OBJECTION! @ Objection @lemmy.ml Posts 24Comments 2,913Joined 1 yr. ago
Bit idea: Guy who's desperate to prove he's not a Nazi so he just starts doing everything the Nazis accused people of doing, up to and including helping Jewish people commit genocide
Maryland Sen. Van Hollen meets with mistakenly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia in El Salvador
Banned for calling out a mod after they claimed that criticism of Japanese Internment was "not legitimate"
If you thought missiles were disruptive to trade, wait til you see what policy can do
On a scale of 1-10, how accurate do you believe the charge scene from "Enemy at the Gates" is?
Add "Havana Syndrome" to the list of fake stories that you're not allowed to question on .world
Dear CEO fans, when you watch Andor, you need to understand that Syril Karn is about you.
The state, something that anarchists famously believe is made by and for the people.
I’m a devout believer in voting blue no matter who until there is a better alternative.
The problem, fundamentally, is that you have no plan (and actively opposed plans) to make an alternative come into reality. Because you are a liberal who supports what we already have. Where there's a will, there's a way, but when there isn't a will, there certainly isn't a way - this is why you cannot find any alternative to voting blue no matter who unconditionally, forever (no matter how much you try to weasel that you don't), because you don't actually want to find an alternative, because you're not in the market for one at all.
But, as a liberal, you can't actually stand for anything, even liberalism. You exaxtly fit MLK's description of the white moderate who is always saying, "I agree with your goals but I disagree with your methods" and is always telling people to "wait for a more convenient time." We've been through this and I will not entertain your pretenses of being any sort of leftist.
I've tried reasoning with you before so I know you won't listen, you are a devout believer in voting blue no matter who and I'd have about as much luck trying to reason with you as if I tried to convince my parents to become atheists.
Everything you say is wrong, and your words constantly show your true beliefs that you refuse to admit. For example, "The Dems told Palestinian activists to wait their turn to talk," when in fact they disrupted protests through force, arrested many of them, denounced them as antisemites, and refused to give even the token gesture of allowing a Palestinians speaker at the convention. You don't mind any of that, because despite what you'll say, you don't care about the issue.
I have no interest in discussing anything further with you.
So if “the status quo” inevitably leads to fascism, the only way to avoid fascism would be a society that is in constant change?
No, that doesn't follow at all from what I said. The present, declining status quo is leading towards people losing faith in it, and in the present conditions, the far right are the only ones capable of offering the convincing appearance of an alternative. Not every status quo is declining, in some cases, it may be possible to address such decline, and in other cases, the left is able to present a realistic alternative to both the right and the status quo, and so the rise of fascism would no longer be an inevitability - if there are more doors than door #2, people may pick another door.
Fascism, or things very much like it, happen whenever you let fear mongering powerhungry fools who deny reality in favor of some kind of nostalgia infused “greater” image of your society get away with their bullshit.
No, Fascism is not some random aberration, it is capitalism's rational solution the problem of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. When there is no room for the economy to grow, society is divided into an gradually shrinking in group and an ever expanding out group, by seizing the assets of the out group and feeding them into the in group, artificial growth can be maintained, for a time. A more permanent and viable solution is to nationalize developed industries, removing the profit motive once it is no longer useful, that is, socialism.
This is the fundamental difference in worldviews between liberals and leftists regarding the present situation. Liberals see Trump and the alt-right as this sort of bizarre fluke that seemingly came out of nowhere, and may well return to nowhere just as spontaneously. Leftists actually study the material reasons that caused them to come into political relevance, and thereby understand that even if you cut the weeds, the roots are still there and will regrow, that the material reasons that created them in the first place must be addressed.
We had a chance to stop it with civility, but were pretty much pass that point.
When? Like, sometime in the 70's, perhaps?
Yes, "inevitably." What the fuck do you think is going to happen when one side is "A declining status quo that we refuse to fix as it gets worse and worse," and the other is, "Let's see what's behind door #2! (hint: It's fascism!)"
Inevitably people will grow dissatisfied with the status quo, and look for any alternative. Inevitably. 100% chance. What part of that is so hard to understand?
No. If there is any hope of actual survival, that comes before all else. Accepting the slow death of "voting blue no matter who" means that there is no possibility of averting fascism whatsoever. It is an inevitability that if the only side representing "the left" is associating itself with a declining status quo while refusing to do any of the things necessary to keep that status quo functional, them people will abandon it, and if the only ones offering an alternative are the far-right, then they are the ones who will win. There is no hope of survival whatsoever.
There are, however, two possibilities that do offer some slim hope of surviving. One is that the Democratic party can be pressured into doing the basic, minimal tasks of governance necessary to avert fascism - tasks that they will never simply choose to do of their own volition. The second is that the left can establish a credible alternative outside of the organization of the Democratic party, whether electorally or otherwise. Both of those objectives are furthered by voting third party when the Democrats are offering someone insultingly unacceptable, while "voting blue no matter who" flies directly contrary to both goals.
