you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 25 points 2 months ago (72 children)

The fuck?

She's progressive. DSA is progressive. The fuck is your problem?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 72 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (30 children)

    AOC isn't left enough for many MLs and neither is the DSA, sadly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (23 children)

    We all know how much they hate libs, it's their most-used pejorative. To be fair though, establishment liberals (eg Schumer) are part of the reason we're in this mess... I can't say I hold them in high regard either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (19 children)

    Yes but most tankies seem to hate centrist neoliberal Dems worse than they hate maga republicans. And they consider DSA to be centrist neolibs like the rest if the democratic party.

    They'd rather see a trump third term than a Dem or even DSA president.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Yes but most tankies seem to hate centrist neoliberal Dems worse than they hate maga republicans.

    I mean... Sometimes, it's easier to hate those who lie about being progressive, than those who tell the truth about being reactionaries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (11 children)

    Not sure what you're intending to accomplish by saying that or how it applies to what I said. But I wouldn't call him great. Influential, yes, infamous, also yes. But not great.

    Unless you consider Hitler to be a "great man," but honestly trump is closer to Mussolini (although he wishes he could be like Hitler). Hitler accomplished more than trump could dream of. Evil, repugnant, and deplorable, yes. But effective, without a doubt.

    And I also wouldn't say it's accidental. He views himself as a "great man," and tries to do what he thinks a great man would. But everything he does is what a small man would, because he has the mind of a small man. He just happens to have fallen into a life of privilege which surrounded him with the people and wealth necessary to achieve what he has. Anyone placed in his shoes could have accomplished as much and more, and done it better.

    So no, he's not an "accidental great man." He's a failed attempt at greatness which happens to have caused immense destruction to everything and everyone except for his corrupt inner circle which is profiting off of that destruction. If that's what "greatness" is to you, then we don't see eye-to-eye.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (9 children)

    Your logic is that trump, who epitomizes everything that's wrong with america, and is deliberately provoking and permitting the evil that has always lurked within it, and is causing widespread suffering and devastation throughout the world, at home as well as abroad, is somehow redeemable because he's accelerating the destruction of the US, dismantling its institutions which represent its only redeeming qualities, and destabilizing the tenuous balance that has only ever existed during its best times?

    Not surprising at all for an .ml user. You don't care if the world suffers as long as you get to watch america burn. Do you not realize that if trump succeeds in destroying the US government as an institution, then whatever ends up replacing it is likely to be far, far worse?

    Fake-leftist accelerationist will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify supporting maga, while simultaneously trashing every progressive who runs for office.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (7 children)

    Trump is a symptom of America's evil lol, not the cause of it.

    I never said he was the cause of america's evil. If he's a symptom though then that's a pretty weak argument for naming him a "great man". But I don't really expect argumentative consistency from .ml users anymore.

    I would argue he is the most American American.

    I literally said he epitomizes everything that's wrong with the country, so you're not contradicting me.

    You know there was plans for a Canadian invasion for decades before trump was in power?

    Source?

    The faster you collapse, the better off the rest of the planet will be.

    You have no clue what would replace it, and no reason to believe it wouldn't be far worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    there was plans for a Canadian invasion for decades before trump was in power

    I seem to remember being told every West point grad writes a plan for a country. canada would need to be on the list. it's just that these plans are written by, essentially, undergrads, and probably need polish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    I seem to remember being told I could fart rainbows if I eat enough skittles, that doesn't make it true...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    these are the kinds of facts you might be able to just look up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Okay well even if a westpoint grad wrote a capstone project about a battle plan for invading canada, that's like accusing [insert public research university here] of supporting radical vegan gay space communism because some vegan grad student wrote a master's thesis about it.

    Even less so, because the officer academy is more like undergrad...

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, that's the only explanation that makes sense. No one could be as irrational as tankies.

    Oh wait, maga fascists are that irrational and it seems genuine.

    I'm tired, boss...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • MAGA is a mix of true believers and grifters. I think that's true of all cults, MAGA's just the one I have the most firsthand experience with. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which. Generally, the true believers are the ones losing money and the grifters are the ones gaining, but occasionally a true believer makes it to the top. I think Marjorie Taylor Greene is one example, though IDK I don't know her personally so she might just be a competent grifter.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I'm not from the US, so I might be misinterpreting something, but I imagine that it stems from a sentiment that liberalism is inherently in favor of the status quo and capitalism, which makes sense from a materialist perspective, and thus liberalism would be a bourgeois conservative ideology, under that interpretation. A view that I also tend to share, mind you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I think you hit the nail on the head, yeah. I'm of the same opinion.

