anarchiddy @ anarchiddy @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

1

Comments

203

Joined

5 mo. ago

Well he's actually saying he hopes those who are resisting the nazis you're not caping for put you on a pike, so I guess you shouldn't be worried

Idk man this whole thing stinks of mischaracterization and knowing your opinion of two pretty open zionists makes me really not trust you

But for sure what I'm not seeing is him calling for the death of all Americans.

Lmao, not sure why you highlighted the comment at the bottom and clipped out the messages that directly preceded that comment. I don't even know if they're saying that to you, let alone what it was that made them say it.

I guess i'll just have to take your word for it that they were talking to you, and it was in response to you being american? Sounds like you had just defended Zionism from context, but I literally don't see it. Honestly, could you just post the link to the post? I have no idea why so much of your story isn't being comported by the screenshots you're sharing but it's hard to believe you when you're being so opaque.

If you were running defense for the IDF or Israeli war crimes I don't know what to tell you.

but you are looking at comments saying I should be killed because I was born in a certian geograpahy and saying it makes you want to donate

I have yet to see any comment that says or implies that you should be killed, but it does make me want to donate to see .ml mods acknowledge the settler colonial status of americans on colonized land.

I'd invite you to corroborate that claim again, but since others already have and the comment you're sharing isn't painting you as the victim you're saying it is, I think I'd rather just write you off as a lost liberal who has wandered into a group of anarchists by accident.

I think you share the same victim complex Hila and Ethan have.

Just don't do anything that'll raise attention to your opposition to fascism, tho

Right - frankly I only have a dbzer0 account because I thought the general vibe was less factional than .world or sht.justworks, it's surprising me that so many people seem to be loosing the forest for the trees on this.

There are very few other FOSS projects that I use every single day, and I don't hesitate supporting any of them even though I have no idea what their personal views on worker liberation or trans rights are. I'm quite confident that I align more with the ML lemmy devs politically than most of the other FOSS project developers I interact with, and not because I agree with them on the use of state power or trans exclusion.

Anyway, Nutomic is saying there are support links you can donate through that do not go towards the ml server costs - I recommend anyone who's using lemmy and has an issue with the .ml political views donate through those instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater by boycotting the platform they're enjoying.

Ok but also lowkey fuck america

this feels more like an endorsement for donating than an indictment.

• just from context, I can gather that this is discussing Hila Kline of the H3 podcast, and I think it's kind of wild that anyone would still be trying to claim that her attitude about her illegal activities while serving in the IDF is anything other than pride, or at a minimum defense. "She's literally never said those words" isn't really a defense when plenty of other (far braver) ex-IDF soldiers have come forward to comment on their own regret of participating in war crimes and genocide, even if they had no knowledge of their illegality at the time. Hila herself acknowledges this as a genocide (at least, she acknowledges the administration as genocidal), so I'm not sure why else she wouldn't address that accusation if not because she feels proud of her service.
• The comment you're highlighting isn't even close to supporting calls to the death of all americans, and in fact I think the sentiment it's expressing is the bare-minimum acknowledgement americans should have for their country's origin. Maybe you just find it uncomfortable being confronted by reality, but it's a factual statement to say the US is a settler-colonial state, and we are all settler-colonists. I don't see any problem with acknowledging that as a verifiable statement.

I feel like someone on an anarchist instance should be able to at least acknowledge the past and current crimes of their imperialist nation state of origin without feeling personally threatened about it.

Tell people they’re being oppressed, they’ll become defensive, then frustrated opposition will retaliate against their fallacies, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Religion becomes more important than education, and the government gains more control over the people.

If you're suggesting that even just pointing to existing oppression is going to lead to this 'self-fulfilling prophesy', then I think we have very different definitions of 'complacency' and 'smart'.

That is a hell of a conflation, between vocal opposition to fascism and a fucking assassination attempt.

No, I don't think anyone here is advocating suicide by amateur assassin cosplay. Even just dispassionately calling this as it is will be held up as 'dangerous' - it's not at all about the optics.

