"I agree with 95% of this man's platform, but I disagree with his more moderate takes during speeches. I will show the establishment they can't control me by choosing not to vote, ensuring that someone much worse makes it into office. That'll show them"
No you see, permitting mass murder, human trafficking, oppression and violations of bodily autonomy are much better than supporting a single somewhat crappy thing.
Does being "pure left" mean we can't condemn war crimes unless they're from the right? Calling out bullshit regardless of "teams" is part of what the left is all about.
It isn't just the online ones and it makes me reluctant to even call myself left anymore. I rather describe myself as caring for others besides myself. Not catchy, I know.
Agreed, that comment wasn't "distilled" enough to be correct.
But yeah, imagine being online all day... No one but the freaks stare at their phone and computer all day, right Pug?
Which doesn't say anything about our society or the things it lacks, no, it's just those jerks and losers who are terminally online that are the problem.
Internet? I don't even have a connection y0... I'm pure offline baby!
But yeah, imagine being online all day… No one but the freaks stare at their phone and computer all day, right Pug?
If you forget to touch grass every once in a while, you can get caught in an information bubble. It's no different from fundamentalists who never leave their church's social circle.
Which doesn’t say anything about our society or the things it lacks, no, it’s just those jerks and losers who are terminally online that are the problem.
If someone is so terminally online that they're decrying Zohran Mamdani as being insufficiently left for critical support on the grounds of 'acknowledging Hamas performed war crimes on Oct 7', they desperately need to touch grass.
I like turtles, and attitude changes. I love corn! 🌽
...but we don't own the algorithms.
We are what we focus on, but online whose deciding that?... What about in an informational autocracy? Is it our own attention and where we lavish it, what we say to get it? Or is that always an A vs B choice, dished out by a billionaire's robot.
We are what we focus on to some degree. Perhaps more so on Lemmy.
Look to what you love, hope the positives out shine the negatives. Do the most important things at the most important times. Don't burn out.
I'm glad Zohran won, perhaps the rest is in the past already. It'd be nice if the progressive dems are given a shot, but we're all facing autocracy together.
Even the highlighted radical anti-capitalist purist we're focusing on today (our attention is here). How to coat correctives in sugar 101.
Both Likud and Hamas are right though - dunno if you meant that. There are Tankies who whitewash Russian and Chinese atrocities because they perceive them as somehow still Left; Looking at you Roger Waters.
Yeah you get a lot of opinionated, strong willed, free thinkers together and it kind of comes with the territory. We really should learn to pick our battles though- we should solve the big important things first and then we can squabble over the details.
I'd like to believe at least some of it is false flag ops. Or foreign powers seeking to create more chaos and disruption. But, some of it is people pushing for an acceleration of leftist policies. They see socialism succeeding in China, and Europe, and become frustrated that it's so demonized at home. They see unfathomable deaths unnecessary in parts of the world, and become self-knighted champions to fight against it. They mean well. They just don't have the patience of years of watching the pace of change creep, to emotionally deal with someone not instantly converted to their cause the way they were.
How does someone interested in leftist policies see the runaway success of a socialist, in this climate, as a thing to demonize? They don't. Anyone targeting Mamdani feels threatened by socialist policies, or is paid by someone who does.
A huge portion of social media is from bots. Twitter removed millions of bots this week and it doesn't even dent the bot population there.
Foreign countries target American media because its military + nuclear arsenal is unbeatable in a full-scale war. No country would ever consider a war with America, so as a result efforts are dedicated to weakening it from within through psyops. Hence, lemmy.ml exists.
You piece of shit two days ago I saw a turkish kid getting georgefloyed and i talked shit to the cop to get georgefloyed with him. I was in detention for 12 hours. I saw multiple people their face completely destroyed by police violence
What have you done beside whining about tankies on the internet and jerking off, you cowardy scum
This is a really convenient way to view the Democratic party's constant failures. It's always someone else's fault besides the ones in charge. -_-
Oh no, those poor powerless dems that keep winning elections and look the other way when one of their memebers breaks ranks to be the ACTUAL deciding factor.