    I've seen some militant MLs drag the DSA and progressive politicians as "sheepdogs", which personally I think does us a disservice. It's understandable for people to have a dim view of incremental change. But in my mind, we need to attack the status quo from as many angles as we can, within the system and without.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (18 children)

    She voted to give weapons to Israel, to redefine antisemitism to include antizionism, and to break a rail strike. Each of those is a significant red flag that, regardless of progressive posturing, she will submit to the wishes of the establishment when push comes to shove.

    The state of politics in the US is so bad that many progressives will immediately cling to and champion anyone who says progressive things, but talk is cheap. It's fair to evaluate and judge politicians not just by their rhetoric, but whether they actually follow through with their promises.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago*

    Notice how they constantly link government funded tracts as if they’re sources.

    If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they’re lying.

    Yes yes, I know, I've engaged in wrongthink, therefore I'm a "Kremlin bot" and can be written out regardless of how much evidence I provide for the things I'm saying. Notice that I didn't link any "government funded tracts" here, but the DSA's own statements about this. Unless you're implying that the DSA is also full of "Kremlin bots?"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (15 children)

    This take is so stupid. It's clear online lefties have absolutely no idea about i/p except what they see from twitter and instagram. Yea, the state of us politics is so bad, I agree, that lefties are incapable of dealing with any reality outside of slop soundbites

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (14 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (13 children)

    Like, take your outlandish headlines for example. The claims sound really damming at face value. But when you actually read up on it, reality starts to make more sense than these slop sound bytes. But, here we are

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (11 children)

    Yep yep. It's all slop headlines all the way

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (9 children)

    No, it takes twice as much energy to refute lies and stupidity. The iron dome bill is exclusively for defense weapons intended to intercept icbms etc, but that wouldnt matter to you because you probably would say something insane like "Israel doesn't have a right to exist" or something to that extent. So we're not having a conversation based in reality. You screeching "Israel doesn't have a right to exist" isn't going to make several million Jews pack up their bags and exit the Levant. So we're back to living in the world of Twitter memes and slop sound bytes.

    Now, I'm not saying I can predict how you're going to move the goalposts. But I can infer where you stand

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)

    Ah, there's your reason. You don't care that she sent arms to Israel because you want arms to be sent to Israel.

    See, now we can identify the point of disagreement, which is that I'm not a genocidal Zionist.

    The iron dome bill is exclusively for defense weapons

    The thing about defense is that once you have it locked down, you're free to do whatever aggression you want because nobody will be able to retaliate. The possibility of reprisals is the only reason Israel hasn't fired up gas chambers and furnaces.

    By your logic, why don't we just send Iran, Palestine, etc. the same kind of "defensive" weapons? It's not like they'll be able to hurt anyone with them. You can say "Iran doesn't have the right to exist" or whatever but that's not going to cause millions of Iranians to pack up and leave.

    No, it takes twice as much energy to refute lies and stupidity.

    So essentially you can just say whatever you want with nothing to back it up, gotcha.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (7 children)

    So essentially you can just say whatever you want with nothing to back it up, gotcha.

    I've explained what the iron dome is.

    By your logic, why don't we just send Iran, Palestine, etc. the same kind of "defensive" weapons?

    Correct. They are not key allies in the me.

    See, now we can identify the point of disagreement, which is that I'm not a genocidal Zionist.

    And now we're back in the world of slop sound bytes. I'm so happy for you that you're anti-genocidal. How brave and noble

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    I’ve explained what the iron dome is.

    Everyone knows what the Iron Dome is, dipshit.

    Correct

    Correct? What TF do you mean correct? Correct we should send Iran missile defense systems?

    They are not key allies in the me.

    So you support the alliance with the genocidal regime.

    And now we’re back in the world of slop sound bytes. I’m so happy for you that you’re anti-genocidal.

    Describing things dismissively doesn't make them untrue.

    I don't even know why you're weighing in on this conversation. Obviously, I'm criticizing her from an anti-Zionist perspective. If you want to argue that she aligns with your Zionist values, then sure, I agree with that completely. From the perspective that genocide is actually bad, however, the criticism is completely valid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

    Nothing I've said or cited was AI generated or had anything to do with twitter, nor were they soundbites. I linked full articles put out by the DSA.

    And that includes bringing Israel to the table.

