submitted 7 months ago by to c/mop
 
A meme showing a golden retriever sitting at a table with people, captioned: "My mom," "My extended liberal family talking about how much they miss Obama," and "Me getting ready to list off all his war crimes."

all 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 94 points 7 months ago (62 children)

I mean with Trump now, surely Obama comparatively seems great? Not a saint but isn't it easy to see why those relatives would miss him?

  • source
  • hideshow 62 child comments
  • [–] [S] 38 points 7 months ago* (58 children)

    Obama bombed children, that will never seem great in any way, shape, or form.

    If someone worse than Trump comes along, are you happy to say “I miss Trump?”.

    Have a line and hold it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 58 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago (40 children)

    I get your point and I don't disagree, but surely you get your relatives too?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago (39 children)

    Nope. I don't really get that shortsighted mentality of missing the lesser evil.

    Evil is evil regardless and it should never be missed just because you weren't a victim of their evil deeds. That's how you abandon your solidarity

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago (29 children)

    Nope. I don’t really get that shortsighted mentality of missing the lesser evil.

    "I don't understand why someone might miss when things were less bad!"

    Tracks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (28 children)

    Bad is bad. Just because you weren't personally affected by the bad doesn't make it less bad, just exposes how little solidarity with the oppressed you actually have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    It does not expose anything of the sort. You are just applying strawmen in your purity test.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    no, saying “i miss obama” is the same as those republicans who whinge that they voted for trump three times but NOW trump is bad because it effects them.

    they remember Obama fondly because that time was good FOR THEM. and not because obama was a good president. it’s gross because it’s selfish and akin to saying “i wish it was like the 20’s - 50’s, times were better then…” you automatically know the type of person who said that and why

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    I wouldn't trust you at all making any judgements about history or anything else, because you are so scared about not passing your own purity test, that you think making any kind of concession about a grading scale of the difference of various historical characters makes your peers denounce your own political purity.

    Remember noone said anything about supporting anybody, but they definitely said something about Obama is not the same as Trump.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    I remember Obama fondly because Obama's actions were less bad. People who say "I wish it was the 20s-50s" are wishing for a time when things were worse on matters that they find less-compelling.

    Would you like to outline any of Obama's policies which were worse than the current shitshow in the fascist merry-go-round?

    "Things were bad in the past, therefore, things can never get worse" is fucking childish and asinine and something that should've been educated out of folk in the 1st-2nd grade.

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

    i remember the cop who beats people fondly because cops now a days just shoot people.

    …

    “People who say ‘I wish it was the 20’s-50’s ‘ are wishing for a time when things were worse on matters that they find less-compelling”

    that was my exact point. it speaks to the character of a person who determines that the bad things that happen are not their problem, and shows a lack of empathy, and signals where its ok to stop trying to push things to being better. that is why its gross.

    it was never about who was worse

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    i remember the cop who beats people fondly because cops now a days just shoot people.

    Unironically, yes; for the same reason I would be nostalgic for the Weimar Republic whilst living under the fucking Nazi regime.

    That you find those two to be morally equivalent is a 'you' problem.

    that was my exact point. it speaks to the character of a person who determines that the bad things that happen are not their problem, and shows a lack of empathy, and signals where its ok to stop trying to push things to being better. that is why its gross.

    "Wow, I miss the days when we were fighting a less-fucked system."

    "Oh, so you'd want to stop fighting if only you could have that system back?"

    ???????

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    i would have both cops … removed instead of pointing for the days where it was only the minorities who were getting shot. the point is to acknowledge that both cops were pices of fucking shit and both needed to be stopped

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    i would have both cops … removed instead of pointing for the days where it was only the minorities who were getting shot. the point is to acknowledge that both cops were pices of fucking shit and both needed to be stopped

    Yes, but shit man, the argument of nostalgia isn't "Back in the days of Obama, life was a utopia that did not need to be improved upon or fought! 😊", it's "God, remember when I still had two bad legs and still had both arms, but now I'm a quadruple amputee? This sucks, I fucking miss the less-bad days."

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

    cool, it’s self focused, and member berries a white washed version of events, just don’t be surprised when others don’t have that same fuzzy feeling over that period of time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    cool, it’s self focused, and member berries a white washed version of events, just don’t be surprised when others don’t have that same fuzzy feeling over that period of time

    Obama's administration is still fondly remembered by a supermajority of African-Americans. Maybe don't try to whitewash the lived experiences of oppressed demographics in favor of an abstract online political circlejerk.

