That's a brand new insult
post
So many libs fail the "You hate pancakes" test every hour.
The far right criticises the Dems as much as the left.
You 100% have to make it clear where the critique comes from.
Criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from, but by whether it's true or false. If you don't put truth first, you don't get to have a say in anything anyway.
MAGA criticizes the Dems for being too far left. I criticize the Dems for being too far right.
We are not the same.
The source does matter. I won't support a MAGAt just because they bash the Dems.
Then that makes you just another tribalist
what kinda idiot lets themselves be concern trolled in 2026
like a good argument is valid regardless of source but republicans and their cognitive dissonance, double standards and general bad faith arguments means sitting through their bullshit in hopes of one is just silly
Sure but that's not the point. If someone gives good criticism, that criticism is good.
If you don't believe that, you're a tribalist.
The world gets better when everyone acknowledges and fixes their problems when they're pointed out. It doesn't matter at all whether it's a good person or a bad person that points them out, what a gift it is for someone to show you your flaws.
Nope, I just don't accept criticism (or anything else really) from people who can't even form a coherent thought and are just regurgitating sound snippets from pundits...
The issue is the amount of bad faith critique levelled by people on the right. Supporting one of their valid criticisms without mentioning that they are normally full of shit appears like a blanket endorsement even though they may bring up only a single good point it’ll be seen as complete support.
Ya sure but that isn't really what your comment was saying which was more along the lines of "ignore all criticism until you know where it came from".
Anyways, if the criticism is valid, you are just plugging your ears at that point.
Motivation and context matters because if you don't pay attention to them you risk ending up an accessory to some asshole's motte-and-bailey fallacy in progress.
Humans evaluate facts by the source. People trust their in-group. Someone is far more likely to listen to someone they trust and perceive as in-group than someone who's out-group, regardless of the facts.
Sometimes this makes sense. If a guy in a nazi uniform told me the bar down the street is a great time, I'm probably not going to go there.
The primary difference is that Republicunts completely discount any thing that is left wing as impossible to achieve, often by using circular logic that boils down to a faulty appeal to authority (religion), with a light sprinkling of racism and white superiority rhetoric mixed in.
Leftists actually use verifiable data points and publically available economic figures mixed with objective reasoning to levy their critiques.
Reading comprehension includes understanding the implied context of the words, not just being able to pronounce them properly.
Would depend on the content of the critique Id think, like, if your criticism of the dems is that theyre far too conservative, thats not the sort of thing that someone that considers conservatism a good thing would say. If you give some vague attack on their moral character or intelligence or such, that lines up more with how the right would also criticism them, and therefore invites more confusion.
Hence why I said that your criticism should make it obvious where you stand.
I'm not saying that you need to put "fuck the GOP too" next to every criticism. But if all you say is "fuck the Dems for ruining the country", it's not obvious where you stand.
"Fuck the Dems for being too conservative" on the other hand makes it obvious.
Both sides criticize them for being elitist and corrupt.
How do you distinguish between left and right, when the right have been brainwashed into thinking their side is the one "draining the swamp"?
That's a valid point. However it's usually made clear by the next sentence out of their mouth. Like there's an election around me that's the same thing. The Republicans keep making ads about how corrupt and elitist the Democratic candidate is and they are 100% correct. However I ain't voting for a republican if I'm worried about corruption. That's their policy.
We criticize them for vastly different things though… The right says they’re communists and we say they’re not communist enough (or at all, really).
Problem is that not all critique is equal. Someone can just barf in "dems suck" into an online argument, and that won't tell which side of the aisle they're on...
in a discussion about why democrats suck, talking about, republicans are not relevant at all. if someone makes a valid argument it does not matter if they are a republican.
“the dnc only back establishment candidates and will actively hurt progressive candidates even to ensure a republican victory” has nothing to do with republicans, and you can assume that i would make the same complaint of the republicans
If you can't tell the difference you might be the aforementioned fisher price brained.
It's easy to tell as the right's criticism is they eat babies, they're demon spawn, welfare queens, nothing true just emotionally applied rhetoric. Where as the left would say they're barely better than Republicans in regards to wars and keeping them going in perpetuity, they could pass universal healthcare instead of what the ACA was but through either naivety or incompetence reached out to Republicans to help make a plan "both parties would be happy with" for the Republicans not to vote for it at all.
