redblue farce (quokk.au)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/mop
 
A trolley problem meme captioned "The two party system" showing a person at a lever who can only change the color of the trolley from red to blue while it runs over a long line of people.

all 92 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 50 points 7 months ago (26 children)

if anything, pulling the lever slows the tram a bit and pushing again accelerates it again

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] [S] 25 points 7 months ago* (22 children)

    We should derail the trolley if it can only go forward at varying speeds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    Maybe living on a planet where people are constantly tied to trolley tracks was a mistake.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    Well they weren't always tied to the tracks, that's a newish development.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    Then who tied them there?

    I blame agriculture.

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

    Was it you boomer? It was you don't lie

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (9 children)

    so you're choosing to hurt one person (conductor) to save many (people tied to the rails)

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

    Yes, the conductor (ruling class) is the one in charge of the trolley. They’re free to stop the trolley and hop off if they want to live.

    Deontology Is for self-serving pricks.

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

    Deontology Is for self-serving pricks.

    ... aren't you advocating for deontology here?

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

    Therefore, in the trolly case, a follower of classical utilitarianism would say that it is morally permissible to sacrifice 1 to save 5.

    [...]

    In this light, a follower of deontologism would argue that it is morally impermissible to sacrifice one to save five because making the choice of having to kill someone is inherently wrong.

    https://medium.com/@ashwinjitsingh/the-trolly-problem-utilitarianism-vs-deontology-bd624a8e321e

    I'm advocating for killing the least to save the most, a utilitarian approach.

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

    Wait, aren't your positions centered around the idea that violating your moral rules is inherently unacceptable (deontology) and thus dictates that you cannot take utilitarian actions which violate said moral rule?

    "I would do the right thing if it led to the right outcome" isn't utilitarianism, it's a non-dilemma.

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

    Utilitarianism is about the path that brings the greatest happiness, well-being, and good. To say my view is not utilitarian would only hold if you thought prolonging slow suffering lead to less suffering than outright stopping it.

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

    Alright, since I may not be understanding the totality of your positions, and that is legitimately on me...

    Apart from the question of what is and is not effective, assuming, for the sake of the argument, a moral dilemma wherein these are legitimately no other realistic outcomes...

    If the utilitarian choice, the choice that led to the least amount of suffering, was to support a genocidal group against another genocidal group, would you regard that as the morally obligatory choice, or not?

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

    If that was truly the case I would choose neither and abandon utilitarianism for an existentialism/nihilism approach, violently rebelling against both choices - even if in futility. A deontologist would sit back and do nothing, not wanting to participate in any violence as it was morally incorrect.

    But luckily we do not live in such a world, and we always have more than 2 options with how to proceed.

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

    If that was truly the case I would choose neither and abandon utilitarianism for an existentialism/nihilism approach, violently rebelling against both choices - even if in futility. A deontologist would sit back and do nothing, not wanting to participate in any violence as it was morally incorrect.

    That's a very deontological response, though. Your decision is that genocide is wrong, and therefore, no amount of genocide prevention is worth engaging in it - a strongly **anti-**utilitarian position. A deontologist is not simply someone who says "Violence is unacceptable", but who says "Rules are inviolable (or near to it)".

    Your rule is not "Violence is unacceptable" but "Genocide is unacceptable"; your response is entirely within a deontological framework. When presented with a situation where you have a clear preference of outcome, but in which all decisions to reach the desired outcome violate your deontological moral sense, you choose to prefer action that avoids the violation of your deontological moral sense even if it leads to a worse outcome, in a very anti-utilitarian sense.

    But luckily we do not live in such a world, and we always have more than 2 options with how to proceed.

    I generally agree. Mostly I bring this up for two reasons:

    1. Pointing out that deontology is very much part of most people's moral intuition, including your's as argued on here.

    2. That there are no-win scenarios in moral reasoning, short of asserting that you are capable of effecting literally any outcome via any process just by doing it hard enough. In which case, I would kindly ask you to save the world, because it's really shitty as-is.