This narrative is propaganda, that the DNC is entitled to a magically giant number of votes from people who don't exist and that's why they're always useless.
It's definitely not because the Democratic party is complicit in the oligarchy or anything...
It’s definitely not because the Democratic party is complicit in the oligarchy or anything…
it's voting, not marriage. you vote for the least harm to those you care about (or fucking should, duh).
it's not an ideological purity exam, it's a multi-year term and then you vote again. vote the best option you have, otherwise we're gonna have trumps forever.
I cannot fathom how hard it is to get people to understand this very simple thing.
Neoliberalism failing to provide meaningful positive change makes apathetic voters
I can not fathom how hard it is to get people like you to understand that voters as a group do not and will never vote in their own self interests and logic. They vote with their feelings, and when nothing gets tangibly better under a leader, they vote them out.
Does even less good to pretend like human beings will fundamentally change their individual behaviors en masse in between election cycles.
Dems are supposed to be the educated ones, if they give a shit about winning, they would have learned this fact about voters and enabled meaningful change to happen.
This is a really convenient way to view the Democratic party's constant failures.
You're missing the point entirely, which seems to be the main problem the online left has.
The point is simple. I'll bold it for you.
THE US COLLAPSING INTO FASCISM WOULDNT BE HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IF KAMALA HAD WON
KAMALA WOULD HAVE HAD BETTER ODDS OF WINNING IF THE ONLINE LEFT DIDNT BOYCOTT THE VOTE AND ENCOURAGED OTHERS TO VOTE FOR HER.
BOYCOTTING THE VOTE CONTRIBUTED TO HER LOSS, THUS GIVING TRUMP THE VICTORY
THUS MARGINALIZED PEOPLE ARE BEING SENT TO CONCENTRATION CAMPS IN A GENOCIDE ON US SOIL
THUS DEMOCRACY HAS ENDED IN THE USA, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY NON-FASCIST TO WIN
Now let's do transitive property:
Millions of the left boycotted Kamala, even knowing about P2025 a year in advance, thus contributing to her loss.
Now the US is falling to literal fascism and starting a genocide against minorities on US soil.
Do you see why blaming everything on the Dems (who are certainly guilty) means nothing? There's clearly a colossal problem with the online left where they were duped by the millions onto inaction against fascism, which is surrender to fascism.
Nothing about purity, just contrarian; same people who supported Mamdani until he got popular or until average liberals began liking him. They're an insufferable bunch.
We have not one but several entire instances filled with people like this. Hell, the DSA unendorsed AOC, of all people, for being insufficiently pro-Palestine.
Funny how 90% of that interview, including calling Gaza a genocide is left out of the conversation. A cherry picked line in order to drive a wedge in support, this is not a real sentiment.
What chronically online group do you consider yourself a part of? Terminally online weirdos who call out other terminally online weirdos? It's the terminally online party that really bothers me about some people, it tends to drive people insane no matter what their political affiliation.
Terminally online weirdos who call out other terminally online weirdos?
I mean, I'd fit in that category. Mostly, and as I've repeated on here, I try to keep in mind that, though lunatics are not a negligible part of the electorate, they are still a very small part of it, and that the vast majority of leftists in the real world are willing to work and voice support for progressive causes.
I (unfortunately?) have extensive exposure to the outside world here in the US, for lack of other options, and am constantly reminded of that which the polls - both academic and electoral - continually bore out - that this is not a peoples who are as left as I - or most people on the Fediverse - would like.
It’s the terminally online party that really bothers me about some people, it tends to drive people insane no matter what their political affiliation.
Mostly it's that people who are terminally online tend to assign lower priority to other forms of social interaction and information gathering, combined with the ability of online communities to 'self-select' across vast geographic and cultural distances for ideological uniformity, and you have a recipe for one hell of an information bubble. Hell, how many times on here have I seen assertions that going left is the one and only solution needed to win elections going forward in the US, a country where the majority of the less-right-wing party and independents (who are generally more right-wing on average) want the country to either stay the same or go further right?
