Vietnam. Decent enough government and standard of living, and they whooped America's ass so bad that it'd be political suicide to go back there. I mean, what kind of timeline would we have to be on for someone to be stupid enough to... hmm.
Considering that fucking Greenland is caught up in it now, idk that anywhere is safe.
Ah yes, the very serious and rational leftist belief that fascists are better than liberals
Literally never said anything remotely like this and you know it. In fact I said the exact opposite, in my analogy, liberals offer us $1 while fascists offer us $0. Proving my point again that you reject everything we actually say in favor of the shit you make up about us whole cloth.
Ftfy
"No U," truly the height of liberal discourse.
This is an international forum, not an American one.
The reason "liberal" is synonymous with "leftist" in the US is that the left has retreated so ridiculously far. Left anticommunism has been a dismal failure that's played into the right's hands. People thought that if they just demonstrated their anticommunist credentials that people would stop accusing them of being "reds" or "pinkos," but it absolutely has not worked and only emboldened the right to the point that even "liberal" became an accusation, a dirty word, while at the same time hurting and dividing the left.
I don't accept that, and neither do people outside of the US. A liberal is a supporter of capitalism, liberals are, by definition, right wing.
Republicans winning is the "no one gets anything" outcome of a breakdown of negotiations between the democratic party and their voters. So the example holds.
I like how you completely ignored all my actual examples and focused on the one thing I said that wasn't hard evidence, and just baselessly asserted the nonsense that "Republicans fall in line" without a single shred of evidence to back it up. It is unfalsifiable orthodoxy, assumed with no regard for how reality actually works, just like the unfalsifiable orthodoxy of lesser-evilism. Nothing you say is ever actually backed up by the facts, you're just regurgitating the "conventional wisdom" that the ruling class told you to get you to fall in line and not cause any trouble by doing things that are actually effective.
Again, completely useless pawn seeped in bourgeois ideology, a pure liberal through and through, completely and totally cooked. Your utter uselessness and fecklessness is the reason we're unable to change the conditions that are giving rise to fascism.
Assuming you aren’t a deliberate bad actor
Oh hey, proving my original point.
Not a yes or a no.
There is no "solidarity" to be had with people who kill or severely harm members of the working class. If you pull others down to get ahead, you are not my comrade.
Every time a person chooses that path, they create even more desperate situations for other working class people. The people who join the military to "escape poverty" force others into poverty in the process, and they force them into situations worse than poverty. How many people became mujahideen because all they had to put food on the table was a gun? And how many people are growing up not only in poverty, but also as orphans, because of the troops' actions?
This is complete insanity. If we can excuse the actions of the troops, then we can excuse the actions of anyone. Maybe Jeffery Epstein just did the things he did because of how he was raised, or because of his brain chemistry, or because of this or because of that. Regardless, he still needs to be condemned and failure to condemn him is a disservice to his victims, and alienates people who could actually be valuable allies.
Everyone understands this when it comes to other "professions" like the ones I mentioned, that pull others down to get ahead. But when it comes to troops, troop worship is so ingrained, the propaganda so deep, that even when people consciously reject it, they still want to justify and make excuses for them. Rationally speaking, if you accept that we should condemn those other professions, and you accept that troops are just as bad if not worse, then you should condemn them in just as strong terms.
Yes, and it is deeply flawed logic because it rests on an analogy which is fundamentally unrelated to electoral strategy. There is no “refuse and both parties get nothing” mechanism in elections. You have a choice between a 99-1 split and a 100-0 split, and rejecting the 99-1 split guarantees you the 100-0.
Lmao! That's literally exactly how my example works. You chose between $1 and $0.
Are you high? They absolutely constantly do exactly that which is exactly why they win.