If all you're doing is just waiting for your next opportunity to cast a ballot, you've already lost.

Any small act of retaliation will be blown out of proportion on Fox News.

Any act at all with be turned into reactionary fodder.

You're looking right at a huge symptom of the problem but not seeing how deep the crisis is.

Electoralism cannot save us from fascism.

Your anger gives them power.

So does complacency.

Grateful for the opportunity to learn from such a practiced propagandist.

I don't give a shit if you agree with my point, don't be dense. I cared that you weren't comprehending it.

Democrats are so cooked.

Lmao each of those were after you had completely missed my point, that had not changed and which you had not acknowledged. You will not find a simgle moment in your responses where you correctly understood what I was saying.

Respectfully, fuck off with your patronization

If i spent a single character trying to "summarize your perspective" unsolicited you'd accuse me of misrepresenting you.

I told you straight up what I disagreed with, and you ignored it or didnt understand it. I could not have been clearer if i tried. Next time I'll just assume you're doing it it bad faith and call it a day.

Lmao. K fine, i'll play this game:

I think that, if you wanted to boil it down to main root causes, there are two causes for the Democrats losing because people didn’t vote for them. One was propaganda and the other was democrats being corporate ghouls in need of reform.

Here's my take:

I think that, if you wanted to boil it down to main root causes, there are two causes for the Democrats losing because people didn’t vote for them. One was a national distress over the failure of democracy and the other was a failure of democrats to acknowledge this distress.

I have repeatedly, ad nauseum stated my disagreement. You do not agree with me, and that's fine. I don't think there's any world, in the absence of propaganda, that democrats could have overcome the broad, nationwide discontent being caused by the failure of democracy without acknowledging that discontent. That's always been my whole point. That was the whole reason I responded to you to begin with. I don't care if you agree that there is some attribution to that specific problem, I'm attributing the their entire loss to it, full stop. That's why i was screaming why it's such a huge problem. It isn't because of propaganda or the dems being in need of reform, it's because there's a growing faction of people that think the choices on offer do meet even the threshold of consideration.

Do not tell me again that you agree with me, even in-part. I wouldn't believe you at this point even if you did.

I wasn't sure if that was what you were saying, I wanted to allow you the option to clarify, but every time you did you just made it less-clear what you were saying.

I said:

Liberals insist that the democrats lost because of 3rd party spoilers and far-left activists deflating the cause, but I think there’s more evidence that the Democrats failed themselves by not reacting to the clear signs of distress that both the far-right and far-left populists were signaling.

You responded with:

You can reform Democrats without a bunch of immigrants going to El Salvador or worse because you didn’t feel like holding your nose and you’re privileged enough to be able to not have to.

• Notice I was framing their failure around the national distress and their dismissal of it as a reality, and explicitly said I didn't think their loss was attributable with "3rd party spoilers and far-left activists deflating the cause". You turned around and re-framed the issue around some group (I can only really assume you mean those same people) trying to "reform democrats" (no mention of the core of my issue, which is them not addressing the national distress i was describing), and placing the cause-effect emphasis on those people.

and then you said:

I think the election took place almost entirely in fantasy-land. The far left (tiny in American politics) thought that Kamala Harris was responsible for 100% of Biden’s Israel policy, but also more mainstream people thought that Biden had accomplished nothing of value on climate change or for working people in the US, other people thought Trump was a genius at business who would bring inflation back down, and so on. It was propagandized to the point that it almost doesn’t matter that the Democrats’ messaging was bad.

• Again, my point was that I didn't think democrats were addressing the distress I was pointing to, and they lost because those mainstream people didn't think their agenda was addressing it. You didn't seem to pick up on that point, so I restated it again in clearer language

I said:

It’s also possible that those accomplishments, as much as we’d like to celebrate them, weren’t addressing the core popular discontent of the voters. It could be a matter of messaging or propaganda, true, but it would be irresponsible to have this conversation and not point out that the current popular messaging in the democratic base isn’t related to infrastructure spending, inflation, or climate initiatives - it’s an expression of frustration about a system that’s rendered ineffective against oligarchs who use their immense wealth to undermine and frustrate all attempts at democratic reform.