People get caught in these online maelstroms because it feels good to have people agree with you, and it feels good to have easy answers.
That's not even getting into questions of algorithms wrt what information is seen when searching.
The electorate does a left/right dance in the US that skates between the societal definition of left and right (or proggressive/conservative) at the time, it's a moving target, i mean shit the entire thing flipped in the US and people are still confused about what happened during the Civil rights era with the southern conservatives.
I would argue our current issue is the recently separated definition of social issues with money issues. Which, imo, started happening post dot Com bubble and caused a rejection of the liberalism that was very popular pre-trump. Now the pendulum swing is conservative, despite Trump doing so bad during covid that Biden got elected. The democrats leaned into the inflation index as a marker of progress which caused people to feel they were disconnected from signs of struggle, especially amongst the young. Dem policies largely blocked by groups of their own, the Manchins, the Sinemas, the blue dog democrats with Clinton (there's always enough to ensure we don't get a public option in obamacare).
We could have had this happen during the red scare and got McCarthyism, but another tyrant was available. This era has definitely made things more visible aka complicated, but we've been in dire straights before.
You spending all your time online isn't helping you or anyone, it's just making you more crazy. Them to! Maybe read some fucking books or something, clearly your eyes are fine.
the vast majority of leftists in the real world are willing to work and voice support for progressive causes.
The vast majority are like the one who made the comment. They cannot accept that Jews (and Arabs) are not going anywhere from the Levant. They have redefined Zionist as a slur rather than someone who thinks Jews should retain their own small ethno state (albeit surrounded by over 20 Muslim ethno states).
Anyone who criticizes Hamas are called genocidal baby killers (much like anyone who criticizes Israel is called anti-semitic, although that happens far less often).
The vast majority are like the one who made the comment.
Uh, doubtful, both by polling and personal experience.
They have redefined Zionist as a slur rather than someone who thinks Jews should retain their own small ethno state
...
When did ethnostates become acceptable again? Did the clock turn from 2025 to 1925 when I wasn't looking?
(albeit surrounded by over 20 Muslim ethno states).
I'm not sure you understand what an ethnostate is
Anyone who criticizes Hamas are called genocidal baby killers (much like anyone who criticizes Israel is called anti-semitic, although that happens far less often).
You're kidding, right?
Speaking as someone who is very offput by the whitewashing of Hamas atrocities, it is far more common for critics of Israel to be labeled antisemitic than for critics of Hamas to be labeled genocidal baby-killers.
...and today this tweet is deemed, King sovereign and personal representative of the political party known as "The Left", whom has solid and unified representation in the halls of power and high places through that one party we all agree is exactly representative of them.
With this tweet as its unified head!
Please come around next week, when we finally unmask the leadership of anon, AND antifa.
Please ignore any terms like RINO on your way out (we are all Charlie Kirk), or any other purity politics. Just know the problem is present on "The Left" (which is a collective and unified front).
I'm only saying this so we can focus our efforts on improvements, also why can't we all just get along? All replies must be positive, or you're not trying to get along with me. :)
You'll never be good enough, so join the winning team won't you? Form up! Form up BEHIND me. Good good.
"The Terminally Online Self-Proclaimed 'Leftist' Brigade, note the quotes, often decry everyone as not pure enough"
"Oh, so you think this is representative of ALL LEFTISTS???"
...
[looks at name of comm]
I’m only saying this so we can focus our efforts on improvements, also why can’t we all just get along. All replies must be positive, or you’re not trying to get along with me. :)
Here on Lemmy we created the space ourselves, WE direct the attention/character here.
I literally created this space, and I decree infighting counterproductive. This is a place where idealism is gauche, and we dedicate our limited time on this planet to figuring out an actionable strategy to accomplish the goals leftists tend to agree on.
It's very pragmatic. Practical tips for two party perceptions!
Yes. If you don't have a two party perception of the United States electoral system, you're a fool. Yes, we'd certainly like a system that supports more than two parties. Yes, most people are not adequately represented by either party. Yes, there are plenty of non-partisan practical actions you can take.
