Juice @ Juice @midwest.social

Posts

3

Comments

620

Joined

1 yr. ago

No one could possibly both vote for a democrat strategically and not be sanctimonious about it, is that it? Says more about you than it does about me buddy

As I said elsewhere, I did vote I have voted and I will continue to vote. So nice strawman. I never discouraged people from voting, but I understand why people didnt. I'm against the browbeating of people for voting their conscience.

Some people don't know what it means to stand up for what they believe in, since their beliefs appear to be whatever will opportunistically win. Then they condescendingly chide others for risking their own bodies, for having strong beliefs. Those people will betray in the first opportunity, because they only perceive others as a means to get what they themselves want. So frankly, you can shove your pragmatism. Your pragmatism didn't defeat Trump either, but at least I don't stand with child murderers and rapists and worse.

I reject your shallow, faulty reasoning.
Please leave me alone.

Send me a link to your discord where you post your Ws, terminal main character syndrome

Okay let's lay it out.

Did protesting genocide win the election? No

Did defending Israel and attacking peaceful protestors win the election? Also no.

Did protestors fighting for peace stand with Israel in carrying out a genocide? No.

Were those protestors wrong when they said democrats would lose if they didn't stop the genocide? No.

Were those protestors the establishment of the Democrats? No

Did establishment democrats stand with Palestinians against genocide? No.

Did they stand with the side committing genocide? YES

Did they lose? Yes.

Idk what kind of own you think this is. Its not like the dems lost by opposing genocide, actually they lost enabling it. If only someone had warned them

Did you answer any of my questions? No, as expected. What incredible hypocrisy

A system that restrict democracy to checking a box every 4 years while silencing peaceful opposition calling for peace, is not a democracy it is tyranny. You won't be able to sell tyranny to me as democracy. And every cycle that the deep political corruption at the heart of the Democrats exposes itself for what it is, more and more people see it for what it is.

They didn't create these contradictions, neither did you and neither did I. But many people are responsible and benefit directly from the carnage. And your plan to oppose them is to stay dumb and stand in line every 4 years.

I said it elsewhere, but it just shows the divide in the Democrats between the progressives and the establishment. The fact that you've resigned to a single unconscionable viewpoint doesn't mean that other people are stupid for going the opposite way. The Palestinian people have been the victims of liberal pragmatism for 75 years. I know you want to collapse all morality and ethics into a single moment when a ballot is cast, but seriously don't you think that view is somewhat convenient for the establishment? Is this the society you want to take part in and participate in?

No its not, you dread to do it but once every 2-4 years as a matter of duty. But people who don't subscribe to your sense of moral duty, no different than the enemy right? Cant you see how self defeating it all is?

My question is answered by your question: did you and the democrats stand with the Palestinians or did you stand with Israel?

The organization you are defending with your bad faith questioning is one where it is impossible to stand with ones own principles against genocide. Democrats could not convincingly demonstrate that they would stand by Palestinians and end this genocide, even after the UN and an avalanche of international bodies, legally and scientifically proved that it was indeed a genocide that was occurring. Even then, there was just an uncomfortable shifting of feet as democrats who had been receiving campaign contributions on the order of millions of dollars over decades, were forced to either stand against that money or genocide.

They chose money, and the people who stood against the fascist oppression of the Palestinians, chose to stay home.

Because you know what didn't work? Standing with Israel when the time came to support Palestine, and then expecting people to be guilt tripped into turning out to vote for Democrats. To be clear, i never once advocated for staying home on election day, but at least I was able to surmise it by looking at the situation.

You act like I'm putting on an air of intellectual superiority, but my standards for consciousness of the situation are actually quite low. I would ask that someone would learn about and think about the situation leading up to a particular event, which you seem to want to ignore; and I ask that you have a measure of empathy. Your inability to demonstrate either should not be read as my judgement of you, but your own guilty judgement of your own fucked up reasoning that you want to put on to me. Save it for your therapist.