    What 'fuzzy feeling' over a period of time are we expecting, by the way? People judge their circumstances relative to the circumstances they've experienced; who among us has been alive for a better president than Obama? Perhaps some sexagenarians, if they prefer forgiving the brutal Vietnam War in light of LBJ's domestic accomplishments. You can say the limbo bar is in hell, and you wouldn't be wrong, but I re-emphasize the quadruple amputee comparison - people are not wrong to fondly remember when things were LESS fucked.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Bad is bad. Less bad is less bad.

    Having family members concerned about the level of uncertainty involved in their immigration proceedings was bad, as no one, but especially not people who've been in the country and established lives, should be treated as illegal for their region of residence. Having family members fucking deported for it because of changes in Federal immigration enforcement policy is fucking worse.

    Inflicting more suffering on the oppressed so you can feel 'pure' isn't solidarity, it's solipsism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    Miss me with your uneducated, centrist bullshit.

    We get it, you weren't affected personally, so you don't give a shit about the lives of those that were already being affected. We get it. You have no solidarity.

    And FYI, we aren't the ones inflicting the suffering so nice try shifting that blame.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Miss me with your uneducated, centrist bullshit.

    We get it, you weren’t affected personally, so you don’t give a shit about the lives of those that were already being affected. We get it. You have no solidarity.

    Typical of the low level of reading comprehension you've displayed, in my experience.

    And FYI, we aren’t the ones inflicting the suffering so nice try shifting that blame.

    "We didn't INFLICT the suffering, we just were useful idiots for the Nazis that did! You can't blame us for THAT!"

    Yeah, that tracks with your myopic privileged suburbia style takes.

    Sorry that those of us dealing with oppression have to live in the real fucking world, I know it's so much more comfy to engage in online circlejerks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    That's a very weird way of saying we are the only ones actually trying to organize against the very systems and institutions that aren't enabling and empowering the fascists.

    Continuing bending over for the lesser evil while the rest of us actually try to fight the evil.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    That’s a very weird way of saying we are the only ones actually trying to organize against the very systems and institutions that aren’t enabling and empowering the fascists.

    Okay, what form of organizing against systems and institutions requires you to play fucking 1984 doublethink games with regards to improvement of deterioration of conditions?

    Continuing bending over for the lesser evil while the rest of us actually try to fight the evil.

    "Bending over for the lesser evil is when you acknowledge that the lesser evil is lesser"

    I'm sorry reality, even as acknowledged by the lens of your own analysis here, is so offensive to you?

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

    Continuing with your bad faith bullshit I see. Can't really expect anything else from a neolib who can't tell the difference between "1984 doublethink" and understanding that lesser evil is still fucking evil and thus not an acceptable compromise and will never affect progress towards the goal of liberating the working class from oppression by continuing to abdicate your political will in support of it.

    Plenty of people have explained anarchist perspective and praxis to you across this site and it's clear you just can't comprehend it. I'm not gonna take on that challenge when others, who're far better at explaining things than I, couldn't even do it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago*

    Continuing with your bad faith bullshit I see. Can’t really expect anything else from a neolib who can’t tell the difference between “1984 doublethink” and understanding that lesser evil is still fucking evil and thus not an acceptable compromise

    Luckily, it would seem you think that the greater evil is an acceptable compromise. How fantastic. I'm sure the oppressed thank you all the time for your far-sighted, privileged stand in favor of your own mental masturbation over their wellbeing.

    and will never affect progress towards the goal of liberating the working class from oppression by continuing to abdicate your political will in support of it.

    "People aren't wrong to miss less-horrific times."

    "How DARE you abdicate your political will in support of the lesser evil!"

    ...

    Plenty of people have explained anarchist perspective to you across this site and it’s clear you just can’t comprehend it. I’m not gonna take on that challenge when others, who’re far better at explaining things than I, couldn’t even do it.

    I understand anarchist perspectives just fine, in general. But this isn't even a question like "Is harm reduction mandatory?" wherein I might actually get into a brawl with some anarchists over it; this is literally just "Are people wrong for missing less oppressive times?"

    You've both asserted that the times were not less oppressive, and called it a lesser evil. I'm sorry that that isn't unsubtle enough for you to trigger your own sense of cognitive dissonance, but I understand you have a lot of practice ignoring that particular annoyance in your head.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    Bad is bad

    There's always degrees to it. I dunno why so many online forget about this

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

    Because there are people who don't have a shortsighted, reactionary mentality.