But if your perspective ignores the significance of the two parties, pragmatically you are as the kids say "cooked". That's why we focus on practical tips for paving the way for real leftism through practical tips.
If that's not your vibe, there are plenty of other, less pragmatic, leftist comms.
Two days ago I saw a turkish kid getting georgefloyed and i talked shit to the cop to get georgefloyed with him. I was in detention for 12 hours. I saw multiple people their face completely destroyed by police violence
the original poster is right.
I know about being pragmatic but if anyone think zohran is gonna be shockingly different, they are gonna be disappointed.
What practical, actionable leftist action does this post endeavor to discuss and/or devise?
Anything? Or is it just "stop shitting on Mamdani"?
Like I get the frustration all around, but what does posting screenshots and shitting on one guy on X/BlueSky/whatever practically do?
Are you counter-virtue-signalling the virtue-signaling leftist? Ok, cool. But I thought this feddit was supposed to be about pragmatics and planning? What's the plan here?
Seems like it. Mamdani is a miraculous phenomenon. His rise through local government, and approach to his larger campaign, is an example for all of us.
Shitting on Mamdani is counterproductive. It is pragmatic to disincentivize it if we want more Mamdanis, which I can say with confidence that we do.
I watched Zohran's subway takes episode where he vehemently denies any interest in "defunding the police". He then proceeds to explain his plan which is exactly what "defund the police" proponents advocate for. You can't take American politicians at their talking points so try to focus on their rhetoric, because that is significantly harder to fake
Being a politician means being a salesperson first and foremost. He knows that defund the police means doing the same things, but to voters one sounds harsh while the other sounds “common sense.” As a salesperson now I don’t get to makeup how people will hear my words, but I do get to shape what I say so I’m likely to be the winner.
You're mad at Mamdani when you should be mad that people don’t care enough to look up something and learn.
It's almost like "defund the police" was an ineffective tagline and people doing the real, hard work have to swim upstream with it tied around their legs.
"I found one person on the internet expressing an extreme position from the left. I bet s/he represents all opinions of all people to the left of <implicitly acceptable impure position that I implicitly hold for the purpose of this hypothetical, but which I don't explicitly claim so as to buy myself the pragmatic superiority derived from said strategic ambiguity>. Better post about it on my favorite internet forum to see how many sympathetic giggles I can get out of fellow strangers who will surely jump at the opportunity to mutually jerk in a circular fashion. Hhyy-uk!"
"I agree with 95% of this man's platform, but I disagree with his more moderate takes during speeches. I will show the establishment they can't control me by choosing not to vote, ensuring that someone much worse makes it into office. That'll show them"
Nothing says a person has principles like letting someone else decide them for you.
No you see, permitting mass murder, human trafficking, oppression and violations of bodily autonomy are much better than supporting a single somewhat crappy thing.
(that was a joke, but not a ha-ha joke)
maybe if you post your shit takes enough times in a single thread, someone will actually agree with them lol
it may surprise you that mass murder, rape, and abduction are deeply unpopular even when punching up
Does being "pure left" mean we can't condemn war crimes unless they're from the right? Calling out bullshit regardless of "teams" is part of what the left is all about.
The Terminally Online 'Leftist' Brigade disagrees, it would seem.
It isn't just the online ones and it makes me reluctant to even call myself left anymore. I rather describe myself as caring for others besides myself. Not catchy, I know.
Agreed, that comment wasn't "distilled" enough to be correct.
But yeah, imagine being online all day... No one but the freaks stare at their phone and computer all day, right Pug?
Which doesn't say anything about our society or the things it lacks, no, it's just those jerks and losers who are terminally online that are the problem.
Internet? I don't even have a connection y0... I'm pure offline baby!
If you forget to touch grass every once in a while, you can get caught in an information bubble. It's no different from fundamentalists who never leave their church's social circle.
If someone is so terminally online that they're decrying Zohran Mamdani as being insufficiently left for critical support on the grounds of 'acknowledging Hamas performed war crimes on Oct 7', they desperately need to touch grass.