No I'm saying that material reality affects peoples views more than your version where people are dumb babies; and acknowledging that, let alone standing next to us in struggle could have carried Democrats to victory, instead they abandoned even the semblance of ethics and morals other than "Cheeto bad." Some people, and you may struggle with this because of an apparent lack of empathy or theory of mind, although maybe not, are not able to cash in their ethics and morals for a pat on the back and literally nothing else, from the same people who are resolved to continue the genocide. Maybe you can, but others have more character and compunction.

Hopefully someday you have experiences that stimulate growth as a person.

And like I'm not particularly partial to taking this view of you as some kind of vampire bereft of all reason and conscience. But when you do it to others, don't get grumpy when someone calls you out on it. If you don't like the way it feels, and if you think its possible that you might take a contrary position to me because of our roles on either side of this discourse, then think about how when you do it, it affects others.

Fuck me for thinking you should be better than that!

Its a hell of a situation we are in, but abstracting this one political act away from the movement, the people, their choices, the history behind it all, is the only reason you are able to look at the situation in such a limited way.

I believe you, that you want to get your intentions or beliefs untangled from whatever schemes political and economic elites are cooking. It is a great tragedy that people didn't vote to keep Trump out. But if you want your individual beliefs to stand on their own and hold water on their own, then you have to extend the same courtesy to conscientious uncommitted voters.

For months people told me I was a bot for daring to suggest Biden was too old to run. Then that view was vindicated too late, and when progressives wanted to get in line behind Kamala, it was made pretty clear that other than uncomfortable noises and "concerns" about the genocide, money and weapons were still going to flow. Do you understand that this lesser evil messaging was doomed to fail? millions of voices on the left who are in no way hoping for another trump term were warning exactly this, and were silenced, not to mention beaten, arrested, kicked out of school or worse for daring to put their bodies on the line for Palestinians?

Maybe ask yourself why the most progressive stripe of voters withheld their vote, while millions of others just didn't think, maybe wrongly, that it would affect them either way. Was there a conspiracy by Russia and other countries? I mean its been established, I think, that a great deal of this goes on. So let me ask you: in this situation, where democracy is being attacked from without and within, night and day by well funded and well organized forces, do you think that a mere vote every 4 years or so is enough to actually prevent the degeneration of a democracy? Or might it take quite a bit more effort? Second question: have the democrats proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are worth that vote, so that the critical mass of rational and conscientious people in this country would not have grounds to doubt their commitment to restoring democracy and overcoming fascism?

My answer to both questions is no. This does not make me naive or idiotic, but I'm afraid that is how I am made to feel, made to seem, by the mainstream of the Democratic party. And so were hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of other Americans whose conscience would not allow a vote for genocide.

The oppression of the Palestinian people didn't begin on oct7, let's not pretend that Democrats werent culpable before and after. Therefore there is good reason to doubt the dems would have influenced any meaningful change in the conflict

Are you suggesting that material conditions can be contradictory, moving people to make different, equally rational, decisions for conflicting reasons, rather than just being two camps that define all moral obligations as the opposite of the other?

Someone should look into this

Okay thanks for clarifying I'm in a couple threads having similar arguments and got my wires crossed.

My comment was really directed at many of the other commenters who are defending dems and pointing the blame.

I'm glad you're working through the problems and it shows a commitment to truth that is lost in most political discourse so thanks for bringing something nicely and distinctly human to the discourse.

If the point you are trying to make is that our spectacular political theatre of divisiveness and trump is actually moving the discourse away from where it should be grounded, that is the fight for the liberation of Palestinians from genocide and decades of oppression, from the actual suffering and struggles, then we agree. Not sure how I would have gotten that from your first comment, but I'm happy to accept that's what you meant, or whatever your actual intent happened to be.

That's fine, it's nice you're taking responsibility, it shows initiative. All I'm saying, all I've ever said, was to stop defending the democrats in this, by persecuting people who voted, or didn't vote, according to their conscience. The dems should be sharply criticized for their failures. Maybe there's lots of blame to go around, but there is a higher concentration of blame where there is a higher concentration of power.