• Notice that I addressed your complaint about lack of celebration and credit for Biden's accomplishments, and then again restated the core of my point against that. I even addressed what I thought of your claim of propaganda, which is apparently what you kept wanting me to address, unbeknownst to me.

I can go down the whole conversation if you want, but pretty much every comment has some degree of intentional(?) obfuscation. Edit: just so we're clear, that first quote from me is in my very-first comment. That was basically my entire point, but you kept pointing to other things I was using to support that argument and saying 'yea, i agree' but never addressing the thing I was trying to communicate

This is the loose language i'm talking about. Yes, you kept saying "i agree" to a vague sentiment within my comment, and then you'd turn around and disagree with the main thing. I don't even really know if you're doing this on purpose, but when I see you in another conversation that people keep having this kind of exchange with you I have to assume that this is why.

I'm sorry if this truly is unintentional, because this must be incredibly frustrating, but this is why I think you keep running into this. To those who don't know what your intention actually is, it feels a hell of a lot like gaslighting. Just state the thing you're disagreeing with explicitly, don't bury it behind a whole bunch of statements of agreement.

Claiming that someone said something when they actually said something else, blatantly ignoring a direct question and instead going off and just talking about some different thing, repeating yourself forever without substantively responding to anything the other person says. That kind of thing.

Lmao, I cannot believe that i'm getting back into it with you, but I can't not address this

I have a strong feeling you think I fit into this bucket, and - for the record - I think the reason you get into these types of exchanges is because you use pretty lose language when describing your perspective, and people pick up on the possibility you may be alluding to a specific meaning they take issue with.

That's what happened with our conversation that got me engaged, and it turned out at the end that I had correctly identified our disagreement while you were explicitly trying to pass it off as agreement. You should consider yourself lucky that so many people seem to be addressing these politispeak comments with long and charitable explanations and not outright scorn. "I didn't say that" or "why are you yelling, i agree with you" sounds innocuous enough but quickly becomes gaslighting behavior when it turns out you were in disagreement.

I'm glad I went back through this post and found this, because this part:

Severing out of a key aspect of their post, in one comment, at the bottom of a long comment chain, while only expressing agreement elsewhere?

Is exactly what happened to me with this user, right up until yesterday. He kept asserting something I disagreed with, to which I responded in detail, and then they'd explicitly say "i agree 100% why are you so upset?", while reiterating nearly the same point but with some pretty important distinctions. It went back and forth for far longer than I care to admit, and then when I finally put a fine-enough point on it they disengaged with 'aren't I allowed to disagree?' as if he hadn't been repeatedly expressing nothing but agreement.

It's been a while since I got baited like that, but if there were a agnostic behavior online I thought needed to be banned, it'd be this one exactly.

Unbelievably enraging, but also a bit insidious because to the outside observer it looks like they actually are in agreement, and then they go on to completely rewrite the perspective to match theirs as if it's the no-brainer position (see? look, we're agreeing). It is some absurd postmodern contemporary version of MLK's white moderate.

Democrats are ghouls who need replacement or foundation reform

I was saying AMERICA needed reform, that democrats are bleeding voters because they've lost faith that foundational reform is possible.

You seem like you are doing literal backflips to avoid the conversation of whether that propaganda is happening

It is happening, but even if it wasnt I think the material conditions would be doing the same thing anyway. I don't think its the reason dems lost. A clear difference, I now know.

shrieking at me that the Democrats carry some blame for losing the election, no matter how many times I attempt to express that I, also, think that.

I'm telling you they carry all the blame. That even if the cards were stacked in their favor they'd still lose, if they don't propose foundational change.

Idk how else I could have communicated that without any less emphasis, but 'shrieking' is a bit hyperbolic.

I have literally no idea why you are that way. I hope you come out of it someday

I hope dems come out of it someday.