Eh, universal healthcare got side shuffled by the insurance company consultants and thus got us the ACA, a compromised deal if ever there was one. We really need universal healthcare, but the Herbalife grifters wouldn’t then have as much ways to peddle their MLM.
Yes, this screenshot is just another “If you don’t understand my unqualified opinion you’re just too stupid to figure it out” hot take by someone thinking they’re the smartest person in the room.
No, criticizing the dems doesn’t automatically mean criticism of anyone to the right of them.
Maybe you do. Anyone with a brain realizes real criticism from fake and manufactured criticism.
If you are too dumb to realize it, or worried about those too dumb to realize it, write your own posts. No offense but you are wrong headed and I don't care how many half wits endorsed your point here.
Yeeeah, you won't be winning any arguments with an immediate ad hominem. Off to the blocklist fuck ye
Good riddance. The last thing I want is to argue with some well minded individual that sincerely believes the dem establishment is the way out of our situation.
How many times do you have to be wrong before you admit a mistake. That's rhetorical, I don't care what you think now.
The other thing is that some people seem to only drag dems and anyone main stream calls “progressive.”
Given the majority of the US voted for Trump, yeah you kind of do. Maga's continue to blame all their problems on Democrats. So if you criticize Democrats, who have no power in the House, Senate, Supreme Court, and Presidency, people are going to assume you are MAGA
Given the majority of the US voted for Trump,
Doubt. Without checking I would guess the majority didn't vote at all.
The majority of voters*
Pretty sure he lost the popular vote
sigh The majority of electoral votes. Your semantic games are tiring. The majority of the voters that matter voted for him. it's dumb and I'd love to change it but this is the world we currently live in. So unless you're ready to violently overthrow the government (and good luck with that), deal with the problem as it exists, not as you wish it existed
When did the majority start voting at all?
It hapened in 2020. But the computer keeps putting 2020 as 1., don't ask me why. But it's not much of a majority. And midterms will likely fall under 50 pc of eligible voters, especially now with the president being Israel's shit bitch with a dirty asshole that raised the price of gas a lot.
so you would have a further rightward DNC?
just because you are not the worst thing ever does not give you immunity from criticism.
the democrats SUCK. wether the republicans suck harder is not relevant and does not make the critique less true, and voting blue no matter who has given us candidates that would have been republicans 10 years ago
It's a public Twitter post, not a Lemmy post on .ml!
If a stranger in public tells you that Democrats are bad your first thought is that they are Maga, not they they are leftist.
that would be a bad assumption. because the democrats are fucking terrible and i am not maga
What would you estimate the percentage of actual leftists/marxists/anarchists in the US?
either enough to be responsible for the democrats to need them to win elections and so criticism is warranted, or not enough to warrant attacking them, you can’t have both
I asked your estimate for the percentage of Americans that are leftist/marxist/anarchist.
Do you guess 20%? 40%? More?
fourteen bajillion and one percent.
what you are asking is not quantifiable, a thought terminating cliche, and is not a useable metric on policy nor politics. i don’t identify as anything other then outside left.
the demand to vote blue no matter who is an admition that the chosen candidate supports unpopular policy. the attempt to pivot away from criticisms of the democratic party because republicans are worse is a political strategy, manufactured by the democrats, to push obviously unpopular candidates.
you disagree with a criticism of the dnc? the honest interlocketer answers that criticism. the dishonest bastard labels them a maga plant because they don’t want to be seen arguing for the benefit of corporations over people.
This isn't about policy.
I asked any easy question and you won't answer it because you are entrenched in an argument that no one made.
The argument isn't about the need to criticize Democrats.
So stop with the dodges and address the likelihood that a random person on the street is leftist.