    The degrees of how bad is entirely contextual. And part of the context of seeing the lesser evil as "better" involves limiting the scope to a false dichotomy.

    Being stabbed is better than being shot, but regardless of which option you're still fucking being injured.

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

    Not being able to see degrees to things seems more like a handicap than anything good tbh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (5 children)

    Nice bad faith interpretation. Nothing about what I said implies that I can't recognize that degrees exist. In fact, I explicitly recognized that degrees exist and the contextual nature of them.

    Your inability to have contextual understanding of the wider picture and not limit yourself to the immediate, reactionary perspective is the handicap here.

    One step forward for every two steps back is "technically" better than no steps forward and three steps back. Yet, if you understand the full picture, you realize that both are still resulting in backwards progress; so, another choice needs to be made if one's goal is to go forward.

    If all you ever do is react to the "greater evil" by giving power to the "lesser evil", you simply allow evil to hold it over you as a threat to coerce your obedience and consolidate power while dangling performative concessions to keep the people distracted by the illusion of progress.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    It doesn't give much power to anyone to think "this time sucks, I wish we still had the better times"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (3 children)

    I just can't with the shortsightedness.

    In a vacuum, no, not that one single instance, but I am not simply talking about the singular instance but the mentality and logic behind it while also criticizing the logic of that mentality.

    I had already made my point about those that miss the "better times" in a previous comment. Then you made a comment about a lack of seeing degrees, and then I continued from that point.

    Keep up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    You are upset about people being wishful for better times, it is just your explanation for the upset doesn't make much sense to me. I think it's easier to continue this convo in just the other thread, I'll continue replying just in that

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

    Nice accusations about what I am "upset" at, too bad they are completely wrong. Sorry you cannot grasp the argument. I have explained it to the best I can. If you still cannot understand it then you are beyond my help.

    Continue in the other thread if you wish but judging from how this conversation has gone I do believe I'm just gonna check out of it. It is clearly going nowhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    I agree that I can't follow your logic or argument, it just seems nonsensical. If there's a sense, it is beyond me or maybe you just see some sense in it that I don't. Not sure further explaining will help, so I get it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    What happened to the concept of better?

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

    Nothing.

    Better is contextual. The lesser is technically better, sure, but it still falls below the minimum standards.

    Being stabbed is "better" than being shot but regardless of which, you're still fucking injured.

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

    But if you understand "better" then shouldn't that help in understanding how people miss better times?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (5 children)

    Sure but it also makes me understand that people lack solidarity if they miss a time when their comfort came at the expense of the oppressed simply because they weren't the one personally being oppressed.

    Just because life was more comfortable before doesn't mean I miss it, because I have solidarity with those who were oppressed for that comfort to have been possible. I would never want those times to return just because I personally benefit from it, thus I do not miss those times.

    I also do not miss those times because I understand that those times are what allowed the ones we are currently living in to manifest. The systems, institutions, and cultural norms of those times are what led to today.

    I do not miss those times. I yearn for times where those things did not come at the expense of others while enabling evil to continue to consolidate power and disenfranchise my brothers and sisters of the working class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Did that oppression stop or why is missing those times so bad?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    Did that oppression stop

    Irrelevant. The oppression didn't stop beforehand either, and what came before enabled what we have today.

    why is missing those times so bad?

    Did you just not read the comment at all? That's literally what was being explained.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    So if the oppression is the same then what does it matter to the oppressed if you were wishful for a time when other things were better?

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

    What kind of question even is this? Did you really just ask what it matters to people being oppressed that others wish for comforts that came at their expense?

    Do you not understand what "solidarity" is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    I don't think the oppressed care if you are wishful for this or that time if it makes no difference to them. They'd probably understand that you were being wishful for a time when things were better for you, same as they undoubtedly are if things have become worse.

    The idea that you're never allowed to be wishful ever, even when things have gone worse, because someone somewhere is always going to be oppressed is a bit nonsensical.

    I bet Iranians now are wishful for Obama, for example.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 7 months ago (14 children)

    I mean that’s the reason we have the words: “better” and “worse.”

    If something is “better than”, then yes, I believe it is better.

    Y’all act like anyone said Obama was a saint. Hell, some saints have been worse than Obama.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] [S] 12 points 7 months ago (13 children)

    It’s why the overton window keeps shifting, because the level of evil you accept keeps looking better in comparison to worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    It’s why the overton window keeps shifting, because the level of evil you accept keeps looking better in comparison to worse.