    There may be a million choices instead of two, but there's no guarantee that any of the million will be acceptable in both process and outcome to you. You may have to make a choice, and the choice may be ugly - and even refusing to make a choice is a choice of inaction (or ineffectual action), with all the guilt that implies.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 7 months ago (39 children)

    America is a system of checks and balances. One of those being primary elections. Americans continue to give incumbent DNCs a free pass while MAGA continues to primary challenge anyone not extreme enough.

    Knock Down The House which lays out the steps. IMO it's how AOC got elected that is the key to fixing America. Americans need to make that happen every single election. Systematic problems need more than 1 presidential term to reverse after all.

    1. Independent local grassroots electoral movement. Dedicated to getting/organizing volunteers, signature gathering, door knocking, everything from getting candidates on the ballot to winning in the election.

    2. Candidate nominations. AOC didn't sign up, her BIL or someone nominated her and the Grassroots Movement approached her to run.

    3. PRIMARIES. PRIMARIES. PRIMARIES. Target establishment DNCs who clearly have more in common with corporate lobbyists than their own constituents.

    4. Run the numbers game. Only 1/4 of their candidates won. Democrats should face a primary EVERY SINGLE ELECTION.

  • source
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 7 months ago (20 children)
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (19 children)

    Honestly this question doesn't deserve a response. You can do better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago (16 children)
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (15 children)

    False dichotomy.

    Besides, if Americans are too lazy to vote they certainty wont revolt. Especially revolution edge lords. You guys are the laziest.

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

    I mean, that's definitely not a false dichotomy, that's a real dichotomy...fixing it does not destroy it and destroying it doesn't fix it...they're definitely mutually exclusive lol

    And I agree, the american left is cooked, no doubt. I used to be an energized organizer and I am pretty burned out. Call it lazy if you like! Still, no matter how much energy I have i'm not wasting any of it on bourgeois party politics, supporting one heinous future or another.

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

    Okay. Well first I apologize for lumping you in with the edge lords.

    So the false dichotomy is that the system functioning as designed requires the entire thing to be destroyed.

    1. The usa is a system in which the american people are the most powerful and fundamental of the checks and balances. However Americans have checked out and stopped participating. The system is working, it's Americans that need to do their part.

    2. I deal with violence as a profession. So I have grave concerns about the ability of Americans to successfully destroy the system, and even graver concerns about the ability to rebuild institutions after the fact.

    3. Why would billionaires destroy a system designed to serve them that's impervious to the will of the working class? IMO the "destroy the system" people have both given up and are playing right into the Epstein Class' hand.

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

    Hmm, I think you may have missed the point of the meme? Your point 1 seems to just be an articulation of the first panel (a liberal idealist perspective: "the system is broken, we need to fix it"). If the second panel isn't clear (the left materialist perspective), maybe this helps.

    1 Power to the people

    The statement "the system is working as intended" is to point out that our only two options are two bourgeois classes, both hellbent on exploiting working people as much as possible. There cannot be other options...this is the system. It's working as intended...it was intended to be a committee of the bourgeoisie to arrange their affairs, and it serves that function fine, whether the American people turn up to "legitimize" it with their rubber stamp approving of Bourgeois Party A or Bourgeois Party B, or stay home. It doesn't really matter. It doesn't matter whether it's trump or Obama or Reagan or FDR. All of them represent the system continuing to work as intended: a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The people's lack of power is intended.

    2 Violence

    If you deal with violence, you probably know how unbelievably expensive state violence is. It requires bullets and bombs, it requires food and clothing, it requires administration and healthcare. These are things that can only be provided by the working class. Destroying the system is unquestionably possible, the question is, what's the cost, and is it worth it?

    Rebuilding, is an issue too, for sure. That's why dual power and organization are so important! Though I'd be pretty surprised if the struggle of destroying the system wouldn't create the organization necessary to rebuild.