14% of Americans are favorable to communism. https://www.cato.org/blog/young-americans-socialism-too-much-thats-problem-libertarians-must-fix
That means if you criticize Democrats, there is an 86% chance a random American is not going to know where your criticism comes from. Because Trump is constantly criticizing Democrats.
i haven’t dodged a single thing you said. attempting to demand a percent of labeled progressives was a dishonest deflection away from demands that the dnc answer to valid criticism.
the criticism speaks for itself, if the dnc will not answer to it. so the question is what criticism of the dnc would point to republicans being the preferred option to the politically illiterate? because if the criticism is valid, that is a problem. a problem THAT SHOULD BE CALLED THE FUCK OUT PUBLICLY.
let’s have an example of a criticism of the dnc that you think requires a no maga sticker?
attempting to demand a percent of labeled progressives was a dishonest deflection away from demands that the dnc answer to valid criticism.
I didn't argue that the dnc shouldn't be criticized. I argued that a public Twitter broadcast will be misinterpreted because only a small minority of Americans are leftist enough to understand the criticism.
Not only that. Often the purpose of shitting on Dems without mentioning the GOP is to serve the GOP.
Not always, but more often than not here.
Adding the layer of "fuck the GOP" helps, along with being specific about individuals when appropriate.
Exactly this - if I don’t know you personally well enough to know that you “of course” would never support republicans, then I have no way to tell from which direction you are attacking the Dems.
Once we reached a point where it was no longer safe to assume that Nazi shit and overt racism, bigotry, etc. was sarcastic, we all had to stop assuming that anyone knew we were better than that. That’s also when /s tags became absolutely necessary again, even when saying some absolutely bonkers shit. I long for the days when I could safely assume that no one was that stupid, and that they would assume I wasn’t either.
fisher price baby brain
There are three groups at play here
- The average voter who has a fischer price baby brain
- Novice politicians who know the facts, but not how to explain them to the fischer price baby brains
- Experienced rhetoricians who say "also the Republicans are worse" because we know how to talk down to the fischer price baby brains
You fall into the second group. You're a big kid, but you don't know enough to look after the babies yet. You don't even think it's your responsibility to educate the babies.
No no, we must support the lesser evil and in doing so forget that they are evil. The genocide in Gaza started on January 20th, 2025, and would've never started if Harris had won.
I'm sorry but sending 18 billion dollars in military aid to a country committing a genocide is a very, very far cry from "not stopping it".
What will the GOP do to make it better than the Dems would? If you don't have an answer, then refusing to vote for the Dems changes absolutely nothing for the Palestinians but is is tacit approval of the millions of deaths being caused by USAID cuts, bombing schools in Iran, all the ICE bullshit, and everything else Trump has done.
Whataboutism, moving the goal posts. Admit that your framing of "not stopping the genocide" was completely wrong. The Biden administration was fully complicit.
Between the fact that the right will legitimately criticize the dems as well, and that they will sometimes even do so in a way that may actually sound like a leftist complaint either to A) point out that they don't serve your leftist views or B) to try to add legitimacy to their character by pretending to be a leftist... you might still have to actively say fuck the GOP.
You can't insult one without criticizing the other; they bOtH enable each other, they BoTh blame the other, neither one could maintain power without the other.
I vote in every election, and you should, too.
Because it's funny.
I often don't believe people when they say "both sides bad" so whatever, it doesn't matter. Besides the point.
Hell, even the "lesser-evil" argument is just a reframing against consequentialism. If you aren't a consequentialist you aren't a person worth debating on the topic of voting for the lesser evil. So we don't need to talk.
And even just on an emotional level: You aren't dragging me and my friends and family into hell and then getting me to help you in revolutionary action.
I like how this comment appears to be bait for Americans with three braincells
What caused the president to win, was forcing uneectable candidates on the dems and then shouting down all criticism of them, as if pretending they aren't worthless worked.
Get off your high horse, we knew what the republicans were, and what the democrats were, and we trusted the opposition to what is beyond any doubt the Controlled Opposition of the Oligarchy.
Anyone with a brain would've known anointed kamala with no contest was handing the election to the now president. Everyone. Oh, you weren't one? What does that say about your understanding?
No offense but I don't want to wade through your shit again forcing another doomed to fail dem on us.
Spineless democrats is what caused trump to win both times
Telling them they suck and then voting for them anyway is the Schumer example of a sternly worded letter. It doesn't do shit. This method is what's allowed the party to shift so far to the right, you are allowing them to do whatever they want with zero consequence. So like children, they keep testing your breaking point. We are now at genocide denial and that isn't enough for most liberals to abandon them.
top 98 comments