    And that's exactly why they don't need to be given weapons "defensive" or otherwise. How exactly do you think they can be brought to the table? By asking them nicely to not do genocide? Trying to appease Israel by giving them weapons is no more possible than trying to appease Hitler by giving him Czechoslovakia. There is exactly one limiting factor on Israeli aggression, exactly one way to bring them to the table, and it is force. Kamala was fully, 100% behind the genocide and wouldn't have done shit, just like Biden.

    If you guys aren’t capable of addressing these with real concrete actionable items, it’s just effervescent self masturbatory ejaculate

    You guys had full control of the executive branch, and what did you do to stop the genocide? How did giving them weapons and asking nicely to "bring them to the table" work out for you?

    I find it hard to believe anyone's dumb enough to actually think that's a viable strategy. Again, you're just a Zionist, you just support giving them weapons because you don't have any problem whatsoever with what's happening there, you just don't want to say it outright because it sounds bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Who the fuck said anything about Trump? Pure whataboutism.

    Why are you acting like it's some sort of revalation that I don't like Harris? I'm criticizing AOC for being too friendly to the genocidal Zionist regime, and Harris was even more friendly with them. Or do you just like the soundbite of "And there it is?"

    No, I didn’t say you used an llm. I’m saying your talking points are indistinguishable from one. It’s just slop sound bytes, nothing more.

    Whereas you have the incredibly unique perspective of blindly believing and supporting whatever the politicians of your preferred tribe say or do.

    The fact that you can’t at least acknowledge that Israel was also being attacked, especially after Oct 7

    That's not a fact, you pulled that one completely out of your ass. I'm happy to acknowledge it. It changes absolutely nothing about my stance.

    You are saying so much and nothing at the same time.

    For someone who claims to hate "soundbites" you sure do love trying to make your 'zingers' sound profound.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    You equivocated Kamala with what is happening now:

    Kamala was fully, 100% behind the genocide and wouldn’t have done shit, just like Biden.

    That's not equating (equivocating is something different btw) what's happening now with what would've happened under Harris, it's equating what would've happened under Harris with what did happen under Biden. Since Harris explicitly chose not to differentiate herself from Biden on any policy, it's an entirely fair comparison.

    Biden did an awful job reigning Bibi, that’s true.

    Yes, because he made absolutely no attempt to. Because he literally bypassed congress in order to send them more weapons.

    But there is no way to convince you, because none of this conversation is grounded in reality.

    • It's a fact that Biden bypassed congress to send Israel more weapons

    • It's a fact that Kamala did nothing to suggest her policy would have deviated from Biden's in any way

    • It's a fact that AOC voted to send weapons to Israel

    • It's a fact that Israel is a genocidal, apartheid state

    • It's a fact that your approach of appeasement was already tried and did nothing to stop the genocide.

    All of these points are reality, all of them are supported by evidence, all of those are things that you refuse to acknowledge and refuse to ground the conversation in.

    So yes, I completely agree that this conversation is not grounded in reality, and yes, there's no way to convince me any more than you could convince me that the earth is flat, because all of the facts are on my side.

    A dialog tree of same stupid “genocide Kamala” “you’re a zionist” etc.

    When you support genocide and Zionism, people are gonna say that you support genocide and Zionism. Because it's true. What do you even expect to happen? How am I even expected to describe your views when you go around being like, "Actually, it's good to send Israel weapons?"

    "All these people are calling me a pool pisser, right on cue, like they're reading from a script," you say, after pissing in the pool.

    If you’re not going to put in the work to understand i/p and treat everything as a simple soundbyte I can just match your energy. It’s no different really

    So, because you see me as knee-jerk opposing Israel, your response is to knee-jerk support Israel.

    What a ridiculous conversation. You're very obviously a Zionist, it's like you're just ashamed to accept the label.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    You guys really really love fascists winning, don't you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (15 children)

    He's an .ml user, that's his problem

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    There are people in DSA with that person's opinion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    No there aren't

    Yes there are.

    Liberation condemns Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's continued retreat from socialist politics and rejects any effort to present her as the future presidential standard-bearer for DSA, or for the broader socialist movement.

    -Liberation Caucus

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    So, for the record, the passage I quoted is not necessarily representative of my personal opinion. The person I responded to wrongly asserted that no one in DSA holds the position that AOC's political engagement has, to one extent or another, been opportunistic.

    I simply set about showing how that is not true, and that there are people in the org who very much do feel that way.

    AOC hasn't "retreated" from socialist politics. She's had to adapt and be pragmatic since getting elected to serve in federal office, unlike anyone in that so-called "liberation caucus". They sound like a bunch of backseat drivers to me

    DSA has an internal system of caucuses, which are largely ideologically based, and act as political parties within the organization.

