Excrubulent @ Excrubulent @slrpnk.net

Posts

8

Comments

2,232

Joined

2 yr. ago

At least you didn't spend that comment on genocide denial, so let's call it an improvement.

That's weak, doesn't explain anything, and I think I'm done giving oxygen to a genocide denier.

I think you think the electorate likes genocide, or at least you said so, so I don't understand why you think accusing Joe of genocide would have lost an election.

If the American people really didn't want genocide they would elect candidates in primaries that were anti genocide (they didn't) or they would vote for the candidate who wanted to just maintain the genocide as it is instead of accelerating it (they didn't).

people complaining about dems support of genocide while being silent about gop support (including "genocide Joe" chanters, 3rd party voters and non-voters), helped trump win and are responsible for the next 4 years of turbo genocide

This isn't hard to figure out, but I guess my brain isn't broken by genocide apologia so I maybe I can't understand.

But every time we said the dems were doing a genocide we were supposed to say that Trump would somehow be worse, but when you complain about us talking about the dems' complicity in genocide, somehow you don't have to mention that it's a genocide? Because you didn't do that.

And despite the fact that you acknowledge the dems are complicit in genocide, you have no criticism of that becuase... something about democracy?

Also if the electorate wants genocide that badly, then why is it bad if we put the genocide at their feet? Aren't we helping them in that case? What are you upset about then?

If the American people really didn't want genocide they would elect candidates in primaries that were anti genocide (they didn't) or they would vote for the candidate who wanted to just maintain the genocide as it is instead of accelerating it (they didn't).

You should say, "Yes, that's my favourite genocider! A vote for Joe is a vote for genocide!" waves tiny plastic flag

Your genocide apologia is breaking your brain.

You could also learn the most basic facts about the US electoral system and understand that it is not democratic in the slightest, and people do not have a meaningful chance to vote for what they want.

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.

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?

You're angrier at leftists for correctly calling out the dems' genocide than you are at the dems for their genocide.

Calling a genocide a genocide should not be a partisan issue, and if you think we need to temper our discussion of genocide so that your preferred genocider can win a fucking election then you are a genocide denier.

The way for the dems to differentiate themselves on this issue was to stop doing a genocide. They couldn't do that, and so they enabled the worse option because they were just too horny for killing brown kids.

Asking for a historical example is not inciting violence, telling people to start shooting and put their money where their mouth is, is inciting violence, even if you're being sarcastic.

I wonder what you would consider as not "all talk"? Someone posting evidence? Gee, I wonder why people don't do that. I wonder if that's exactly what people engaging in direct action should never do.

I wonder how I can tell the difference between what you're doing now and how a fed would talk.

You want receipts?

And please, keep giving me your one downvote, it's not a sad & pathetic attempt to assert yourself that's transparent to anyone who happens to read this, not at all.

I'm just perusing my old comments and came across this, 7 months later. This is an amazing article, thank you.

And it's you, not the person you're accusing.

There's only one person here who's actually telling other people to get violent.

Facebook has had a strategy for a long time of monopolising the internet of countries that previously had very little internet. They essentially subsidise internet infrastructure and make that subsidy dependent on facebook being a central part of the network.

So I'm not surprised to hear this. They obviously have found ways to inveigle themselves into key infrastructure in lots of places, even if they couldn't build it in from the ground up.

They are obviously not in a reasoning place. I wouldn't try logic, but they are susceptible to emotional manipulation. That's how they fell for fascist propaganda in the first place. I would go for emotional truth.

You have to judge if you're safe to do this, but the next time they're screaming about their absurd conspiracies, I would get a really sad look on my face, make direct eye contact, shake my head and say, "You're so full of hate, and it's really sad." Just go full sincerity and show them how you see them.

You can even set them up for it. Next time you try telling them some fact that they're going to have this hateful response to, you can have this in your back pocket. You start with a simple fact, they respond with hate, you reply by telling them they're being hateful.

This is a modification of this strategy: https://youtu.be/tZzwO2B9b64

Basically, don't waste time arguing with fascists, just point out that they're being assholes.

Now, I say you need to judge how safe you feel doing this, because you might be surprised how ballistic they go. People stuck in abusive behaviour patterns hate nothing more than having that behaviour simply described to them. But when they do lose their shit, you can just describe it again.

Sometimes they will just short-circuit and try to ignore you, or chastise you for speaking out of turn. The authoritarian personality is deeply connected to authoritarian parenting attitudes. Just persist over time, and maybe they will notice that they can't stop you from reflecting their ugly selves back at them.

I don't know how old you are, how physically big you are, how prone they are to serious outbursts, but again, pay attention to your body and how much you're feeling your flight instinct. Only if you feel safe.

I do this with my parents sometimes. Like if my mum is fussing over my kids in some way that I think is invasive, - this was a sore point in my upbringing, she has no filter and no boundaries - I don't engage on the facts of what she's saying. I don't tell her, "That tiny red spot you've noticed isn't a big problem," because that's also being invasive and speaking on their behalf. I say "People don't like to be scrutinised like that. If that's a real problem they can tell us."

It's honestly astonishing how fast this resolves some situations. That might have been a perennial argument about some fussy detail of my child's appearance, all the time adding to the boundary-crossing scrutiny they experience, but shutting it down by pointing out her behaviour really makes her stop, and it communicates to my kids that they don't have to put up with it. It teaches them that they have autonomy.

It's taken many years of demonstrating to her that I won't be pushed around or intimidated for me to get to this point though. It's not an easy road, and often the way to know the tactic is working is by watching how unpleasant someone gets when you do it, at least at first.

Again: only if you feel safe.

This is an online forum. It's words. Your idea that the people you're talking to are all talk is unfalsifiable. If anyone did post on here about pulling a trigger you could attack them for being all talk for exactly that same reason.

On this forum, you are also all talk. There is literally nothing else you can do on here.

But go off, everybody around you is all talk, all the time. That certainly isn't a feature of the place you chose to express your vapid rants.

People who are organising on the ground are under no obligation to keep you in the loop by posting about it publicly, especially given you clearly aren't interested in helping anyway.

My guess is your accusations are all a projection of your own feelings of powerlessness. I mean there's not going to be another election for about 4 more years, and your only method of change is useless until then.

Gee, I wonder if that's by design?

I agree broadly with the idea that the state's legitimacy relies on the appearance that they wield their violence justly, but I think you're giving the state too much credit when you frame it as a fair and considered exchange of power.

The state has had all of us under its purview since birth, it has pumped us full of pro-hierarchy, anti-autonomy, anti-social propaganda and it wields its violence more to prevent insurgency than it does to protect us.

There is no "social contract", nothing that I ever signed anyway, and even if there were, contract law invalidates any contract signed under duress. The concept of the social contract is just yet more hierarchical propaganda. It's a vague, handwavey vibe to obscure the fact that we really aren't given a meaningful option to leave.

The state relies on not just the appearance of legitimacy, but the appearance of absolute power. Both are illusions, and can be opposed by organised people directly building mutual aid on the ground. The more we meet one another's needs for security the less we need the state and the more people can see it for the charade that it is.

The radical flank effect:

https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac110/6633666?login=false

Honestly less frantic gameplay sounds good to me, I got sick of the "oh god they're after me now I fell oh well try again" parts of the gameplay. I might take a look. Thanks!