    3 Billionaires?

    The billionaires would not destroy such a system? I'm not sure what you mean by this point...the system is great for them...and I don't just mean under trump, it's been great for them the whole time (and always will be - which is why destroying it is correct and "fixing" it is not)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (11 children)

    I was 100% knee jerk reacting to your meme.

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

    Yeah, I mean, that's fine. I think that your knee-jerk reaction is negative shows that we have a real disagreement :P I'm not trying to be pedantic about the "false dichotomy" thing!

    Forget all that; let's talk about the more interesting question of whether the system is designed to support the people, and therefore must be fixed, or if it's designed to oppress the people, and therefore must be destroyed.

    I think that's really what you wanted to respond to, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (9 children)

    "The system" isn't designed. It's a patchwork of interests, causes and effects. The meme is a false dichotomy in that the system isn't categorically functional or dysfunctional and the notion that parts of it being repressive doesn't preclude repairing institutions that are salvageable.

    Its great you guys can hodgepodge some first year economic theory with a surface level of military concepts to convince yourselves and a few people on reddit.

    But I'm not convinced you guys know wtf you're talking about and genuinely think you're all talk and no follow through.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (8 children)

    I’m not sure what to say to the idea that the system isn’t designed. Like…surely you don’t deny that the electoral system is created by the bourgeoisie in the bourgeoisie’s interest? Sure they have fights with each other…finance vs industry, etc. The world is a complicated place. But those differences clearly don’t stop them working together when it matters (protecting property).

    Sure, you might take out the refrigerator before knocking down a decrepit house, but when the construction is unsound, the fact that some parts may be salvageable is not a reason to try to fix it rather than knock it down.

    And as for Marxists being nobodies, obviously true in the imperial core since…well a long time. But you’ve heard of the USSR, the PRC, Vietnam, Cuba, etc? It’s not first year economic theory being bandied about on Reddit, and they’ve got some serious follow through haha

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

    Who's design? Certainly not King George III's.

    the fact that some parts may be salvageable is not a reason to try to fix it rather than knock it down.

    No but the people still living there are. Thats the part you guys always forget is that you're literally asking people to sacrifice their vulnerable loved ones for your half baked 'solution'.

    But you’ve heard of the USSR, the PRC, Vietnam, Cuba, etc?

    USSR - 300+ years of Romonov Monarchy before Russian Revolution

    PRC - 2000 years of Qing Dynasty before Xinhai Revoluiton

    Vietnam - Imperial rule followed by French/Japanese occupation until being partitioned after US occupation

    Cuba - A Spanish colony for 400+ years that failed to gain independence despite several revolts before the Spanish-American war.

    Even citing those in this conversation deeply discredits your argument in my mind. Never mind drawing straight line comparisons between societies with decades/centuries of autocracy to our poorly utilized but still functional democracies.

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

    Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth, but I'm hearing you say:

    people who think systems of oppression should be destroyed rather than reformed are losers.

    Or in other words:

    Reform or revolution? Reform is correct...if you say revolution you're a larper.

    I provided successful revolutionary societies as a counterexample to that claim. You know, Batista held elections too, maybe the Cuban people should have just voted him out? The July 26 movement was the equivalent of redditors with no follow through? (I'm sure you're not saying that, which is why I think it's a useful counterexample).

    And despite the US's centuries (250 years) of autocracy, I certainly did not and am not saying "the US is like those revolutionary societies." I don’t think anyone thinks the United States is on the cusp of a revolution. I do say it's silly to think that these capitalist republics are “functional” in any sense other than functioning to oppress working people, and it has been silly for a long time.

    Help people out of the house before knocking it down, for sure. That’s dual power! That comes way before knocking it down. And we’re not even doing a good job at that yet. No doubt about it, we got a long way to go before we start knocking the house down. But the point we're disagreeing about is that I think we shouldn't waste time propping up the house…help people instead…get people out. And you think we should be patching up the cracked foundations and rotten support beams (or...sounds like maybe you don't think the foundation is so bad, which might be a whole separate conversation).