Blame actually isn't worth much to me. But the brow beating, infantalizing, condescending attitude toward working Americans while gate keeping every scrap of power, apparently just to end up losing it to the right, is an absolutely inexcusable yet predictable consequence of deep political corruption. Until you personally start organizing against it, then any blame you try to deflect away from the party by taking it on yourself will be a reflection of your ego, not your willingness to put it on the line and fight for change.

And you don't even have to be a commie like me, you can be a pragmatist/reformist and I'll give you shit but at least I'll respect the struggle. Probably doesn't mean much to you but it beats defending corruption.

So did you! You got exactly what we told you was going to happen, yet its our fault it happened. Look at this post! This whining is on your side my dude. I just can't believe you fools didn't stop with the brow beating after such a catastrophic loss. Couldn't do one fraction of a second of self reflection. I was not telling people not to vote for the democrat, but I didn't hide my real feelings either.

A movement to withhold votes against Democrats has been building for years. the uncommitted movement is ideologically closer to liberal democrats than so called tankies, but Dems threw them under the bus, called them Putin influenced for protesting against a genocide in the only way they knew how. I was fighting for Palestinian liberation in different ways, I don't really get too involved in electoral politics though I'm active politically. Never was I whining. God what projection.

It really demonstrates the two tendencies of liberalism: good conscientious people who are cool and hate injustice, vs. bloodless defenders of private capital who make noises like they care about justice so they can take power and broker influence.

Get a grip, do some actual criticism of your movement, do better for christs sakes. There wouldn't be nearly as many communists and anarchists becoming radicalized if democrats were even a little effective. They are the only force that has the power to oppose the fascists and criminals in charge of the republicans. and they blew it, time and time again. Stop blaming the people, the fucking lemmy posters for Christ sakes, and start looking at your party,and namely where they get their funding.

this may require you to read and process information instead of just repeating what some 68 year old millionaire said. Which may take some growth on your part, so maybe hydrate and stretch a little first.

Explain

I did vote, but I was also trying to tell people that the whole strategy of browbeating wasn't going to work. But that's all the dems have to offer which is why they lost.

Censorship is when AI doesn't regurgitate my favorite atrocity porn

Stay on message, Democrats! Remember, it wasn't the Democrats fault for losing, it was those loony leftists for going against the approved narrative of the Democratic Party. The Dems aren't out of touch or negligent, and Bill Mahr is funny and relevant.

God the comments suck on this post

I mean I guess as a Marxist there are just some things we have fundamentally different understandings? The way you talk about consumerism and alienation, is fundamentally opposed to a Marxist's definition. To a Marxist alienation isn't subjective, it is material; a result of workers slavish relation to commodity production, as the relation that generates surplus value.

But I'm trying to back off of explicitly anarchist critiques, and kind of begrudgingly think about your basic conceptions. I've spent enough time around anarchists and Marxists to know that there's something sort of broken there, broken by history. And I know enough about anarchists, who kind of effortlessly organize circles around us, and the history of anarchism as it relates to various socialist projects of the 20th century, than to do what many of my comrades do, and just like quote "On Authority" to y'all as if it has ever made a lick of difference. I guess to put it plainly: I can understand why an anarchist wouldn't necessarily be all for a Marxist or Leninist conception of revolution, might advocate for a measure of caution and search for a "third way". I won't be convinced that money is anything other than a mechanism of class oppression, and the value form itself is actually a tremendous mind fuck, accounting for the alienation that workers experience.

What I think I really don't understand, is the anarchist conception of the individual, like, in a scientific way. There's something "in the sauce" that I can't account for in our analysis, something that overlaps with a great deal of the working class. But if we are comrades in sharing and binding ourselves to the struggles of workers then that's basically what's most important. It isnt right to demand that you adhere to "correct" theoretical analysis when there is something I dont understand about like one of anarchism's fundamental concepts, something that seems to be very "right" that comes from your tradition, something that I can't just dismiss as "petty bourgeois" or liberal.

So more power to ya, friend. I'd love to read anything you come out with.

What part of rorschach's views are revolutionary? Rorschach is a chud. Maybe his views are extreme but not revolutionary. False equivalence be wilin