There's not really enough political theory to address informational autocracy rn.
I like turtles, and attitude changes. I love corn! 🌽
...but we don't own the algorithms.
We are what we focus on, but online whose deciding that?... What about in an informational autocracy? Is it our own attention and where we lavish it, what we say to get it? Or is that always an A vs B choice, dished out by a billionaire's robot.
We are what we focus on to some degree. Perhaps more so on Lemmy.
Look to what you love, hope the positives out shine the negatives. Do the most important things at the most important times. Don't burn out.
I'm glad Zohran won, perhaps the rest is in the past already. It'd be nice if the progressive dems are given a shot, but we're all facing autocracy together.
Even the highlighted radical anti-capitalist purist we're focusing on today (our attention is here). How to coat correctives in sugar 101.
I don't envy Aesop, fables aren't easy to write.
Both Likud and Hamas are right though - dunno if you meant that. There are Tankies who whitewash Russian and Chinese atrocities because they perceive them as somehow still Left; Looking at you Roger Waters.
When are we going to stop pretending these allegedly-leftist agitators are actually on the left?
Anyone genuinely on the left would not waste their efforts infighting.
Infighting is the most ancient and hallowed of all leftist traditions.
Yeah you get a lot of opinionated, strong willed, free thinkers together and it kind of comes with the territory. We really should learn to pick our battles though- we should solve the big important things first and then we can squabble over the details.
is it? or is that like how "socialism doesn't work" because the CIA keeps murdering anyone who tries it?
Unless the CIA was founded during the French Revolution, I'm pretty sure it is.
Eeehh, infighting is kind of the logo of the far left.
Far right too, for that matter, horse shoe theory and all, I guess
I'd like to believe at least some of it is false flag ops. Or foreign powers seeking to create more chaos and disruption. But, some of it is people pushing for an acceleration of leftist policies. They see socialism succeeding in China, and Europe, and become frustrated that it's so demonized at home. They see unfathomable deaths unnecessary in parts of the world, and become self-knighted champions to fight against it. They mean well. They just don't have the patience of years of watching the pace of change creep, to emotionally deal with someone not instantly converted to their cause the way they were.
How does someone interested in leftist policies see the runaway success of a socialist, in this climate, as a thing to demonize? They don't. Anyone targeting Mamdani feels threatened by socialist policies, or is paid by someone who does.
They're dumbass attention whores. Sorry, bub, the left attracts dumb fucks, too
A huge portion of social media is from bots. Twitter removed millions of bots this week and it doesn't even dent the bot population there.
Foreign countries target American media because its military + nuclear arsenal is unbeatable in a full-scale war. No country would ever consider a war with America, so as a result efforts are dedicated to weakening it from within through psyops. Hence, lemmy.ml exists.
Yea you guys aren't that important lmao. Even americans leftists are suppremacists AHAHAH
https://www.cybercom.mil/Media/News/Article/3895345/russian-disinformation-campaign-doppelgnger-unmasked-a-web-of-deception/
Huh?
Thank you for revealing you are a fascist so I know to block you
A fascist?
You piece of shit two days ago I saw a turkish kid getting georgefloyed and i talked shit to the cop to get georgefloyed with him. I was in detention for 12 hours. I saw multiple people their face completely destroyed by police violence
What have you done beside whining about tankies on the internet and jerking off, you cowardy scum
TOL: "I'm gonna boycott voting for Dems to teach the Dems a lesson. Next time they'll put up a progressive!"
Reality: Trump wins and Biden is the 2020 candidate
TOL: "I'm gonna boycott voting for Dems to teach the Dems a lesson. Next time they'll put up a progressive!"
Reality: Biden wins but Dems can't get passed the filibuster because of a slim majority.
Trump never gets prosecuted and GOP lays groundwork to end democracy and instill fascism if Trump wins next time
TOL: "I'm gonna boycott voting for Dems to teach the Dems a lesson. Next time they'll put up a progressive!"
