Here’s the thing though: I have no idea which way you think this is biased without reading more of your analysis. Initially I thought you meant the BBC was biased against Vance because it made Walz look more relatable.

The patriarchy

Here’s a link: https://lemmy.ml/comment/14025222

You being anticommunist is what I thought you meant. Those aren’t unrelated.

So you think that what I meant by “I’m more worried about [some people who] make other communists look bad” was that I’m an anti-communist? That seems highly unlikely. If I were anti-communist, surely I’d love those people precisely because they make communists look bad?

I have been acting in good-faith

Literally your first response to me in this entire thread was uncivil condescension.

Communists, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, etc. Anyone that actually defends AES and doesn’t repeat US State Department Propaganda about the Global South.

Yeah that’s not what I mean by Tankies, and it’s not what most people mean by tankies. Not all marxist-leninists are tankies, for example. In fact I’d go out on a limb and say most aren’t. But those who try to sweep under the rug the bad things that nominally-communist states have done are tankies, and they give other communists, other marxists, other marxist-leninists, and indeed all other leftists a bad name. (As an aside, most of the time those things were done by state-capitalist governments, not communist ones.)

doesn’t repeat US State Department Propaganda about the Global South.

I’m actually from the Global South. I can promise you the US state department is full of shit. As are most Americans who speak about it, including most American leftists.

Removed by mod

Please participate in good faith rather than just making accusations.

How about you start by explaining what you think I mean?

Are you saying there’s nobody who defends all three and claims to be a leftist? Because that I’d say I’ve never seen. But I’ve certainly seen various accounts claiming to be leftists and defending one or two of them.

Are you saying there aren’t people who defend aggressive actions by far-right politicians? That there aren’t people who defend Netanyahu, Putin and Trump?

Honestly I’m more worried about those who claim to be communists but do things that both go against the tenets of communism and make other communists look bad. Tankies are a subset of that.

Mostly people who defend far-right aggression and pretend their stances are “leftist” getting upset when they get called out on their bullshit.

Not just that, but some of the loudest voices do more harm than good for leftism.

You’re thinking of biathlon, with cross country skiing and rifle.

If there were an occasional thing where I looked at it and thought “wait, is this Loss?” that would be funny. But I see them way too frequently for them to be funny. They need to be subtle and occasional, taking one off guard. Instead they’re frequent and unsubtle.

Yeah, Arch isn’t exactly an easy install for beginners.

Unfortunately not

I also wanted to do this when my cat sent by Steam Deck flying across the room and cracked the screen

There are so technological advances that have saved many, many lives thanks to our space science. Starlink doesn’t just endanger astronomical observation - it endangers other forms of space communication as well as our practical ability to put up (or use) other satellites. This means less accurate earth science too, including making it harder to predict extreme weather events, track climate change, etc. Things that save lives are being put in jeopardy.

I’ve given more details elsewhere, but the short version:

We can classify US presidential votes into three categories:

1. Vote for the Democrat
2. Vote for the Republican
3. Vote third-party/independent or don’t vote

The most effective vote to make on an anti-genocide platform is #1.

Voting for a Republican is voting for a party that appears to be profoundly okay with the genocide in Gaza AND wants to start some genocides of their own (e.g. against trans folks, immigrants and racial minorities). This is the most pro-genocide vote.

Voting for a Democrat is voting for a party that has a fairly significant group that opposes the genocide, and which appears to be movable on the topic.

Any other vote is roughly equivalent to not voting. On the presidental front, there is no chance in this election that anyone other than a candidate from one of the main two parties is elected, and that’s also true for most senate or house races. (Possibly all, but I don’t want to make that strong claim since I haven’t actually researched all the races.) Voting for a candidate who you know won’t win is explicitly choosing not to have a say between the tho feasible candidates.

I do have one caveat though…

If you live in West Virginia for example, it’s a bit more complex. There your choice is essentially “the Republican or not the Republican,” so third-party/independent moves into category 1. However, then I’d argue that voting for the Democrat for president may still be the preferable response because if the Republican wins the electoral college but, (as has happened in every presidential election since 1990 except 2004) the Democrat still wins the popular vote, it further delegitimises the Republican’s presidency and the electoral college.

Agreed, but while we’re working on that in multiple avenues, we still need to vote for the harm reduction choice.

The US green party is essentially an astroturf movement to prevent people from even going as “left” as the Democrats. The Tea Party is there to move Republicans to fascism. The Greens have been co-opted to lubricate that process for them.