You're thinking of it as doing chemo when there's no cure. That's not what this is. This is deciding to just take a nice little nap in the comfy snow because your legs are so tired and you'll totally get up again in just a few minutes, rather than choosing to get up and push forward through the darkness in the hope, however slim, of finding an actual shelter.
This "buying time to organize" line is constantly thrown around, I don't buy it as sincere at all, for starters. But regardless, time is not on our side, buying time only means allowing conditions to deteriorate further, it's just procrastinating and kicking the can down the line. And how do you effectively organize an alternative to the status quo and present yourself as separate from it while simultaneously trying to rally around it and supporting it unconditionally? It's nonsense.
What planet are you living on where either of those strategies are actually what's being employed?
The right turns out because they're getting what they want. Would they still turn out of the candidate was a RINO who was soft on things like guns, abortion, or immigration? Probably not! The party has been disciplined by the base for deviating on those issues often enough that they have kept moving to more extreme right positions and the right no longer has any reason to defect.
Meanwhile, there are tons of people on (what passes for) the left who will readily agree that Biden and Harris were complicit in genocide, in some of the worst crimes imaginable, and yet, we should still fall in line behind them. Right wingers will be like, "Sure, this guy has an impeccable record on most of the issues I care about, but he accepted free federal Medicare expansion, which is socialism, so fuck that RINO piece of shit commie traitor I'm voting Libertarian!" And so the Libertarian Party is triple the size of the Greens. And yet, somehow, libs are constantly obsessed with this idea that somewhere out there, someone might be standing on leftist principles, and that's the worst thing ever and they must immediately be lectured and shamed for it.
Try to pull that shit in some of their circles and you're liable to get shot. I mean, can you imagine? "Look, I'm as upset as anybody that the only realistic candidates are anti-gun, but you just have to accept that guns are not on the ballot this time around, you're going to have to vote for someone who wants to take your guns away, and if you don't, it means you're a bad person and I'll constantly lecture you about it. Hey, where are pointing that- OK, OK, I'LL LEAVE"
Leftists have been doing this strategy for a couple decades now
OBJECTION!
What actual evidence do you have of this claim?
This gets thrown around all the time as "conventional wisdom," but it's never actually backed up by anything. In fact, the Libertarian Party typically gets roughly three times the number of votes as the Green Party, and the last major third party candidate, Ross Perot, split the Republican vote leading to Clinton's election.
More recently, the 2016 election had two major "outsider" candidates. Of them, Trump refused to rule out a third party run, while Sanders went all out campaigning for Clinton, despite all the shenanigans with superdelegates.
Only in 2024 can I see a credible case that some of the left has begun using the stubborn, "my way or the highway" tactics that the right has been employing for decades - with a high degree of success, I might add! The Republican Party has shifted further and further right to accommodate the demands of their base, because they know that if they're soft on things like guns or abortion, significant portions of their base will denounce them as RINOs and sit out or vote third party. The Democratic Party, by contrast, knows that they can always count on the left to flinch, to be "reasonable," to accept the "lesser evil," and so they have moved further right as well, taking those votes for granted.
Again, every piece of actual evidence contradicts this "conventional wisdom," which only exists in the first place because liberals are so preoccupied with the idea that someone, somewhere, might choose to stand on principle rather than fall in line. Meanwhile, people on the right are constantly choosing to die on the dumbest, most petty hills imaginable.
OK it turns out I'm actually just dumb 😣. I listened to it a bunch of times trying to pin it down and finally identified that it was audio fuzz.
"only one I found," "long-lasting," "spearmint, cooling peppermint" "cinnamon is called" those were all around the parts where I thought I was hearing something, and then the last section was clear, and when I turned the volume up, those parts all have a sort of "blown out mic" sound with a low frequency, and I heard that sound as part of your voice.
It's quite good, but if you're looking for something to practice anyway I'd suggest resonance exercises. I might just be picking up because my ear is listening for it, but it's a super important part of voice training so I'm gonna infodump for anyone interested.
Hey, I agree with you, a two state solution isn't viable (albeit for the opposite reason, that Isreal is a beligerant, expansionist, genocidal state that should not exist). Now, as a "leftist," I'm sure that you'd agree that, if everyone's going to be part of the same state, then of course everyone should have equal rights, including voting rights, correct? You want every Palestinian to have the same voice in government that Israeli citizens do, right?
Or is it that when you call for a one state solution, what you mean is that you want to continue denying them rights within your own state while also preventing them from having their own state? To seize their territory and then have them remain as second class citizens who are denied fundamental human rights? For your race to reign dominant over others?
You don't need to answer, I think we all know the answer to that question, fascist.
And I'm not a fan of Zionazis trying to pass themselves off as "leftists" while supporting genocide and apartheid, but here we are.