Really? The libertarian party generally gets triple the votes of the greens, the biggest third party candidate in history, Ross Perot, primarily siphoned votes from the right, Trump in 2016, despite being the last candidate the establishment wanted, got the nomination after making a credible threat to run third party, and if you spend any time around actual Republicans, you'll hear them complaining about "RINOs" who don't meet their standards, and nobody goes around in Republican circles being like, "Yeah this guy doesn't support our views on guns or abortion, but you have to vote for him or the democrats will win!" That whiny nerd shit would get you bullied.
They absolutely, constantly use red lines and purity tests, and they've red lined and purity tested all the way to overturning Roe V Wade. That would never have happened if they were constantly compromising.
I can’t even count the number of people I know personally who hated Trump, but voted for him anyway because they viewed the Democrats as the greater evil.
The "moderates" might fall in line, sure. The problem is that the left is full of those kinds of "moderates," while on the right they're only a fraction of the base. They "fell in line" behind what the radicals of their party pushed for, just like how liberals like you would fall in line if we ever got a significantly strong radical left to push for left wing candidates. That is very different from the radicals falling in line behind the moderates.
Republicans don’t fool around with red lines, they dutifully act in lockstep to secure wins
This is completely delusional and reflects your own "terminally online isolation." There are far more Republicans who won't fall in line behind "RINOs" than the equivalent on the left - and there are vastly fewer people on the right who would waggle their finger at anyone making demands of the Republican party and insist that anyone who doesn't immediately fall in line unconditionally is "just trying to make the right lose," that anyone who sticks to their guns on abortion or, uh, guns, "isn't a real right-winger."
The left has been shouting about red lines for decades,
No it fucking hasn't! When? Who? The left always falls in line. Every time. It's just that every time anyone anywhere makes even the smallest demand, everyone loses their mind over it because liberals (like you) are so preoccupied about how everyone always needs to fall in line unconditionally forever. Meanwhile, the right does that shit all the time and nobody considers it anywhere near as big of a deal because it's just accepted.
Red line makes zero strategic sense, it’s childish and simple minded.
I explain the logic here. But like most things that are true, there are many different ways to demonstrate it's true, so here's another:
Notice how the Republicans don't do that shit and keep winning? How decades of unconditional "lesser evilism" has resulted in more and more rightward shift, until we've arrived at the point where doing literally any good thing is "woke?"
Democratic voters are so fucking stupid in terms of strategy. It's the only thing Republicans have figured out. It turns out, pushing for the things you actually want and throwing a fit whenever you don't get your way makes them more likely to happen. Somehow, the libs have convinced themselves that the way to get what they want is to support things they don't want and then have the people who don't listen to them compromise away any semblance of progressivism in the name of cooperating with people who hate them. And the repeated, obvious failure of this strategy does absolutely nothing to persuade them, because they believe so strongly that it's just an inherent absolute truth to them. No amount of failure, no amount of time, no matter how bad it gets, they just fundamentally refuse to learn any lesson - even when it reaches the point of supporting literal genocide!
The Republican party falls in line behind their voters because they know that they're "unreasonable," that if they get pissed off and don't get their way, they'll vote third party. But the left has virtually no power over the democratic party, because they're all so fucking "reasonable" that they know that at the end of the day, they'll just fall in line. It's so idiotic it's difficult to understand how anyone could genuinely think this unconditional, indefinite support of a shit party that isn't in line with what we want is somehow an effective strategy - let alone such and effective strategy that nobody reasonable could ever question it and that anyone who does is "just trying to make the left lose."
You are fully cooked, way too deep into the ruling class's ideology to be reasoned with.
Correct. The fact that you can identify one fascist does not validate all your label assignments. Your conclusions are not valid.
As I said repeatedly, not the point.
The system is the way it is by design. They want to force us into a position where we have to chose the lesser evil. The democrats have even funded far-right republican candidates in order to put voters into a position where they have no choice but to vote for them to stop them - the same "pied piper" strategy that Clinton used with Trump.
Ranked choice voting is kind of a catch-22. Neither major party supports it, so unless a third party candidate wins, then we can't get it (at least on a large scale) - but the fact that we don't have it makes it much more difficult for third party candidates to win. And even if we got it, there's still things like gerrymandering, the electoral college, and Citizen's United, which essentially allows unlimited spending on campaigns, that make our elections undemocratic.
That's why I consider simply accepting the choices we're presented with an unacceptable, losing proposition. There are certain demands that must be met, for the sake of the survival of the planet, the defeat of the far-right, and the end of the ongoing genocide. The framework we're presented with and told is the only way, tells us that these changes are impossible. It's an unstoppable force against an immovable object, except, the unstoppable force is actually unstoppable, because it is governed by the laws of nature, while the "immovable object" is just a system of arbitrary rules made up by human beings.
Such systems have given way in the past. If they didn't we would still be living under monarchy. In the times of kings, we did not even have the incredibly flawed form of "democracy" we have now to exert influence over what happens, and yet, the people exerted the necessary influence to achieve change. In the same way, when our so-called "democratic" systems cannot address the many different crises we are facing, we must look to more fundamental ways of exerting force through collective action.
There is no one "magic bullet" solution, but if we can identify the things that absolutely must be done then we can start looking through the full toolbox for what means might be used to achieve them. However, if we set out goals and priorities based on what the system tells us is possible, then we are putting those human laws above natural, physical laws - which is insanity.
Why do you assume everyone arguing with you is a liberal?
In regards to the person I was originally replying to here, because this is a tendency that I notice especially among liberals, and which seems to track with their idealist ideology. They view their position as being "obvious," "objective" and "rational," and therefore expect everyone to agree with them unless there is some sort of irregular interference in the "marketplace of ideas," like foreign subversion. Furthermore, since liberalism is the dominant ideology of the present world, it is easier for people to believe that it is the only thing any reasonable person would believe.
Leftism is comparatively fringe, and also has many different forms of analysis that account for people believing different things. Any leftist should be aware that people who have different material conditions and material interests are likely to arrive at different sets of beliefs. It is difficult to imagine a leftist thinking that anyone who disagrees with them must be disguising their beliefs and motivations, they would have to be paranoid and suspicious of virtually everyone they ever encounter in life. It makes no sense. Furthermore, there are many different leftist ideologies so even if a leftist did expect everyone to be a leftist, it raises the question of, "which tendency?" A Trotskyist and a Maoist will have a substantial number of disagreements with each other.
As for the others, well, because they say lib things and take offense when I talk negatively about liberals. I'm sure some of them style themselves as "anarchists" while supporting liberals and acting and thinking like liberals. Anarchism has some very cool aesthetics, after all.
Perhaps, if they start respecting our labels and bothering to understand what the difference is between a Marxist-Lenininst and a Maoist instead of just blanket labelling everyone to the left of Bernie as a "tankie," then I'll consider respecting the difference between self-identified liberals vs anarcho-NATOists instead of labelling them all liberals. But then, if they bothered to learn or understand the things my side actually believes rather than just making shit up about us whole cloth and dismissing us when we try to actually explain our positions, they'd hardly be liberals, would they?
If both sides are fundamentally unacceptable, then the only thing that matters is changing the fundamental situation. And the most effective means of doing that is demonstrating a credible threat that we won't just fall in line behind a 99-1 split. Building power in this way is more important than getting one genocidaire elected over the other, because it is only through building power that we have a chance of having an option that isn't a genocidaire.
The left (or what pitiful excuse for the left we have in the US) has been following this inane strategy of lesser-evilism for decades now, and it's a large part of the reason things have gotten this bad in the first place. Even if we could've elected a democrat, the underlying conditions that gave rise to Trump and that are feeding fascism will never be addressed by the democratic party, especially if people refuse to apply genuine pressure to them. As long as those conditions are not fixed, we will keep getting Trumps and people worse than Trump.
This “red line” nonsense is strategically stupid
It's strategically the only approach that makes any logical sense whatsoever. The ideology of lesser-evilism is completely incoherent and illogical, it sacrifices every ounce of bargaining power you might have yielded completely unnecessarily.
in practice, identical to someone intentionally trying to fracture the left.
Completely insane perspective. "Anyone who advocates actually effective tactics is intentionally trying to fracture the left." No wonder the left is so powerless.
"Unity" around ineffective tactics, I really think you should consider calling that "liberal unity."
If you and the person you’re assigning labels to disagree, and you determine your assignments to be more valid than theirs, that is definitively based on your ability to identify ideologues.
That's not the point of the example. I didn't bring up Richard Spencer for some dumbass nonsense like, "see how good I am at identifying ideologues, this proves how smart I am," I presented the example because he is someone who anyone should obviously be able to, and more importantly, willing to assign the label fascist to regardless of the fact that he rejects it. Therefore, you cannot oppose the idea of assigning labels to people that they reject on principle, though you may argue that it's only valid in certain situations.
President Trump kept America out of new wars and brought thousands of brave troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and many other countries. Joe Biden has undermined our military readiness and surrendered our strength to the Taliban.
When Trump pulls troops out of Afghanistan, it's "bringing thousands of brave troops home," but when Biden does the same, it's, "surrendering our strength to the Taliban." He brags about "keeping America out of foreign wars" while at the same time bragging about assassinating "the world's number one terrorist," Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, which was an extreme act of provocation.
This is taken from the issues page of Trump's campaign website, and there are several more statements relating to foreign policy, frequently and boldly contradicting each other. It's a perfect example of the "If By Whiskey" tactic. So what's actually going on here? Well, to understand the reasons for this equivocation, we need to analyze the foreign policy positions of Americans.
Broadly speaking, people fall into one of four camps: Idealist Hawk (liberals), Idealist Dove (libertarians), Realist Hawk (nationalists), and Realist Dove (socialists).
Idealist Hawks believe that US foreign policy is driven by benevolence and spreading freedom, and the fact that it repeatedly fails to do so (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc) is explainable by a variety of excuses. Generally, they are more interested in current events and easily persuaded to support intervention based on seeing a bad thing happening, without a broader analysis or explanation of the situation or how things have played out historically.
Idealist Doves also believe that US foreign policy is driven by benevolence, but they see that as a bad thing. They are generally right libertarians or hold libertarian values, they see war as another example of wasteful government spending as it tries and fails to improve people's lives, which they generally don't see as a valid goal in the first place. Being idealists, they are still rather easily duped into supporting war and militarism, often, they will support a "night watchman state," with police and the military being the only legitimate functions.
Realist Hawks are nationalists who believe that states pursue their own material interests and are right to do so. They are incapable of distinguishing between the state's interest and their own. Some few are rich enough to actually receive benefits from US foreign policy, but most just root for America in the same way that they might root for a football team.
Realist Doves, which I am a part of, do not believe that US foreign policy is not grounded in benevolence and does not benefit the people it claims to be helping, but also (generally) that it doesn't benefit the majority of people at home. We see it as being driven by and for class interests, and are opposed to the class it benefits.
Trump's foreign policy equivocation, and his "America First" slogan allows him to appeal to both the Idealist Doves (libertarians) and the Realist Hawks (nationalists). He can't consistently take any line on any specific thing. If by Afghanistan, you mean a disastrous nation-building exercise, wasteful government spending, and endangering our troops for the sake of helping foreigners, then of course Trump opposes it. But if by Afghanistan, you mean exerting American strength, intimidating Russia and China, and weakening terrorists to keep America safe, then of course Trump supports it.
In reality, to the extent that Trump has coherent beliefs at all, he is a Realist Hawk, a nationalist, and his record reflects that. But part of the reason he was able to get anywhere was because he was able to triangulate and equivocate well enough to dupe anti-war libertarians.
Unfortunately, in American politics, the conflict is generally between Idealist Hawks and everyone else. This is part of what allows the nationalists and libertarians to put aside their differences (the other part being that libertarians are easily duped). Realist Doves are not represented anywhere, the Idealist Interventionists consider us Russian bots along with everyone else who disagrees with them on foreign policy (regardless of how or why), the Idealist Doves are extremely unreliable, and the Realist Hawks may see the world in a similar way but have diametrically opposed priorities.
tl;dr: Trump's halfhearted antiwar posturing is an obvious ruse that only an idiot would fall for, but painting everyone skeptical of US foreign policy with the same brush helps him to sell it and to paint over ideological rifts that could otherwise be potentially exploited.
What is Soulism? Soulism, also known as anarcho-antirealism, is a school of anarchist thought which views reality and natural laws as unjust hierarchies.
Some people might laugh at the idea and say it's not a serious ideology, but this is no laughing matter. If these people are successful, then consensus reality would be destroyed and we would return to what the world was like before the Enlightenment. What did that world look like? Well, you had:
Ultra-powerful wizards hoarding knowledge in high towers, reshaping reality to their whims, with no regard for the common people
Bloodthirsty, aristocratic vampires operating openly, and on a much larger scale than they do today
Viscous, rage-driven werewolves terrorizing the populace, massacring entire villages with reckless abandon
Fey beings abducting children and replacing them with their own
Demons and angels waging massive wars against each other with humans caught in the crossfire
Fortunately, out of this age of chaos and insecurity emerged a group of scientists dedicated to protecting and advancing humanity by establishing a consensus reality and putting a stop to these out-of-control reality deviants.
Before, if you got sick or injured, you'd have to travel across the land through dangerous enchanted forests seeking a skilled faith healer or magical healing potion. But with consensus reality, easily accessible and consistent medical practices were instilled with the same magical healing properties. Once, if you wanted to transmute grain into bread, you had to convince a wizard to come out of their tower and do it, and they were just as likely to turn you into a newt for disturbing their studies. But thanks to consensus reality, anyone could build their own magical tower (a "mill") and harness the mana present in elemental air to animate their own "millstones" to do it! These things were only made possible by consensus reality.
Now, I'm not saying that this approach doesn't have it's drawbacks and failures, and I'm not going to say that the reality defenders have never done anything wrong. But these "Soulists" want to destroy everything that's been accomplished and bring us back to the times when these supernatural reality deviants were more powerful than reason or humanity, and constantly preyed upon us.
So do not fall for their propaganda, and if you see something, says something. Anyone altering reality through belief and willpower, or any other reality deviants such as vampires or werewolves, should be reported immediately to the Technocratic Union for your safety, the safety of those around you, and, indeed, the safety of reality itself.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Completely missing the point, as always.
Of course $1 is preferable to $0. That's why I assigned them those values. However, being "preferable" is not the same thing as "being worth sacrificing every ounce of bargaining power over." I don't want the Republicans to win, but if disciplining the Democratic party or building an alternative to it causes that outcome, it is an acceptable risk.
Likewise, in the experiment I presented, obviously anyone would prefer $1 over nothing, but people still reject $1 offers. It's not really a difficult concept to grasp. You don't show up to a car lot saying, "I NEED this car, no matter what, I must have it today!" Hell, even if it's true at the very least you should try to bluff and feign that you might walk away (though do that repeatedly and they'll catch on).
People like you are either the worst negotiators on the entire planet, or, you don't actually have as much of a problem with the Democrats as you claim, and that's why you lay down your hand before the betting's even started.
I would love to get the chance to play that $100 game with one of you to find out which it is - I would absolutely offer you only $1, and if you refuse, I would know that you understand how stupid lesser-evilism is which would prove that you're fine with everything the democratic party stands for, and if you take it, then I would know that you genuinely are that bad at game theory.
I truly don't think any other culture on earth has ever produced so many people this bad at negotiating. We need to bring back haggling or something for you to learn.