analogy.
And when both sides are genocidal fascists, the lesser evil option is whatever destroys the country the fastest.
So glad actual hitler was defeated by voting against him.
The people who make compromises with the Nazis have convinced you that voting is the most important and only tool at your disposal.
Says who? Yeah, the Dems are filthy neolibs, but all they really care about is money and influence. They’re rainbow capitalists.
The other is literally based on hate and fear, they might actually care about building a christo-nationalist ethnostate more than money.
They certainly have some goals in common, but even compromise isn’t going to the same place.
Correct.
That is why they maintain American imperialism.
Such as funding a genocide in the middle east.
Exactly. They fund genocide because it’s politically expedient. The opposition funds genocide because they love killing brown people
It’s conceivable to convince one side that genocide is no longer politically favorable. You’re never going to convince the other side to stop wanting to kill brown people. There is no third option with prospects to win.
You cannot convince the rich and powerful that it’s politically unfavourable when it’s economically favourable to do genocide.
They don’t care about what people want. They care about what they want, and that’s US imperialism.
I’m saying that it’s possible to make it economically unfavorable. If, for instance, you had massive boycotts or strikes or something.
No amount of boycotts or striking are going to make the others stop wanting to murder brown people for its own sake.
That makes the choice clear.
They are rainbow capitalist because of former material conditions. Besides bombing the Middle East because of alleged inherent homophobia and steal their oil or bombing the Middle East because they are slur and steal their oil - is in the end a matter of rhetoric only.
the paradox of tolerance, ever heard of it?
Yup. Ever heard of Duverger"s Law?
Great hero of the people: Neville Chamberlain
If you had to choose between Neville Chamberlain and Hitler?
I’d say that’s a ridiculous choice and it’s time to organize with the masses against the system that presented it to us; rather than undermine that effort by treating the system as legitimate and shaming others for not seeing the candidates and their futures the way I did.
Hand me two cups of shit, I still have free will to throw them back in your face. The system can force feed if it wants but you won’t see me voluntarily picking a shit cup and eating shit.
Agreed
Nah that’s dumb. I don’t give a shit about “treating the system as legitimate”. The system is what it is, and it will continue to be the system until it isn’t anymore. That’s gonna take more than a handful of people refusing to acknowledge the system’s “legitimacy”.
It is doing that though. You get the option to vote for which of the two cups they force feed you, and everyone else. We are not presently in a position to throw anything back right now. When we are, I’m all for it. But part of that is choosing the smaller cup of shit while we gather strength.
The point is I’m not going to lend you any legitimacy by picking up the shit and eating it myself, then turning at the people around me and asking why they aren’t eating it yet. I’m going to make it impossible for the shit peddler to hide their willingness and ability to abuse their power. If I’m eating shit either way, why would I do it in a way that makes it apparent to outsiders that I’m choosing to eat shit?
And no, when you scold people for not participating in a system, you are not just not “refusing to acknowledge its legitimacy”. You are promoting it, whether you care to or not. You are promoting the idea that everyone is choosing these options out of complete and true support of complete and unbiased information. This is especially true when people like you misrepresent and refuse to understand the arguments of those who choose to abstain or vote third party.
You are saying, “if you participate in this system, you could change the way things are going; and if you don’t, then you implicitly consent to it”, which is simply not true. Interestingly enough, you know how little power a person has when acting as an individual, which is why you minimize the reach of individuals when it comes to forms of political action other than voting, but you never apply it to the situation of voting where the ruling class has vast numbers of ways to influence people’s behaviors in whatever direction they want.
The change can only come when we have built the ability to move cohesively as a class, or a voting bloc if you will, that can either take power for itself or force our leaders to come to our table if they want our compliance. We can only build this by overcoming the resentment we hold for other members of our class, and putting one foot in front of the other; turning one person at a time towards the inner workings of the machine that the ruling class works so hard to hide. Not by stoking resentment and wasting our energy trying to manipulate an illegitimate system while we wait around for the movement to build itself.
You keep saying that, but what does that even mean? What is “legitimacy”, in the way you’re using it?
Material authority? You don’t have to “lend” that, it’s enforced by the system; not participating doesn’t rob the system of its authority, it just means you don’t participate.
Ideological endorsement? That’s materially worthless, it’s just virtue signaling so you get to feel ideologically pure in your social circles.
How does not participating do that? They still control mass media. A smattering of True Leftists refusing to participate is a whisper at a rock show. That’s not making anything impossible.
“Hey outsiders, we’re being force fed shit. Blue team is serving it up by the ounce, Red team is serving it up by the pound. The more shit we eat, the sicker we get. Choosing the smaller quantity will make it easier for us to gather the strength we need to escape this situation.”
But in any case, voting is anonymous. Nothing is apparent unless you choose to make it so.
How did you come to that conclusion? I’m promoting the idea that the system is what it is, and in the current system some actions are more productive than others. I’m promoting the idea that we should base our behaviors on how effectively they support our goals, not how idealistic they are.
I don’t refuse to understand anything. I’ve heard the arguments and found them lacking. None of them provide any practical advantage.
How is it not true? Participation in the system can change the way things are going, and non-participation is a voluntary disposal of that small bit of material effectiveness. Refusing to use a tool to affect an outcome is implicit consent to either outcome.
When did I do that? I wholeheartedly promote other forms of political action. But it’s not an either-or choice. You can strategically vote for harm reduction while simultaneously using all the other tools in the political toolbox to actively push for positive change in ways besides voting.
Which is why I promote voting for harm reduction, whichever half of the ruling class is serving up smaller portions of shit. The people have been influenced to accept the duopoly, so we need to meet the people where they are and promote electoral actions that minimize the work we have to do elsewhere.
Exactly, which is why I want harm reduction while we build that ability. We do not magically gain that ability by splitting the left-of-fascism vote. We don’t have that power yet. When we do, my recommended voting strategy will change accordingly.
Which is precisely why labeling those who don’t conform to our exact ideals “liberals” is counterproductive. In this very comment, you’ve stoked resentment for “people like [me]” who “misrepresent and refuse to understand”.
I’m all for radicalizing the working class, I just don’t think we accomplish that by not-voting/voting-3rd-party.
Still don’t know what you mean by “illegitimate”, but I’m neither trying to manipulate it nor waiting passively for the movement to build. The amount of energy that voting takes is miniscule, and it contributes to popular consensus. That tiny amount of energy does not prevent us from building a movement. On the contrary, it allows us to secure the most favorable conditions available in which to actively build the movement.
More like choosing between Hindenburg and Hitler.