    Don’t take me seriously; I’m a very un-serious person. I do a little organizing in my community, but I haven't found the true marxist vanguard party or the insurrectionist anarchist cell that'll kick it all off or whatever. But the position that the system is not salvageable as a whole is a serious position!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (3 children)

    Word. I respect the effort youre putting into this. But FYI I will never respect any means to the end which is communism other than democracy.

    IMO giving up on America's democracy will never result in the eschewment of capitalism.

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

    No doubt. "Democracy is essential."

    America's "democracy" will never result in the eschewment of capitalism (I put democracy in quotes because the US is not a democracy, and its vaguely democratic-flavored institutions will also never result in a democracy). The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie cannot give rise to a dictatorship of the proletariat. If you don't think class is what counts, or that some kind of labor-peace is possible I am not gonna convince you here lol. If wolves control deer by biting them, the deer will not control the wolves by biting them back. And there is no peace to be had between wolves and deer.

    Like...I think what you're talking about is a US Allende, which...dude I'd be so happy. But it's quite a naive hope. Like...can you imagine what it will take to give working people power? To start we'd need constitutional amendments at the federal level and in every state, and we'd need to wait for every judge to die and still be in power to appoint new ones. All while the bourgeois parties maintain all the power and inertia they already have. To look for that is idealism (in the sense that it's about ideas primarily affecting the material world, rather than the material world primarily affecting ideas - not in the sense of "hopeful" ... it's that too, but that part is nice).

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

    If wolves control deer by biting them, the deer will not control the wolves by biting them back. And there is no peace to be had between wolves and deer.

    Please stop using analogies. They're having the opposite effect. Wolves and deer live in symbiosis.

    I'm gonna have to call it quits here tbh. The moment someone calls me an idealist... I know they're not picking up a word I'm putting down.

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

    Sure, thanks for the chat. IDK how these got split.

    But boy I can't help it...Wolves prey upon deer. That's not symbiosis. Maybe you can say they find a kind of "balance" in their perpetual struggle, but symbiosis requires mutual benefit.

    To drop the analogy, working people don't benefit from capitalists. Capitalists exploit working people. There's no peace to be had between capitalists and workers, we are in perpetual struggle. Capitalist republics try to find "balance" in that struggle, so that capitalists can perpetually exploit working people.

    And sorry, if you're not an idealist, are you a materialist? You didn't seem like it, but maybe i missed it.

    Anyway, good luck, have fun!

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

    I'm sorry but the USA has not been an autocracy for 250 years. Maybe you misspoke?

    I hate your house analogy. But I'll use it if that helps.

    people who think systems of oppression should be destroyed rather than reformed are losers.

    People who are not accredited home inspectors trying to declare a building condemned while the actual occupants are trying to renovate, are wrong.

    the true marxist vanguard party

    Yea because that's not how it works. Marxism is an end point for social democracy. In the context of a society achieving marxism, a marxist party would be redundant.

    A society of people who would rather fight than vote will not rebuild better institutions than the one's they forsook.

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

    In the context of a society achieving marxism, a marxist party would be redundant.

    If you swap that for "in the context of a society achieving a stateless classless society, a communist party would be redundant" I completely agree (Marxism is a means of analysis, not an end point). I think maybe you're not familiar with the concept of a vanguard party? It doesn't really matter to what I was saying, that was a throwaway self-depreciating joke. But if you want I'm happy to talk about that more.

    A society of people who would rather fight than vote will not rebuild better institutions than the one’s they forsook.

