To have a conversation? To get further insight into how a person thinks? To gain understanding? To talk about the ideological framework through which the person views the world, and hopefully gain some perspective out of that talk?

Removed by mod

Yeah, its sad

Everyone Who Disagrees With Me Is A Bot.

Either that and school has just started and I got tired of just seeing hexbear stuff @BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net

I keep seeing variations on this, and no one has been able to explain to me how that communication vector works. When has that ever worked?

Pretty simple. If I am doing a genocide, and you vote for me, it makes it clear you are at least apathetic about genocide.

The point isn’t to try to persuade the DNC (by doing literally nothing), the point is to slow the bleeding while we build what comes next.

Voting for the DNC does not slow the bleeding. Voting for the DNC makes it harder to build anything else.

Those are the main tools. Voting is the “other” tool. But it’s an easy tool, and it scales well with community organization. Seriously, take over a small municipality.

Depends on your analysis on electorialism in modern day America. I think it has some value locally, and in bigger elections its only positive use is to build momentum for leftist parties.

"Also"s don’t matter when you make the choice. The things that are the same are gonna be the same either way. What matters are the differences, and there are obvious differences. Like labelling “aintifa” a terrorist organization.

So not exactly, because I am arguing there is not practical difference between the two. I suppose the republicans are more overt, which is a positive, since it makes even liberals reel.

I don’t have the stomach to knowingly increase the suffering of others for political gain.

Sure you do. That’s what you do by voting for democrats.

Yes, you are right, the alternative to not voting for a genocidal fascist is immediate revolution. Good little lib.

Yeah like they did with Libya, Syria, Iraq and Russia. Like they did when they sent Pelosi to Taiwan and like they did when they whipped up a frenzy about a Chinese “spy balloon” they then themselves admitted was just meteorological equipment.

Which is great if you’re not one of the victims of the barbarism I guess. Personally, I don’t have the stomach to sacrifice others for political gain.

They said as they bemoaned people not being willing to vote for a genocidal fascist (who probably wouldn’t increase the price of gas as much).
Seems like you’re very comfortable with sacrificing others for political nothing though.

But, y’know, if the imperialism and genocide is invariant between the options, I’m still gonna vote for the one doing fewer other terrible things 🤷🏼

What’s the worst that could happen if I let the democrats know that not even genocide will cost them the election? What’s the worst that could happen by further entrenching the oligarchic uniparty? Surely the democrats won’t ever put me in the camps!

Obviously I’m also going to do everything I can to get to a point where I don’t have an imperialist, genocidal government. Mutual aid, canvassing for leftists in the primaries, political organization, developing community, taking over small municipalities, labor organization, etc.

No critique here, glad to see at least one blue dog understands there’s other tools.

All of which is gonna be a lot harder now that this side has declared antifascists to be a terrorist organization, and arrests people for pamphlets.

As opposed to the other side who also arrested peaceful protesters on bogus charges. Who also beat up protesters. Who also broke up strikes. Who also hounded leftist organisers.
The difference is that the media is more critical of it now. People are much more agitated under Trump. Organizing is easier in many ways.

Sure, vote for the DSA. Make sure to do more than vote though, as I have made abundantly clear. Go beyond electorialism.

How about one which isn’t run by the GOP and accomplishes more than peeling off enough votes to let them win?

The whole argument of voting for democrats, despite them having the same policies as republicans, is the argument that long term change can be affected.
If you buy that you must accept republican policy in order to slowly affect change, which you do by voting democrat, then the logical conclusion is that one must make that trade in the most effective manner. Which would be by voting third party.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Funny, my litmus test starts at “do they support a genocide?” and then move on to things like “do they want to expand the militaristic police surveillance state?” and “are they running on being tough on immigrants?” and “do they do violent crackdowns on peaceful protesters?” and “do they protect womens rights?” and “do they protect queer people?” and “do they throw minorities and marginalised groups under the bus in order to appease right wing fanatics?” and “are they warmongers?”

Funny how that is. Funny how some of us only seem to care about whether or not their team is winning, while others care about what the teams are doing. Very funny.

There’s actually a lot. PSL would be my recommendation. Or you can just create your own. Or do a bunch of other stuff. Voting is not the only tool available to you.

Removed by mod

When it comes to voting, yes.

Actually no. Especially not if one were to actually ascribe to your line of thinking. The point of voting for democrats is to slowly move US electoral politics to the left.
It has been shown, time and again, that the democratic party only moves further right, no matter if they win or lose.
If one believes in electorialism as a vector of promoting leftist politics in the us through slow, incremental, change, then it is clear that one ought to vote for a leftist third party. This would of course not have immediate results, but that is, by your line of reasoning, not something that is achievable anyway. What is achievable, through your reasoning is a long term change. Long term change would most effectively be done by creating a viable third party. The only way to do so is to vote for a third party.
If you are arguing that the issues are more urgent and not something that can be dealt with over a longer period, then we must also dismiss the argument that the democrats are in any way a viable party, since the argument of voting for them likewise rests on this idea of long term electoral change.

Oh, you think by voting that means you cannot do anything else?

Not at all, but that seems to be what you think, since your immediate reaction to being told that voting for democrats is, at best, pointless, is to say “oh, so we should just do nothing?”

You put in a lot of effort, its admirable. Ive blocked them. I can’t figure out if they’re a troll, regular lib who becomes obtuse as soon as their worldview is challenged, or just incredibly stupid.
You can hopefully soothe yourself with the knowledge that you’ve written something that can easily be used other times, thus sparing you for more work later.

It’s not infighting if (…)

You know, thats what we all say.

(…) if we have huge, unbridgeable ideological differences

The difference: I don’t expect revolutionary states to be perfect.

That’s not to say we can’t be temporary allies against a greater foe like fascism

Step one in the fight against fascism would probably be to stop voting for fascists. The democrats are also fascists.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod