Yeah that proves victors point
1 Like
it only proves that he’ll throw out any half-assed opinion as long as it supports whatever dunk he thinks he is accomplishing.
lol in none of the wiki quote you posted does there say there is a unanimous or near unanimous consensus on the subject. It literally says “critics argue” and then “some” people think this and “some Marxists” felt the same way. I can find just as many people arguing the opposite which is why it’s stupid to be dismissive of victors POV.
Also LOL at using Wikipedia to claim victory in an extremely complex subject
If you guys think Trump is actually a fascist and your idea of removing him from power was to go vote then you deserve to be put in a camp.
2 Likes
i mean if it’s such a complex topic then you/him should not claim simultaneously that 1) extraction of resources is the fundamental part of imperialism, and 2) that soviets didn’t practice it.
like, even in 20th century imperialism clearly traded in influence as much as resources.
and it’s painfully obvious that soviet influence forced its “allies” to buy russian oil/gas exports, as pretty much the definition of extraction of resources. and furthermore, if you come away with any understanding of russian/soviet economy at all, it’s that everything is centralized to moscow (and st petersburg) as the seat of imperialism.
this is a boring derail because victoar wanted to appear smart to dunk on moderates. i guess to him they will never be as anti-imperialist as the soviet union.
L fucking o L
Other posters have made similar points to what I’m about to say, but I guess it needs repeating.
Challenges to the status quo will almost always start off being unpopular.
The activists and abolitionists who are the driving forces behind the defund and abolish the police movements have different goals than you do. For example, since you don’t want to abolish the police, of course you’re not going to agree with the message no matter how it’s delivered.
You and I weren’t at the meeting where they chose their goals and how they were going to communicate those goals, because we don’t get invited to tell the people doing the work how they should proceed. And you most certainly weren’t at the meeting where they did focus group testing of whether they should lie and say reform when the goal is defund or abolish in order to benefit the short term election chances of eDems in red districts during the midterms…because that meeting didn’t take place. The reason that meeting didn’t take place is because the activists doing the work know that:
And they also know that:
So these movements will not be adjusting their words or actions in order to optimize achieving your goals. Why should they? You’re actively campaigning for Biden who: brags about wanting to give more money to cops, peddles in copaganda, hired Kopmala as his #2, and helped push through the legislation that has brought us to the status quo that the defunders and abolitionists are struggling to change.
4 Likes
My goal in this election was to not fall under permanent authoritarian GOP rule.
That would have been pretty detrimental to the goals of anyone who wants to do anything at all related to reforming, defunding, or abolishing the police.
Thus the messaging was detrimental to their cause.
8 Likes
This… and last time I checked none of them wanted to actually defund or abolish the police. There was no large push for anarchy even among those people flying the defund or abolish flags. This was always a movement for reform.
I’m glad this conversation got started and it’s helping to shape my thinking.
Going back to my original point, I would rephrase it now that I’ve read a bunch here. My concern is not with activists who seek to defund the police nor with the language they use. That, in fact, is a totally separate topic and not one I’m qualified to even really have an opinion on.
My question is only about the electoral message, and it’s a conversation relevant only to those on the left (including some activists!) who care about effecting change through elections. I do think the election-minded left needs to find ways not to get tarred with language that hurts them in a whole bunch of districts. I get that some activists don’t care about that; that’s fine. I’m not here to blame them or to beg them; I’m talking about a Democratic message that can coexist with the more radical work that the far left is undertaking.
1 Like
I’m not conflating them. They all would have been dead for decades if Trump won. Democracy itself was on the ballot. Four more years of suppression and shenanigans and erosion of democratic norms was game over.
lol none wanted to defund or abolish the police? That’s definitely not the case
I’m not claiming shit. You were being dismissive of his point of view and instead of discussing it you wanted to dunk on him by posting some shit from Wikipedia in an attempt to “prove” you are right even though your own post doesn’t even say youre right. How many people are quoted on that wiki, like 7 or 8? Wow you really showed him how wrong he was. Like I’m not even saying he’s right or wrong but there’s a lot of nuance to the discussion and saying he’s wrong because of Wikipedia is dumb as fuck
2 Likes
You don’t have to go far to see that this is false. Even on unstuck there are people who were very clear that they meant it literally.
The best defense is a good offense. These attacks will always exist. Democrats should find their own attack vectors which will take up more of the conversation so that there is less air in the room to discuss defunding the police, creating offsetting damage to the Republican brand, if not more.
lol BLM activists who are pushing for defunding the police convos are actively campaigning for Trump?
Jfc can’t make this shit up
1 Like
Depends on if you believe the rhetoric that a vote for a third party is effectively a vote for Trump.
That list never fails to blow my mind. It’s like a parallel universe non-batshit USA.
4 Likes
I did notice this. My theory that whichever side shouts loudest wins. Even though literally l abolition is wtfbbq, just shouting from the far left is useful for pursuing center left policy. We’ll lose a few elections because of it, but it might be worth it.
I know that you are convinced that this election was POTUS BOWL 2020 Facists vs Centrists.
Seems odd that the centrist dude you campaigned for is looking to put people from the authoritarian/fascist party in his cabinet. Maybe his campaign focus group tested his message and found out that the best way for him to get votes while shitting on progressive causes was to get people to beleive “the other side is fascist. I’m not fascist I’m just super pro cop and helped construct the prison industrial complex!” messaging.
Because, my god, if Biden actually believed what you believe, and yet he was still openly considering giving people from the fascist party and their enablers positions of power in his administration…he’d have a lot of explaining to do.
3 Likes
Joe Biden is hiring Trump Republicans in his cabinet? News to me.