ID: ally @missmayn posted: "the democrats were more energized and organized against campus protests than the current authoritarian takeover."
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
1117 points (95.4% liked)
Flippanarchy
1021 readers
84 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to [email protected]
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They were taught the wrong lesson. The left refuses to vote for them because they don't perfectly represent them; moderates turn out and can be swung from time to time. What tangible evidence do they have that moving left will gain them more votes than it will cost them?
Actual data from Bernie Sanders' campaign showing that he was vastly more popular overall (and especially in red states) than the centrists.
And Bernie endorsed Harris, and she lost.
And? Do you think an endorsement automatically means everyone who would have voted for Bernie would vote for Harris? Like I said, Bernie's popularity over other Democratic candidates was most pronounced in red states. Those votes didn't transfer to Harris, they transfered to Trump, or to no one at all.
Like I said, the wrong lesson was taught.
Why do you insist on absolving the Democrats of responsibility for their own decisions? It's on them to learn the right lessons, and they didn't. It is difficult to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it. Left-populism is the clear solution to their problems but it scares them because it is in direct opposition to their financial interests.
So they will repeat their mistakes.
Dick Cheney did too. I don't see you using it as an argument that the party should stop simping for war criminals.
They should. That's not the reason why though.
I'm not directly affected by American politics. But it is interesting to see how it behaves. The Democrats seem to have an identity crisis, they appear to have expected to win because "who would vote for the orange guy?" mentality, but they showed their lack of vision by allowing Biden to run first then switching to Kamala when it didn't work out. In the meantime Trump was being a salesman/conman with bold proposals that would benefit the people, even if they weren't true (as it usual with politics).
The Democrats needed, from the start, a somewhat young, centrist and fierce candidate, that could chew Trump during debates, thus turning Republican voters, but the Democrat leadership is sadly lacking and not getting on with the times. I see news about the GOP and Turning point USA quite often, never good but very visible while from the Democrat side there is just silence, just waiting the Republicans to lose.
We've had too many centrists and the only time any centrist is "fierce" is when they're pitted against a progressive.
They perfectly represent you.
They do not. You have the unfortunate habit of reducing those who disagree with you to inaccurate caricatures, in a vain attempt to bolster your own poorly formed ethos.
Oh cool. How have they failed to represent you to perfection?
From the person who literally just misrepresented the entire left thus:
I'm a leftist. They are neo-liberals. My wishes for them to beat out the fascists does not mean they represent me.
So they represent you perfectly in all but name, then?
Or are there policies of theirs you disagree with?
Are you suggesting that neo-liberals represent leftists?
I'm saying that you can't name one policy you disagree with neoliberals on.
I'm saying neoliberals represent you to absolute perfection, which is why you are so dismissive of those they don't represent.
"Haven't" and "can't" are separate concepts. But in all my interactions with you, you have only solidified a tendency to straw-man those you disagree with into manichean absolutes. You draw unsubstantiated conclusions from your own biases and scraps of comments twisted beyond their context.
I disagree with the war-mongering, and the capitulation to capital, and the performative social policy, and the convenient bi-partisanahip, among many other capitalist policies wrapped in a rainbow flag. Better than the capitaists wrapped in a swastika, but not representative. I figured a leftist could have extrapolated that when I said I was a leftist.
But you either aren't a leftist, or you're a teenage "leftist" who doesn't know the meaning of the words "praxis" or "implementation". I don't have time for bad faith actors or nitwits who sound just like them.
Perhaps. But I'm not a leftist. I'm a progressive. Plus, I didn't know which neoliberal policies you were happy with and which ones you weren't. I don't see genocide support on your list, which I can't say comes as a surprise, what with this being lemmy and all.
This is correct.
Simping for neoliberals while they support genocide is neither.
If you think this applies to me, do something else. I'm not forcing you to have this conversation.