Reality: Trump wins 2024 and now US democracy is gone, probably permenantly.
Newsome is most likely to be next Dem nominee
Do we expect anything less from these troglodytes?
I expect nothing, but a man can hope he can nudge a few fence sitters
This is a really convenient way to view the Democratic party's constant failures. It's always someone else's fault besides the ones in charge. -_-
Oh no, those poor powerless dems that keep winning elections and look the other way when one of their memebers breaks ranks to be the ACTUAL deciding factor.
This narrative is propaganda, that the DNC is entitled to a magically giant number of votes from people who don't exist and that's why they're always useless.
It's definitely not because the Democratic party is complicit in the oligarchy or anything...
it's voting, not marriage. you vote for the least harm to those you care about (or fucking should, duh).
it's not an ideological purity exam, it's a multi-year term and then you vote again. vote the best option you have, otherwise we're gonna have trumps forever.
I cannot fathom how hard it is to get people to understand this very simple thing.
I voted for Kamala
Neoliberalism failing to provide meaningful positive change makes apathetic voters
I can not fathom how hard it is to get people like you to understand that voters as a group do not and will never vote in their own self interests and logic. They vote with their feelings, and when nothing gets tangibly better under a leader, they vote them out.
lot of fucking good it does 'em
Does even less good to pretend like human beings will fundamentally change their individual behaviors en masse in between election cycles.
Dems are supposed to be the educated ones, if they give a shit about winning, they would have learned this fact about voters and enabled meaningful change to happen.
sure buddy. whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.
What a weird way to handle the fact that people are stupid
You're missing the point entirely, which seems to be the main problem the online left has.
The point is simple. I'll bold it for you.
THE US COLLAPSING INTO FASCISM WOULDNT BE HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IF KAMALA HAD WON
KAMALA WOULD HAVE HAD BETTER ODDS OF WINNING IF THE ONLINE LEFT DIDNT BOYCOTT THE VOTE AND ENCOURAGED OTHERS TO VOTE FOR HER.
BOYCOTTING THE VOTE CONTRIBUTED TO HER LOSS, THUS GIVING TRUMP THE VICTORY
THUS MARGINALIZED PEOPLE ARE BEING SENT TO CONCENTRATION CAMPS IN A GENOCIDE ON US SOIL
THUS DEMOCRACY HAS ENDED IN THE USA, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY NON-FASCIST TO WIN
Now let's do transitive property:
Millions of the left boycotted Kamala, even knowing about P2025 a year in advance, thus contributing to her loss.
Now the US is falling to literal fascism and starting a genocide against minorities on US soil.
Do you see why blaming everything on the Dems (who are certainly guilty) means nothing? There's clearly a colossal problem with the online left where they were duped by the millions onto inaction against fascism, which is surrender to fascism.
Yeah, let's keep republicans in power! That'll show us! /s
Nothing about purity, just contrarian; same people who supported Mamdani until he got popular or until average liberals began liking him. They're an insufferable bunch.
I'm convinced these people don't exist. They are right wing trolls meant to divide people
We have not one but several entire instances filled with people like this. Hell, the DSA unendorsed AOC, of all people, for being insufficiently pro-Palestine.
And the Republican lunatics are actually left-wing trolls, right? Or are they Russian bots?
Did you seriously watch Tucker Carlson for ten whole minutes? Are you punishing yourself for something?
probably bots
Mostly troll farms...
🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🇯🇴 🇮🇱
There's being outside the Overton Window, and then there's being outside the Overton's all together, next door at the Godwin's.
Funny how 90% of that interview, including calling Gaza a genocide is left out of the conversation. A cherry picked line in order to drive a wedge in support, this is not a real sentiment.
What chronically online group do you consider yourself a part of? Terminally online weirdos who call out other terminally online weirdos? It's the terminally online party that really bothers me about some people, it tends to drive people insane no matter what their political affiliation.
I mean, I'd fit in that category. Mostly, and as I've repeated on here, I try to keep in mind that, though lunatics are not a negligible part of the electorate, they are still a very small part of it, and that the vast majority of leftists in the real world are willing to work and voice support for progressive causes.