    There's Socialist Majority which is the big reformist caucus. Reform and Revolution is the Trotskyist caucus. Red Star is Marxist-Leninist, Libertarian Socialist Caucus is Anarchist, etc.

    Liberation are the Maoist caucus, and so they largely reject electoral engagements with politics, preferring to organize the internally colonized sections of the American working class through labor and tenant organizing, and the like. They don't think taking congressional seats, even if DSA were to win all of them, would make socialism happen.

    But the reason I chose to quote them in particular, is because they represent what is probably the left-most position in DSA, regarding AOC. While much of the "DSA left" (left here being relative. Even the rightmost caucuses are to the left of mainstream American politics) holds a similar position, opposing an AOC presidential run, or otherwise being skeptical of her, they would likely frame it differently.

    Reed Star, for instance, would frame their AOC criticism, less as overt opportunism, and more as being strategically flawed, as the org tailing an individual for her popularity, rather than putting forward a candidate with the intent to lead and educate/radicalize the masses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Then how are they considered to be democratic at all? I thought that was a requirement for DSA...

    Of you asked the vast majority of DSA members today, they would say that the "Democratic" part of the name refers to the internal processes of debate and mass democracy that the orh practices internally, rather than, say, a commitment to a reformist path to Socialism.

    First of all, how is running a political candidate based on popularity strategically flawed? That's literally the definition of being politically strategic.

    Popularity can be important, but the key criticism here is tailing an individual. AOC's relationship with DSA is complicated, and for many in the organization, that communicated relationship means that going all in on an AOC presidential bid would be putting the cart before the horse as it were.

    If she were to win, there is neither the movement infrastructure, nor a significant or coherent enough Socialist bloc in Congress yet, for her to get much of anything done.

    Further, given her previous votes for selling "Defensive weapons" to Israel, many on the DSA left believe, and I think rightfully, that when the institutional inertial of the military industrial complex inevitably drags the US into a conflict in some far flung corner of the world, that she won't have the backing, nor the personal fortitude to stand up to something like that. I think such a thing would tear the whole Socialist project in this country apart, frankly.

    Secondly, AOC is perfectly capable of leading and educating the masses;

    I think a failed AOC run could be instructive, in ways similar to Bernie's two runs. The Bernie campaigns failed, but they were successes insomuch as they brought back Socialism into the American political consciences, brought people into DSA in droves, and radicalized those new DSA members away from their former liberalism.

    Perhaps a failed AOC presidential bid could do something similar at a larger scale. But I think that's the extent of such a thing's utility. I think those in the org who are diehards for an AOC presidency (namely Groundwork caucus) aren't thinking as far ahead as they ought to.

    moreso than any delusional MLs lurking in the DSA without participating beyond complaining about every single candidate who actually runs...

    Red Star, the ML caucus, has 3 seats on the org's National Political Committee, and occupies one of the national co-chair seats. Far from "Lurking" and "Complaining" in lieu of participating, they're a very active and influential wing of the organization.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    A lot of that seems valid. For the record, I personally don't think she should run this cycle. I would love to see her as president, but I don't think it's her time. Even if she wins, she'd be walking into a shitshow and would have to spend precious years cleaning up this mess (while taking the blame for the mess to begin with) instead of focusing on implementing socialist policies and proving they work. Overall, would not be a good look for the first socialist president of the US.

    Furthermore, it's just too risky. Yeah there's some good momentum going for progressives right now, but that's far from a guarantee that a progressive latina woman will win the presidency in 2028. The stakes are too high. We can't run another milquetoast centrist who will fail to mobilize the left, but we also need to be pragmatic. Even if that means running a white dude, like Beshear or Shapiro. Someone the right-wing pundits will have a really hard time slandering.

    And like you said, there's no guarantee we'll have a Dem trifecta after 2028, let alone a socialist or progressive one. Let's work with the momentum we're gaining, flip some seats and build the influence of the DSA and the progressive caucus. Maybe by 2036 the situation will look way different than it does now and the time might be ripe for it. Or maybe 2040 or 2044, if the historical trend holds of the executive flipping parties every time there's a new president.

    But I have very little patience for leftists who spend more time attacking other leftists/progressives for not being extreme enough, instead of focusing on the issues that we're all faced with

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    Just take the L. We don't need a paragraph.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Thought-terminating response. Generally only valid when someone is engaging in bad faith, which the other user wasn't doing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)