If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they're lying.
Evidence or GTFO.
Hate speech? Is "lib" a slur now? Are liberals a protected class? It's not "hate speech" it's just criticism of a political position.
Funny how you don't say anything about what that post is actually about - it's about redditors excusing Kamala's support for Israel. They aren't kind to you if you defend the mass slaughter of civilians, no.
It seems to me that showing equal kindness to oppressor and oppressed would be supporting the oppressor.
Transphobia is when you disagree with a liberal about anything, regardless of how much you support and respect trans people, apparently.
"Tankie" is a derogatory term for Marxist-Leninists. We support AES or "actually existing socialist" states, in contrast to left idealists who support every revolution except the ones that actually succeed, which can always be imagined as perfect because they never had to confront practical reality. We're known for our opposition to war (except class war) and belief in multipolarity, which is the idea that one nation shouldn't be the lone superpower with hegemony around the world, and we treat the media with reasonable skepticism when it tries to tell us who to hate - ironically, these traits cause us to be characterized as militaristic, authoritarian, and blindly gullible.
People who have never read any communist theory beyond the Manifesto (if that) don't think we're real communists because they have no idea what they're talking about.
The dems didn’t have a candidate people wanted to come out for, and the people who stayed home were older more conservative people who vote democrat because they don’t like the current republican party. And they stayed home because the canidate changed, not the policy.
Right, and that's the only possible reason, isn't it? Because people's voting behavior is explainable by exactly two things: policy and bigotry. Messaging is irrelevant. Changes in the economy and political situation are irrelevant. Sexism is the only factor that matters, and, conveniently yet completely coincidentally, just so happens to be a factor that completely absolves Kamala and the Democrats of any and all fault.
Im sorry these subjects make you feel insecure.
Projection.
Maybe try self reflecting and growing instead of screaming about how the neolibs should have magically changed their stripes.
I don't expect them to change their stripes. I think their economic approach is a very flawed strategy both in terms of not being good policy and in terms of winning elections, you can't run on the status quo when the status quo isn't working for people. However, even completely ignoring that aspect, it was still a terribly run campaign lacking any coherent message while failing to adapt to a changing media environment (streamers, for example) which the right jumped on. Kamala Harris had never demonstrated any real ability to connect with voters or get out the vote and would have bombed out of a competitive primary exactly like she did in 2020.
Do you accept that it's possible for an individual woman to be a bad candidate or to run a bad campaign, or do you think claiming that is automatically sexist? You can always rely on liberals to weaponize allegations like that in order to defend the ruling class.
I have to say I find your grandstanding and accusations funny because I'm old enough to remember when Elizabeth Warren attacked Bernie Sanders by claiming that he said he didn't think a woman could win the election (which he denied), and it was enough of a scandal for a bit of a news cycle. Now, you're telling me that a woman couldn't have won the election and it's somehow sexist to think otherwise. What a joke. Namecalling is all you've got and it's completely meaningless to me.
I don’t care what senators were elected,
Of course not, since that contradicts your narrative. It's quite a stretch to assume that if a woman loses it must be because of sexism (ignoring the many, many flaws in her campaign), but it's an even bigger stretch to assume that people who didn't vote for her, yet voted to put other women into the upper echelons of the US government, merely didn't vote for her because of sexism.
Your narrative is impossible to disprove through evidence because it was not derived from evidence, and the purpose of the narrative is not to reflect reality. The purpose of the narrative is to save face and deflect criticism from the party. It is purely a psychological coping mechanism, which personally I have little patience for.
She gained black men
No, she didn't. She got 78% of black men compared to 80% going to Biden last election.
The reason you get downvoted is that accusing voters of bigotry is a way of deflecting from actual strategic failures, things that could've been done differently, and more importantly, could be done differently in the future. It's a way of saving face at the cost of self-reflection and improvement. It's just an excuse.
It's also simply not true. Three swing states that Kamala lost elected female Democratic senators. Given the very limited dataset we have to extrapolate from, it's hard to imagine a world with more compelling evidence that your narrative is false.
The economic messaging was the main thing but even taking that as a given that they had to follow their donors' interests, it was just a really poorly executed campaign. Had to be to get the worst results since the Republicans won California. Tbh Harris just has terrible political instincts and she would've never survived a competitive primary (as evidenced by 2020).
One thing that's staggering to me is that they left Hasan Piker as an untapped resource. I'm not like a big fan of his but if you have this field of streamers where all the big names are right-wing, except one, you should really consider, like, figuring out what he's tapping into or doing right, idk, hire him as a consultant, go on his stream, do something with him. The Democrats are so slow to adapt strategically while the Republicans are much quicker to adapt, and idk what that's about, complacency ig.