I (unfortunately?) have extensive exposure to the outside world here in the US, for lack of other options, and am constantly reminded of that which the polls - both academic and electoral - continually bore out - that this is not a peoples who are as left as I - or most people on the Fediverse - would like.
Mostly it's that people who are terminally online tend to assign lower priority to other forms of social interaction and information gathering, combined with the ability of online communities to 'self-select' across vast geographic and cultural distances for ideological uniformity, and you have a recipe for one hell of an information bubble. Hell, how many times on here have I seen assertions that going left is the one and only solution needed to win elections going forward in the US, a country where the majority of the less-right-wing party and independents (who are generally more right-wing on average) want the country to either stay the same or go further right?
People get caught in these online maelstroms because it feels good to have people agree with you, and it feels good to have easy answers.
That's not even getting into questions of algorithms wrt what information is seen when searching.
The electorate does a left/right dance in the US that skates between the societal definition of left and right (or proggressive/conservative) at the time, it's a moving target, i mean shit the entire thing flipped in the US and people are still confused about what happened during the Civil rights era with the southern conservatives.
I would argue our current issue is the recently separated definition of social issues with money issues. Which, imo, started happening post dot Com bubble and caused a rejection of the liberalism that was very popular pre-trump. Now the pendulum swing is conservative, despite Trump doing so bad during covid that Biden got elected. The democrats leaned into the inflation index as a marker of progress which caused people to feel they were disconnected from signs of struggle, especially amongst the young. Dem policies largely blocked by groups of their own, the Manchins, the Sinemas, the blue dog democrats with Clinton (there's always enough to ensure we don't get a public option in obamacare).
We could have had this happen during the red scare and got McCarthyism, but another tyrant was available. This era has definitely made things more visible aka complicated, but we've been in dire straights before.
You spending all your time online isn't helping you or anyone, it's just making you more crazy. Them to! Maybe read some fucking books or something, clearly your eyes are fine.
The vast majority are like the one who made the comment. They cannot accept that Jews (and Arabs) are not going anywhere from the Levant. They have redefined Zionist as a slur rather than someone who thinks Jews should retain their own small ethno state (albeit surrounded by over 20 Muslim ethno states).
Anyone who criticizes Hamas are called genocidal baby killers (much like anyone who criticizes Israel is called anti-semitic, although that happens far less often).
Uh, doubtful, both by polling and personal experience.
...
When did ethnostates become acceptable again? Did the clock turn from 2025 to 1925 when I wasn't looking?
I'm not sure you understand what an ethnostate is
You're kidding, right?
Speaking as someone who is very offput by the whitewashing of Hamas atrocities, it is far more common for critics of Israel to be labeled antisemitic than for critics of Hamas to be labeled genocidal baby-killers.
Now I'm certain you don't understand what an ethnostate is.
Compare r/worldnews (generally pro Israel) with r/animetitties (pro Pal) to see what I mean (the latter is a serious news sub; long origin story).
FYI in case it wasn't just a typo, "apart" means almost the opposite of "a part"
Good catch there Webster, fixed!
ITT: People compare the staw man in the picture to real people with valid complaints about their leadership
...and today this tweet is deemed, King sovereign and personal representative of the political party known as "The Left", whom has solid and unified representation in the halls of power and high places through that one party we all agree is exactly representative of them.
With this tweet as its unified head!
Please come around next week, when we finally unmask the leadership of anon, AND antifa.
Please ignore any terms like RINO on your way out (we are all Charlie Kirk), or any other purity politics. Just know the problem is present on "The Left" (which is a collective and unified front).
I'm only saying this so we can focus our efforts on improvements, also why can't we all just get along? All replies must be positive, or you're not trying to get along with me. :)
You'll never be good enough, so join the winning team won't you? Form up! Form up BEHIND me. Good good.
"The Terminally Online Self-Proclaimed 'Leftist' Brigade, note the quotes, often decry everyone as not pure enough"
"Oh, so you think this is representative of ALL LEFTISTS???"