    ... would you like to outline the past ~70 years of the Overton window shifting to allow more evil instead of less? Or were we voting for saints back in the 50s?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Why does it have to be 70 years? Can we do 10 20 30? Then I don't believe the overtone window is that obvious 30-40 years ago you were considered bad if you bought a right wing newspaper, people would stop talking to you. (Well at least where I am from)

    Coincidentally that is the period where workers had the most rights, which has slowly become worse with time in every western country.

    At that time they thought right wing people where against them having rights and quiet evil, they had been thought by their parents, who worked hard for those rights. Our generation has not learned the importance and given more room for the right wing to control our media, which then controls the narrative. Why is there so many articles about trump or Elon musk, I mean we have two idiots who cares, do we have to know that trump misspelled coffee?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    Why does it have to be 70 years? Can we do 10 20 30? Then I don’t believe the overtone window is that obvious 30-40 years ago you were considered bad if you bought a right wing newspaper, people would stop talking to you. (Well at least where I am from)

    Yeah, sure, let's do 10, 20, 30.

    30 years ago Black folk were being called 'superpredators' and blamed for a 'crime wave', the push to dismantle the meager welfare state in the USA was wildly popular, immigration law was reformed to militarize the border and deportation, being gay was illegal in about half of US states... do I need to go on?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    You are making an argument against your own point of lesser evils, we are debating if the overtone window has shifted. Which is obvious that it has. As I stated before media is owned by the wealthy even state owned media is controlled by the wealthy, they set the narrative, why do you think that they write and talk about super predators, so that becomes the agenda. And not that coperate america is fucking over the working class, and the politicians aren't doing jack shit about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    You are making an argument against your own point of lesser evils,

    What.

    You need to revisit politics in the 90s. Shit was mainstream that would make your milk curdle in the fridge.

    As I stated before media is owned by the wealthy even state owned media is controlled by the wealthy, they set the narrative,

    ... who do you think controlled the media in the West before 1990?

    why do you think that they write and talk about super predators, so that becomes the agenda.

    The absurd 'superpredator' line died with the lingering effects of the 1980s crime wave. I don't know where you're hearing it today.

    And not that coperate america is fucking over the working class, and the politicians aren’t doing jack shit about it.

    Sure, but that's not fucking new.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (7 children)

    Ok what’s your suggestion? To keep going with “worse”? To what end? What if I told you that not everyone wanted Bernie Sanders? What if I told you we live in a world where we need to live with each other and we all have different opinions and values?

    Since you can’t get everything YOU want you think you’re morally superior to others around you.

    Would you say that James Buchanan and/or Andrew Jackson are better or worse than Obama?

    History is full of horrible presidents, kings and leaders. Progress isn’t a straight line.

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

    it's not about what you or i want; it's about having basic human decency and standing up against red lines like genocide; ethnic cleansing; and especially bombing innocent people from orbit or separating children from their parents to trying them individually in obama's case.

    pretending that these are little more than wish list item minimizes these nazi level atrocities and reflects your character as a human being.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (5 children)

    basic human decency, listen, I agree with you. But this is an assumption that you’re making. There is a percentage of the population (some think up to 4%) that are absolute sociopaths. We also have to live with them. Even if they would be ok living without us.

    It isn’t about a wish list. People will always be people. Until we somehow cure sociopathy or whatever drives people to be ignorant and cruel (my opinion on conservatives is they are probably borderline sociopaths).

    Our options are to work with these people or go to war and exterminate them.

    I don’t see how you holding everyone to your standard of morality (even if I wholeheartedly agree with you) is of any use in this. We HAVE to ALL live with each other and do the best we can. Aiming for your absolute unyielding moral compass doesn’t help.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    you're offering a false choice: work with sociopaths or kill them; that's surrender.

    don't beg killers to be nicer -- make their cruelty politically impossible.

    you say "we have to live with each other." fine. but living together doesn't mean accepting drone strikes on kids because 4% of people are sociopaths. that's not pragmatism. that's cowardice with a philosophy degree.

    the goal isn't to pick the lesser evil. it's to build a world where bombing children isn't a debate -- it's unthinkable. that's not moral purity. that's the whole damn point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    the plan isn't a secret recipe i'm hiding from you. it's happening right now, whether you notice it or not.

    mutual aid networks. rent strikes. union organizing. boycott campaigns. community defense. abolitionist projects that starve the carceral state. international solidarity that makes imperialist violence costly.