Obviously the Dick Cheney strategy was completely useless, as usual. Democrats are married to this conventional wisdom, treated as a truism, that the way to win is by appealing to the median centrist voter, along this purely one dimensional spectrum of politics which is completely divorced from reality. I suspect the article is correct that they're too caught up in analytics that they lose sight of how people actually think.
Didn't she lose ground on nearly every demographic? This is such trash analysis, just datamining and then applying stereotypes to avoid admitting any fault on the part of the campaign's strategy.
Funny how female Democratic senators won in three of the swing states Kamala lost, almost as if sexism wasn't the deciding factor... but that could imply that Kamala failed for a reason that's potentially her own fault, which might require some kind of self-reflection on the part of the Democratic party, and we absolutely can't have that under any circumstances. The Democrats can never fail, they can only be failed.
Smoking. Let's see, I could pay a ton of money for something that reeks and damages my health and the health of those around me, that once I start I'll become addicted to so I'll struggle to quit even if I want to, or I could, uh, not. Yeah let's go with not.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Yeah, full support for the Trump administration to have the power to say which social media is acceptable, that'll fix everything! /s
It's not their job to educate you.
The problem is that folks see these things implemented in the past and say “let’s just do that.” Why can’t we take the good parts and think beyond the rest?
Of course we should! Every instance of socialism should adapt to the specific material conditions. There's not much reason to think that socialism in developed countries would look the same as socialism is pre-industrial societies.
It's just that in order to know what worked and what didn't, it's necessary to treat those projects as serious, earnest attempts at socialism and to be willing to point out both the positive and negative aspects. And doing that will immediately get you branded as a tankie by .world. Because in practice, tankie doesn't actually mean that you defend everything any socialist state ever did, it means that you defend anything a socialist state ever did. Thinking critically and trying to learn from the mistakes from the past makes you a tankie.
Dronies have a pathological need to distance themselves from every attempt at socialism (except the ones that failed, which can be upheld as perfect since they never had to implement their vision), which renders them unable to look at the past from an objective standpoint. They are more concerned with making sure everyone knows that they're "one of the good ones" than they are about studying and learning from the past. Tankies, otoh, are willing to own up to the facts and acknowledge that past projects were genuine attempts, even when they ultimately failed as the USSR did. Of course it would not have failed if it didn't have its flaws. But you will rarely see a dronie pushing this angle or interrogating the reasons for the failure, because learning from its mistakes is too close to treating it as as serious and legitimate project - far better (and easier!) to just write off the whole thing and push for shit that has only ever existed in your head and has never been tainted by contact with reality.
These bills are always branded as being "anti-chemtrail," because it gets more clicks but they are banning a real thing that actually exists. The idea of chemically altering the atmosphere to address global warming is something that scientists have seriously considered and experimented with, but the general consensus is that while the concept is possible, the risks outweigh the benefits. On the other hand, there are certain irresponsible groups of techbros like Make Sunsets which have taken it into their own hands and have been releasing a bunch of sulfur into the stratosphere, to widespread criticism from actual scientists, while they try to present themselves as an environmentalist charity.
So there is a real thing that they're targeting, but also, it's not going to do anything since the restrictions only apply within a given jurisdiction. At most, it might prevent certain universities and such from conducting tests (which isn't an inherently bad thing given the dangers).
What it comes down to is basically the same formula as the whole "eating bugs" and "15 minute cities" things. Somebody gets paid to come up with a solution to climate change that doesn't involve interfering with capitalism in any way, they come up with some out of the box idea that might help a little - then reactionaries latch onto that, because as they all "know," climate change isn't real, so whatever weird idea anyone comes up with must be the real reason why the global elites are spreading the myth.
Of course, conservatives probably aren't concerned about this concept for the same reasons scientists are, and I'm sure there's conspiracy theories out there that do go the whole chemtrail route with it, but hey. They kinda sorta accidentally have a little bit of a point on this one.
In the case of Russia and the places they influenced, it was a group of self-appointed elites that did the actual revolting, and then they imposed a new system on the populace.
What on earth are you talking about? How would "a group of self-appointed elites" even be enough to overthrow the government? That fundamentally doesn't make any sense.
It's also whitewashing the Tsar. As if the Russian people were happy and content while they were starving and subject to serfdom and being fed into the meat grinder of WWI.
Hell, Lenin is even on record saying that Russia wasn't going to have a revolution, before it did, and by the time he arrived in Russia, the Tsar had already been forced to abdicate!
That's fair. I only wanted to set the record straight.
Lmao. Guess we better update the slur filter to remove all instances of the word "lib." Sorry, am I allowed to say it in quotes like that, or is it too offensive? I wouldn't want to offend your delicate lib sensibilities.