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. I mean, I'm also 100% a leftist, I'm extremely left on most issues, but I also just don't get why so many people are opposed to this one particular state.
I mean, people always talk about the whole conflict with Germany starting in 1939, but you really have to consider that those wars happened because they were reclaiming territory like the Danzig Corridor that belonged to them historically. They even tried giving territory back to France by setting up the Vichy Republic. And it was the communists and partisans going around trying to stir up a class war who really started things, we had to put them in camps for the sake of security. And I feel bad for any innocent people caught up in it, but it just feels like nobody extends the same concerns to the German civilians the government is trying to protect. At the end of the day, if the Reichstag Fire hadn't happened, none of this would be happening.
Oh! My mistake, it seems I mixed up the names of some countries and events there. You're totally right though, if those people didn't want to get massacred and starved, they shouldn't have tried to resist your political project and/or had homes in places you wanted to forcibly seize. You know, this is just like what I'm always saying, "It's your own fault you got slapped, because you shouldn't have resisted." I mean, that's what leftism is all about, amirite?
Not every show set in the past aims or needs to be historically accurate. Our Flag Means Death, for example, takes some pretty big creative liberties in that regard, but without those liberties you wouldn't have a show.
If historical shows stuck to realism while being inclusive, that would mean a lot more sad, depressing stories that are difficult to watch. And there's absolutely a time and place for those sorts of stories, but practically speaking it's more likely that the show would simply chose not to include those characters at all, or if they did, then few people would watch it. Even marginalized people would often prefer to see a somewhat romanticized version where the character isn't defined by their race, gender, or sexual orientation.
To say it's trying to erase historical prejudices is a very surface level critique. When I see, for example, Watson from Sherlock Holmes reimagined as a woman or a person of color, the idea that the producers are trying to convince the audience that racism/sexism didn't exist at the time wouldn't cross my mind at all and sounds absurd. I don't think anyone's watching it and taking that away. If a show doesn't show people needing to use the bathroom, I understand that it's because of a mutual understanding that the writers don't want to show that and the audience doesn't want to see it, and if a show doesn't want to show racism/sexism, it's from a similar mutual understanding.
There are exceptions, where a show does aim to be (or pass itself off as) historically accurate, and when it's reasonable to expect it to handle those topics, then maybe. The one that comes to mind is Hamilton, which does whitewash certain things but even then I would say that having a diverse cast that doesn't personally experience racism is not the problem.
There are some libertarian types who might put up a token objection to medding in foreign conflicts. However, Trump equivocated on foreign policy while Biden and Harris were fully gung ho about getting involved in every conflict everywhere, which allowed Trump to sell himself as more "moderate" on foreign policy (though in reality he's also a hawk).
The core of Trump's base has no problem with it, of course, but they're always going to vote for him and not every voter Trump replied on to win fits that stereotype.
When he was a serf, they said to him, "Let me find you in this field: I will hang you if I find you in anyone else's field." But now he is a tramp they say to him, "You shall be jailed if I find you in anyone else's field: but I will not give you a field." They say, "You shall be punished if you are caught sleeping outside your shed: but there is no shed." If you say that modern magistracies could never say such mad contradictions, I answer with entire certainty that they do say them. A little while ago two tramps were summoned before a magistrate, charged with sleeping in the open air when they had nowhere else to sleep. But this is not the full fun of the incident. The real fun is that each of them eagerly produced about twopence, to prove that they could have got a bed, but deliberately didn't. To which the policeman replied that twopence would not have got them a bed: that they could not possibly have got a bed: and therefore (argued that thoughtful officer) they ought to be punished for not getting one. The intelligent magistrate was much struck with the argument: and proceeded to imprison these two men for not doing a thing they could not do. But he was careful to explain that if they had sinned needlessly and in wanton lawlessness, they would have left the court without a stain on their characters; but as they could not avoid it, they were very much to blame.
The desperate man to-day can do nothing. For you cannot agree with a maniac who sits on the bench with the straws sticking out of his hair and says, "Procure threepence from nowhere and I will give you leave to do without it."
(GK Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils)
People complain when I ask them to read like 1000 words of theory to understand a strain of thought that's extremely historically significant and remains prominent in many countries around the world, but somehow it's reasonable to expect someone to slog through 1000 pages of boring masturbatory bootlicking just to be allowed to say it sucks.
Then you agree with me.
What we are discussing here is not whether Lenin was correct but rather whether he had an accurate interpretation of Marx and Engles. If you want to argue that Marx and Engles were wrong, and that Lenin was wrong because he was following in that tradition, that's a completely different position from that of the person I replied to, that Marx and Engles were right and that Lenin was wrong because he deviated from that position.
I'm not really interested in getting sidetracked here from this point into this much broader discussion. I'd be happy to discuss it another time, but for now, we're talking about whether Lenin correctly interpreted Marx's writings and followed in his tradition or not.