    you want a ten-point plan handed to a president? that's not how this works. leftists don't wait for permission from power -- we build counter-power. we make the old world unmanageable and the new world unavoidable, piece by piece.

    the question isn't "how?" as if it's some untested theory. the question is whether you'll get off the sidelines and help.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    The list of people who let Perfect be the enemy of Good grows at the end of every American school year. Republicans LOVE single-issue voters since they're easy to manipulate. Source: 2024 election.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 7 months ago

    "I agree, he wasn't perfect and was certainly a product of a broken system. However, nothing you've said has changed my missing him, nor my believing that he was infinitely better than Trump, even if not perfect."

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 7 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    I wish online leftists hated conservatives half as much as they hate people who are only a little left wing. Like ya, Obama sucks and bombed a school a decade and a half ago but trump bombed one two weeks ago and also wants to do a genocide right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago

    Well, Trump is bombing children now so of course the previous president who bombed children is okay.

    What an utterly daft statement that is lacking in solidarity. Like, bruh, they both bombed children in the pursuit of Imperialist power. That should fall well below the minimum expectations required for you to willingly be supportive of either candidate. This shortsighted, reactionary mentality is exactly how we ended up with the society we have.

    Continuing to settle for the 2nd worst option only ensures that society continues to backslide as the threat of something even worse traps people into ceding power to a "lesser evil" which in turn only enables evil to continue to hold power over the people.

    And absolutely laughing at the insinuation that Obama was even remotely left-wing. That is just a politically illiterate statement.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 0 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Leftists literally want to kill right-wingers. They only criticise 'centrists'.

    The fact that you think you're the bigger victim because people try to reach you with words instead of fists or bullets is your own naivety.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Leftists literally want to kill right-wingers. They only criticise ‘centrists’.

    That's curious, because overwhelmingly what is seen in these conversations are self-proclaimed leftists who neither kill nor criticize right-wingers, but find any reason to condemn anyone with any chance of making any change as some form of centrist. See: the reaction to Zohran Mamdani.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Want is not the same as doing, that takes a lot to drive people to radicalise enough to do so.

    And why criticise a right winger? They won't read it or learn from it. What a waste of effort, there's a least some hope to convert a centrist.

    And there is no chance of making any change as centrist under such a 'democracy', they are fleeting changes that can be revoked by the next person to get into power. Real, lasting change requires revolution not reform or voting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Want is not the same as doing, that takes a lot to drive people to radicalise enough to do so.

    Okay, so the argument is that they want to do something against right-wingers, but do nothing. But they want to do something against insufficiently left-wing centrists, and do do that.

    Can you outline to me how this is any different than a given neolib saying they really want to stop conservatives, but only ever seem to actually try to nitpick and belittle progressives?

    And why criticise a right winger? They won’t read it or learn from it. What a waste of effort, there’s a least some hope to convert a centrist.

    Because conversations in the public sphere affect how people conceptualize and internalize ideas, apart from the direct conversants. When right-wing ideas are allowed to spread unchallenged, they become more normalized and change the political leanings of the society as a whole.

    And there is no chance of making any change as centrist under such a ‘democracy’, they are fleeting changes that can be revoked by the next person to get into power. Real, lasting change requires revolution not reform or voting.

    Okay, but that's separate from the notion that reform or voting are not worthwhile. For that, you have to reject the notion that revolution is affected by conditions in society (which is absurd) and assert that harm to oppressed demographics is immaterial (which is intuitively repugnant).

    Reform won't give us socialism. But it alleviates suffering and can put us in a better position to strike for socialism.

    The eight-hour day fucking sucks, but without it, we would be in WORSE organizing conditions in the modern day. Universal healthcare does not solve unequal access to healthcare systems, but few would argue that it was pointless for the UK and every other civilized country out there to pass.

    In any case, the objection made here is that self-proclaimed leftists who only punch left-of-society's-center, but never seem to find any even vaguely comparable amount of time to punch right-of-society's-center, is legitimately not a fucking good thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago

    Bayard Rustin was a gay man who was one of the top organizers of MLK's March On Washington.