...
[looks at name of comm]
What irony.
Oh hey, look at all the in fighting there's space for in this bad boy!
Here on Lemmy we created the space ourselves, WE direct the attention/character here.
It's very pragmatic. Practical tips for two party perceptions!
Comment and review, it's what we do.
OP can't change the tide, don't reply.
How to convey the outcome you want?
Who knows. What are we focusing on?
I literally created this space, and I decree infighting counterproductive. This is a place where idealism is gauche, and we dedicate our limited time on this planet to figuring out an actionable strategy to accomplish the goals leftists tend to agree on.
Yes. If you don't have a two party perception of the United States electoral system, you're a fool. Yes, we'd certainly like a system that supports more than two parties. Yes, most people are not adequately represented by either party. Yes, there are plenty of non-partisan practical actions you can take.
But if your perspective ignores the significance of the two parties, pragmatically you are as the kids say "cooked". That's why we focus on practical tips for paving the way for real leftism through practical tips.
If that's not your vibe, there are plenty of other, less pragmatic, leftist comms.
Two days ago I saw a turkish kid getting georgefloyed and i talked shit to the cop to get georgefloyed with him. I was in detention for 12 hours. I saw multiple people their face completely destroyed by police violence
TerMinAllY OnliNe. You literally post 24/7
the original poster is right.
I know about being pragmatic but if anyone think zohran is gonna be shockingly different, they are gonna be disappointed.
What practical, actionable leftist action does this post endeavor to discuss and/or devise?
Anything? Or is it just "stop shitting on Mamdani"?
Like I get the frustration all around, but what does posting screenshots and shitting on one guy on X/BlueSky/whatever practically do?
Are you counter-virtue-signalling the virtue-signaling leftist? Ok, cool. But I thought this feddit was supposed to be about pragmatics and planning? What's the plan here?
Seems like it. Mamdani is a miraculous phenomenon. His rise through local government, and approach to his larger campaign, is an example for all of us.
Shitting on Mamdani is counterproductive. It is pragmatic to disincentivize it if we want more Mamdanis, which I can say with confidence that we do.
I watched Zohran's subway takes episode where he vehemently denies any interest in "defunding the police". He then proceeds to explain his plan which is exactly what "defund the police" proponents advocate for. You can't take American politicians at their talking points so try to focus on their rhetoric, because that is significantly harder to fake
Being a politician means being a salesperson first and foremost. He knows that defund the police means doing the same things, but to voters one sounds harsh while the other sounds “common sense.” As a salesperson now I don’t get to makeup how people will hear my words, but I do get to shape what I say so I’m likely to be the winner.
You're mad at Mamdani when you should be mad that people don’t care enough to look up something and learn.
To me theyre precisely why hard left people rarely get into power.
They feel they shouldn't have to play by the rules of the game as stupid as they are and thus rarely ever win. To their own detriment.
Yyyup. The game is what it is. You can learn how to win, or you can lose and criticize the winners from the sideline.
I wish the same could be said of the far right but trashing the constitution is a point of honour for the King of USA and his cultists lap it up.
It's almost like "defund the police" was an ineffective tagline and people doing the real, hard work have to swim upstream with it tied around their legs.
Yeah. It is catchy though. "Reallocate Some Portion of Police Funding to More Comprehensive Social Services" just doesn't roll off the tongue.
Based Tweet. Also PugJesus piss off with your new account you right wing grifter I already blocked your previous one.
@[email protected]
Sadly a very real sentiment.
"I found one person on the internet expressing an extreme position from the left. I bet s/he represents all opinions of all people to the left of <implicitly acceptable impure position that I implicitly hold for the purpose of this hypothetical, but which I don't explicitly claim so as to buy myself the pragmatic superiority derived from said strategic ambiguity>. Better post about it on my favorite internet forum to see how many sympathetic giggles I can get out of fellow strangers who will surely jump at the opportunity to mutually jerk in a circular fashion. Hhyy-uk!"
What the fuck are you talking about
Precisely.