    I think Ireland, Cuba, and the USSR all disprove that... and many more besides. Home rule was a shoe-in for Ireland if not for the revolutionary war. Batista held elections. The February revolution lead to significant reforms before the October revolution. Sometimes the good fight is worth fighting.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (17 children)

    Knock Down The House

    Idk. This elections/ primaries since 2024 have been a mixed bag. Its pretty difficult when you've got elections like Illinois 9th, where the only viable progressive candidate has to face down two AIPAC funded candidates at once, while Mike_from_PA is putting her on blast for not being a "perfect progressive". And she still came within two points. This came on the tails of the Jersey race where the AIPAC candidates cannibalized and the progressive made it through. AIPAC reorganized, re-strategized, and got their candidates through across the board that Tuesday, while the Tankie coalition ate up the slop and tore down the one chance we had at getting a socialist into that safe blue seat.

    Just saying that Knock Down The House is getting more and more out of date, and elections are changing in REAL time, with extraordinary pressure being placed on candidates, with fundraising expectations being raised to basically impossible levels. AND EVEN when the fundraising goals are met, thats still not necessarily enough when we've got an entire pro-Israel/ pro-Zionism media apparatus working to shut candidates down.

    I'm not saying it couldn't work, but a big part of AOC's victory was catching an incumbent off guard in a safe blue seat. They're on their guard now. If AOC was running today, I think she would still win, but it would be much more difficult.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago* (16 children)

    First off. Did you watch the documentary? Because saying its out of date tells me you didn't.

    I'm not saying it couldn't work, but a big part of AOC's victory was catching an incumbent off guard in a safe blue seat. They're on their guard now. If AOC was running today, I think she would still win, but it would be much more difficult.

    It worked because they brought together people who normally wouldn't vote. Less than 2/3s of americans vote. So this is entirely replicable.

    If indeed >50% of americans are maga racists than the United States will dissolve.

    edit: I'm Canadian and I will never set foot in the USA again. If y'all wanna roll over that's your prerogative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (14 children)

    Bruh I literally phone banked on her campaign in 2018. And I worked Bernies 2016 campaign. And more campaigns in 20', and 22', and 24, and even as recently as a few weeks ago. And I stand by my point that what it takes to win elections has changed since 2018. I'm not saying the basics of the formula don't apply, but incumbents are far more aware of their vulnerabilities than they were previously.

    So this is entirely replicable.

    I promise you, that if you did a lift and shift of AOC's 2018 campaign in a new district (not that its even possible), you wont win. The incumbents are ready for you. Mamdani is a great example of how you start with the AOC/ Bernie approach as the basis, but adapt to changing times. Just like AOC's 2018 run was a huge change in how to run a campaign, 2026 campaigns also need to continually shift tactics. And I agree whole-heartedly with the voter registration aspect and getting non-voters engaged.

    Insurgent strategies have to continue to adapt and change, because incumbent strategies also continue to adapt and change.

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

    Bruh I literally phone banked on her campaign in 2018.

    So you didn't watch it. It's actually about 5 candidates not just AOC. Everything you just said is addressed in the documentary by people who've been phone banking and door knocking since before you were born.

    Just fuckin watch it god damn buddy jfc

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (12 children)

    Dude. Its a 6 year old documentary. It can't address my criticisms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (11 children)

    You don't know what you don't know.

    Can lead a horse to water... but you can't make him think.

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

    You can engage with the points I've made or you can continue to suck your own dick.

    But its clear which path you've chosen.

    Have you ever run a campaign or been a part of one?

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

    This whole conversation is you trying to refute media you're too lazy to watch. So no I don't need to respect your opinions on this matter.

    And yes. I have,

    just click the fucking link and watch the stupid documentary ya fuckin turd

    edit: I'd happily engage your criticisms if you weren't expecting me to waste my time refuting arguments you're literally pulling from your ass

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

    I've seen the documentary. I worked the fucking campaigns in the fucking documentary you fucking dunce. I'm still working fucking campaigns you cynical cunt. I've worked winning campaigns and I've worked losing campaigns. I have a pretty good fucking calculus around what it takes to win an election.

    You could just abandon your cynicism and engage with the points I've made, but that would require you to stop sucking your own dick for a few minutes, and since thats seemingly never possible for you, I don't think we should be holding our breath.

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

    I don't believe that you watched it based on what you say about it. Sorry.

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

    Literally the only thing I said is that its getting increasingly out of date because establishment candidates, in the 11 years since the Bernie campaign, have become aware of how insurgent campaigns organize, and have adjusted accordingly.

    Then I provided an example of exactly that happening in a recent race.

    You can just engage with the point, but instead you chose to masturbate.

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

    have become aware of how insurgent campaigns organize, and have adjusted accordingly.

    I already refuted that point x2

    1. That's an ongoing issue that's addressed in detail and mitigated in the documentary.

    2. Also the number of non voters means there is plenty of opportunity for grass roots campaigns to outreach the outreach of incumbents. The notion that incumbents being prepared for challengers makes primarying them impossible is a non sequitur.

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

    I already refuted that point x2

    No you didn't. Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.

    That’s an ongoing issue that’s addressed in detail and mitigated in the documentary.

    Then why are insurgent campaigns not winning across the board? They're by and large ALL following variations of the exact playbook outlined in the documentary (which is based largely on the Bernie Blueprint, a document we made after the 2016 primary, where we meticulously documented everything that made the campaign work)

    What is it they failed to do? Why aren't we always getting the "right results" if insurgent campaigns are (and they by and large are) doing what the documentary identifies as appropriate strategy?

    Its because the environment has shifted as a result of the establishment recognizing their vulnerabilities. And thats not to say all of it isn't working, but as a result of the success of insurgent campaigns, establishment campaigns are changing how they operate as well.

    Also the number of non voters means there is plenty of opportunity for grass roots campaigns to outreach the outreach of incumbents. The notion that incumbents being prepared for challengers makes primarying them impossible is a non sequitur.

    I never said it was impossible, but because of the successes of campaigns like Bernies, AOC, Talib, Omar, Bush, Bowman, and I could go on, because of the success of those campaigns, incumbents recognize the need to change their approaches. And some of those same campaigns, they just lost back in '24 (Bush, Bowman). And, I'm sorry to say, the lost because establishment strategists have had the time to analyze how grassroots campaigns work, and have adjusted accordingly.

    Campaigning and campaign strategy is in an arms race, and yes, the suite of 2018 candidates made huge advances on the grassroots side, but the basic outline is hardly a panacea. And if you aren't constantly updating your strategies and also adapting and localizing those strategies to a particular district, you're gonna get smoked. You could not run AOC's 2018 campaign today and expect the same outcome. You need to adapt to the moment.

    Also the number of non voters means there is plenty of opportunity for grass roots campaigns to outreach the outreach of incumbents.

    Are you suggesting that if a grassroots campaign doesn't win its because they didn't do enough outreach? Why don't you try and be more precise here? You talk like someone who has never been on a campaign, but you said you have, so what campaigns were you a part of?

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

    Bro you're crashing out cuz I'm telling you to watch a documentary.

    Also leading with a logical fallacy doesn't incentivize me to read your rant.

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

    you’re crashing out

    Bruh no one is "crashing out", you just wont engage with the fact that the world has changed since 2018. Which you could just acknowledge, but for some reason you've decided a documentary made to inspire highschoolers and to convince NPR liberals they know more than they do is the high watermark for political campaign strategy.

    Like, you genuinely have to address the issue that, by and large, all insurgent campaigns since Bernies initially run have.. pretty much entirely adopted the political calculus which the documentary outlines. But in 2026 thats not enough. Establishment candidates know you'll be using those strategies, and they have built up tools and strategies to try and counter those strategies. If you don't update, you lose.

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

    65.3 % of americans voted in 2024.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    I think previously you were.. something something non-sequiters?

    Whats your answer for when AIPAC helicopters in 10 31mil^1^ in PAC money to the house race you are managing? When they start setting up shell PAC's like Elect Chicago Women, and use it to run ads for the zionist candidates? What do you do when AIPAC shells are paying TikTokers 1500 a post to say something negative about a candidate, per post?

    There are not answers to those question in the documentary, because when it was being made, those candidates didn't face the same battles current candidates do. And current candidates face these challenges, in part, because of the success of candidates like AOC, Talib, Omar. The environment is fundamentally different.

    1: 10 mil was the early estimate. AIPAC spent 31 mil to stop the progressive.

    Editing in some more detail.. because this is fun and its fun to run dunks, but its also good to prep for more competent opponents than you.

    In 2018, AOC raised 600k from small dollar donors to fund her campaign. She left the campaign with 370k banked. In Kat Abughazaleh's recent race (which she lost), she raised nearly 3.5 million from the same class and size of donation as AOC.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 12 points 7 months ago

    And dont you dare suggest we should look into derailing the trolley.

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

    This image is federal .au specific, but it translates to wherever a √2 party system exists.

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

    Blow the trolly up

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

    I say we stop the trolley instead.

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

    How do you suggest we do that?

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

    The trolley is the government and can be symbolized as a beating heart. The heart has walled in a chunk of earths land which is called the walldom, this walldom is protected by police, law, courts and military. The heart gives rights to other bodies in exchange of them pumping life force to the heart. These bodies are called pumperies. The heart and pumperies are mutually dependent upon each other.

    In this analogy, the heart has to be stopped for the trolley to be stopped.

    Pumperies comes in the shape of entities that is paying taxes.

    The machine is the structure of might and it's interconnectedness. In todays society we are very bound to the machine, but by making ourselves independent from the machine, this enables us to withdraw ourselves from it. This independence can take shape as democratic confederalism. When we as a society collectively make us independent from the machine, we are denying the heart life force.

    Might will however not stand idly by while we are denying it to live. So we need to be prepared for resistance. We can take inspiration from Zabatistas and PKK.

    This is how we stop the trolley.

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

    Okay? Not sure I completely understand your proposed course of action, but it seems generally to fall under collective organization and action.

    How do you suggest we establish that organization?

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

    The course of action is to integrating ourselves into our local societies and being the change we want to see. I view this as changing language to reflect reality, bringing about independence from the machine and living with instead of against nature.

    Being the change would mean to acknowledge our change force, our ability to bring about change. To understand that what we do matters for the totality.

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

    Great, agreed, I'm working on that myself in my own community. That's going to take a while though, and I'm still gonna spend one afternoon every couple years trying to slow down the trolley in the meantime.

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

    So the answer is let the Republicans keep winning because fuck the system right? Which is what happens because people don't go vote and the rotting old boomers always vote no matter what.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 13 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    The answer is to take up arms, which won’t happen because people think voting is a solution.

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

    So to lower the death toll of the two party system, you (a third party) suggest a war?

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

    To end the otherwise never ending death toll, yes.

    To end the death toll, you suggest slowing the rate of killing?

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

    I don't claim to have an ultimate solution. I just doubt that a big war is the right approach if you want to end people dying. To forcibly change the system, you need to get rid of many opponents. Just look how many people still support Trump after all the insane things he did and does. And even if, hypothetically, you wanted and could 100% eliminate everyone who isn't on your side - do you think this situation will remain stable forever? Never again revolts, never again misbehavior, no crisis, no external opponents?

    Unfortunately, I think it's a genetic fault of the human species that we always seek to agglomarate power: more wealth, more luxury, more influence. I fear that, unless we decide as a species one day to collectively modify our own genome, the dying will continue. People are too diverse with too many different opinions to get along peacefully, no matter how good of a leader we have or how many parties there are.

    This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make the world a better place or question the system. But I think the measures have to be more targeted and thought through than just 'fuck over everything and see what happens'.

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