EmptySlime @ EmptySlime @lemmy.blahaj.zone

Posts

0

Comments

270

Joined

2 yr. ago

More entirely missing the point. He was literally one of the only voices trying to block weapons to Israel. But no, he didn't stop them entirely on his own or call Biden "Genocide Joe" so that must mean he supports the genocide.

It's really starting to sound like there's literally nothing he could have done that would have been good enough for you.

My Sibling in Satan, how do you think making these demands work? This is an asymmetrical fight. Most of the time you won't get a direct answer because the politicians are playing a different game. By and large they won't commit to anything before the election that might alienate large sections of voters one way or the other.

Electoral politics is about choosing your battlefield for the action to come. In a presidential election it is a mathematical fact that there are only two viable options. Yes, they're both captured to varying degrees by capital. But you can get a sense of who is more likely to accept the things you want.

There was 0 chance of the Republicans stopping what's happening in Gaza for example. Clearly the chance was at least close to 0 with the Democrats but they were more vulnerable on that front and almost certainly they at least wouldn't be trying to send pro-Palestinian activists to a gulag in El Salvador. So given this context which is the more advantageous battlefield you try to advocate on? There is a correct answer here and it's the Democrats.

Is it fair? Absolutely not. Are you running the risk of getting them elected and still not doing what you want? Yep. But a risk they won't listen is objectively better than a guarantee the Republicans won't listen. This is why electoral politics cannot be the only arena where we're fighting, but it's an arena we still have to fight on because it determines the battlefield other action takes place on.

A bunch of comments going for the "why would you buy toilet paper that already has shit on it" route, but I can't believe nobody went for calling this a shit(tickets) post.

You mean things like Single-Payer Healthcare, Housing as a Human Right, increasing the minimum wage, or any of the myriad of other policy positions that he talks about every time he talks basically anywhere? That thing he already does?

Uh Eternity I think it's called? Maybe I'll give Voyager a try.

Luckily it would be really hard for them to actually get rid of it. I wouldn't put it past them to try to start doing summary executions or just illegally trying to detain people without trial or whatever but there's 0 chance they get the support to actually remove that amendment.

That's what it sounded like to me too. Like I said maybe I'm being naive and being too charitable but I don't think I am.

Mine is supposed to. Idk why it doesn't sometimes. It's only supposed to not be blurred if I'm scrolling inside an NSFW community. I'm pretty sure all the posts it's happened with have been properly marked NSFW. But multiple times I've gotten jumpscared with it.

Yeah I'm a bit too naive maybe but even at the time I couldn't imagine him actually throwing Kyle under the bus. So it always read to me like Jack was trying to make sure some MAGA psycho didn't come shoot a bunch of people at one of their shows and he didn't actually have a real problem with what Kyle said. I'm glad they are actually back performing together.

Yeah so far I've blocked a handful of furry pages and like 1 or 2 just plain old gay ones. Basically I barely want to acknowledge the existence of my own penis. So if I'm scrolling and a post suddenly jumpscares me with a face full of cock, I block.

My recollection of the situation is hazy but my understanding is they basically did a performative distancing until the heat died down and they're still good behind the scenes. My understanding is they even started performing together again.

Meanwhile I mostly browse All and running into the porn is how I know I've scrolled too deep. Such a variety of experience this place.

Because it's the only legal thing he can tell them to do.

You can argue with the math all you like. It won't change.

Missed the entire point huh? If people not voting lowers the required counts to achieve a plurality, then mathematically speaking it is functionally equivalent to voting for the candidate furthest away from that non-voter's preference.

The only way a non-voter does not work in the favor of in this case Trump would be if there was some absolute share of eligible voters he had to reach. But since only a plurality is needed every non-vote and every third-party vote lowers the amount of votes he needs to achieve that plurality.

This is literally a studied and documented mathematical phenomenon related to first past the post systems.

There's enough blame to go around my love

See the thing is that a candidate only needs a plurality of cast votes. So every vote that doesn't get cast makes that plurality easier to achieve. If there are 100 people that can vote and all of them do you need 51 for a majority. If 10 of them don't vote at all and there's only 90 left you now only need 46 for that same majority. If another 10 of them vote for some third party that person now only needs 41 votes to have the largest plurality. Every person that doesn't vote lowers the threshold for victory.

It's tempting to think that this benefits both remaining candidates equally since both can benefit from that lowered margin. But in reality it gets skewed based on who stayed home/voted third party and who didn't. This is the spoiler effect.

Yes, we already covered Democrats Bad. I agree. I hate them with a passion. Doesn't change that in a national electoral sense they are the only viable party at this moment to enact any kind of positive change. They are not and should never be the only option. But all people who talk like you do ever seem to offer as a solution is the "Glorious Revolution™" that hundreds of thousands if not millions of vulnerable people WILL die in because they never think about how those people are going to survive when food or medicine supply lines get disputed by fighting for the most fucking basic of examples.

They engage in this rhetoric because it's Magical Thinking that absolves them of having to do something they feel is icky and stains their ideological purity. It'll all be fixed when the Oppressed finally throw off their chains and eat the rich or whatever.

The first past the post argument is anti-3rd-party-voting rhetoric? The long studied mathematical tendency of first past the post systems to consolidate towards two party rule through among other factors strategic voting and the spoiler effect? Yeah okay Buddy. You're definitely the best leftist here. You win.

Both MAGA and these so-called "allies" want me dead at the end of the day. We're just expected to starve to death when Amerikkka collapses or the people finally rise up.

I know full well how horrific what Israel is doing is. But there was no anti-genocide option on the ballot in 2024. There was no way that Jill Stein or whoever was going to get enough votes to win. Hell, most of Stein's supporters I talked to their best case scenario was getting to 5% for debate access and federal funds next go round. Any that I confronted about Gaza not having 4 years just shrugged and said some variation of "better than voting for a genocide" How exactly? Because they didn't have to sacrifice their ideological purity?