    Rustin never pushed King to speak out on gay rights, because they both know that the USA in the 1960's wasn't ready for that conversation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    We're looking at him through the lens of 2026. At least he pushed for the Affordable Care Act and repealing of Don't Ask Don't Tell. The man wasn't a saint but he sure as shit is better than what we have now. Yes I'd rather have a socialist like Bernie Sanders but this is all we have unfortunately and if I had to make a choice between the two administrations I'd go with Obama 11 times out of 10.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago

    You, like everyone else, fail to realize that by having a weak leader, it dooms us to the fake strong leader of the republicans. Or the fascimile of the republicans in EVERY western country. Wake up. We will get reform, under strong leadership, either we give it to them, or fascists will.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    All US presidents should be sent to the Hague

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Why I don't talk to family. I refuse to put up with anyone that supports the right, including neolibs.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (13 children)

    The sanctioning of 'double-tap' drone strikes, and, by a fairly recent interpretation of international law, enabling Saudi atrocities in Yemen.

    What else does he have?

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    He ordered a drone strike on an American citizen, and bombed schools, weddings, and hospitals (including a doctor's without borders hospital). He extended the patriot act and persecuted Snowden and manning for telling us that the federal government was regularly sidestepping the bill of rights.

    What else do you need?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (10 children)

    He ordered a drone strike on an American citizen

    "American citizen" is not a protection against designation as an enemy combatant, unless you want to tell a bunch of Nazi volunteers in WW2 that getting shot by the 101st Airborne was actually a war crime against their precious little souls.

    and bombed schools, weddings, and hospitals (including a doctor’s without borders hospital).

    I suspect you're thinking of an incident in Afghanistan wherein a US gunship hit a Doctors Without Borders hospital. While abhorrent and arguably a war crime, it was not sanctioned by Obama, and Obama, in fact, was a prominent voice in demanding an investigation of the incident.

    The only wedding strike I remember was in Yemen, which was a big issue at the time, and resulted in limitations on the military's ability to carry out drone strikes without presidential approval.

    The only school strike I can find were performed under Bush, though considering that the Bush Administration did not reveal many of its strikes, there may very well be more.

    Obama's drone campaigns were performed with a callous disregard for civilian casualties compared to what they should have been performed with, and US PR worked double-time to try to paint them as civilian casualty-free (claiming something absurd like a 0.2% civilian casualty ratio). That's not the same as saying that Obama targeted schools, weddings, and hospitals.

    He extended the patriot act and persecuted Snowden and manning for telling us that the federal government was regularly sidestepping the bill of rights.

    1. Those aren't war crimes. Shitty, sure, arguably against international or Federal law. But that's not what a fucking war crime is.

    2. 'persecuted Snowden and manning' how so? At best, by not pardoning them? Do you know how the executive and judiciary work in this country? I'm sorry Snowden found it more convenient to go and stick Putin's hand up his ass instead of defending himself in court or fleeing to any fucking legitimate country. I'm more legitimately sorry that Ms. Manning ended up punished for whistleblowing, though I also realize that military prosecutors cannot reasonably say "Oh, well, we think this leak is for a good cause, so we're not prosecuting." A pardon by the executive would have been much better than the commutation she eventually received, and a immediate commutation preferable to the much-delayed one. You want to say that's a terrible sin of Obama's? I'm not in disagreement. But it's not a fucking war crime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (9 children)

    If you're ever wondering how MAGA can still defend trump after all the awful things he's done, go back and look at the mental gymnastics you do to defend that piece of shit Obama and it'll start making sense. Tribalism is a hell of a drug.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (8 children)

    "You're doing mental gymnastics by pointing out that my claims are literally untrue 😭"

    Sorry you didn't check any of your claims before making them. I understand that games of telephone with online circlejerks are much more entertaining than nasty little things like reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    Reality: "he did that but here's why it's actually fine"

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

    Reality: “he did that but here’s why it’s actually fine”

    The first claim is pointless, as I noted. American citizenship is no more a guarantor against military action than any other status, nor should it be.

    The next three of your claims were outright incorrect.

    The next two claims I explicitly noted were of pretty horrible offenses, but not of war crimes, as was claimed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    Oh champ. I hope your team wins the Superbowl or world series or whatever you call this hell we're living in

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Sorry that your reading comprehension is so subpar. I hope you get better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    You're vehemently defending a bloodthirsty piece of shit. I'm not interested in comprehending the incomprehensible or the unconscionable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    You’re vehemently defending a bloodthirsty piece of shit.

    "Your claims are literally, factually incorrect. He has other horrific sins to condemn him for."

    "STOP DEFENDING HIM"

    Sorry that you only enjoy fantasy, I understand that when LARPing as someone with a sense of morality, it's much more fun than facing the real world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments