this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
313 points (80.2% liked)
Political Memes
5425 readers
2044 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You just punched left, lol. Telling leftists that extremely minor shifts within the context of a far-right system are good enough actually, minimizes the voice of leftists. You aren't going to convince a leftist that Biden is good, for leftists, continuing Capitalism and making no efforts to end it is already enough to not consider a candidate to be good.
If you want to move leftists to your side, it's far more effective to agree with them that Biden has been continuing liberalism and making no tangible leftist movements. Telling leftists that they should actually be celebrating less than the bare minimum further alienates leftists.
Never said that; in fact you'll find me several places saying that moving further than Biden would be a great idea, and pointing out that one of the big problems with Trump is that he will very effectively end some of the methods that currently exist whereby real leftwards progress can be made in this country.
So we're moving the goal posts so that Biden has to want to end capitalism before you'll support him, even against literal Hitler.
Sure, sounds perfectly sane and productive. Sorry for ever punching left by having a different opinion than that.
That's a funny way of spelling "I have no way to disagree with your factual rundown of good things Biden has done, so I'm going to demand that you agree with me, and in particular cease citing any objective facts for why you think what you think, as a precondition of 'moving to your side', because facts are punching left."
I mean I could be right or wrong on this or anything else. But I'm not planning on just agreeing with you on everything and ceasing hurting your feelings by arguing otherwise, so that you'll become open to "moving to my side."
You opened up with some unnecessary pro-Biden stances to attempt to make him seem better, no? As for leftward movement, it's already impossible electorally, which is why I am voting for Biden. That's my point, really, you would rather gas up a genocide supporter and enabler of fascism than simply take the correct approach and state that leftward change is impossible electorally.
If leftist change was possible electorally, you would be suggesting people vote for a leftist party, like PSL, but because PSL can't win we must agree that leftist change is impossible.
Yes, Biden indeed needs to be a leftist of some sort before I give any approval to him. I already said I am voting for him, are you telling me I need to also enjoy voting for a genocidal enabler of fascism?
Listing extremely minor concessions within the context of a country absolutely tumbling into fascism to make it seem like things are improving under Biden and not continuing to get worse is a form of punching left, because the purpose is to silence dissent.
So, I went back and re read your initial message carefully. I actually pretty much agree with it -- the Hillary Clintons and Nancy Pelosis of the world have been attacking leftists, blocking forward progress, and then blaming the voters when they lose elections because they are more or less even with Reagan politically. There's nothing really to vote for there, and not voting for open fascism when the alternative is screwing you left and right isn't really all that appealing.
The reason I responded the way I did is that Biden actually isn't at all the same as them. If you look factually at what he's done, he's a huge departure from the norm for corporate Democrats. You can believe that or not (or, you can say that abetting a genocide in Gaza makes it hard to like anything he might have done domestically -- and pretty understandable, I think, if you say that.)
But I don't get how citing facts of what's he done is "unnecessary" or "attempting" to make him seem better. I didn't like Biden initially, just because he's a rich white guy who's worked in Washington all his life. I didn't expect real good things out of him. Then he started doing all this good stuff, and I started liking him. Surely that's an allowed way to go about things? Responding to the reality of what someone's doing as a reason to like or dislike them?
This is a framing that usually comes out of conservatives. I am not silencing your dissent. I am disagreeing with you.
I won't tell you what to do, but I would politely ask that if you want me to take you seriously, stop saying that I am "silencing dissent" or "punching left" or whatever, just because I am holding a different opinion than you, and explaining why I hold it. Those are very different things. I'm allowed to hold a different viewpoint, and it's weird to me that you are so vigorous about the idea that it's violent or inappropriate for me to do so.
My take on that would be that it brings nuance and humanity to those that some auth-leftists want to hate and dehumanize. Pointing out that Biden is not a cardboard cutout of [insert chosen evil diety here] and that he has done good things makes it harder to rationalize digging in. To justify vilifying, "dunking on", and generally bullying those who would support him (even unhappily) rather than embrace accelerationiam that would load to extraordinary harm of LGBTQ+ people with no concrete data to suggest that it would cause net benefit or leftward motion, while claiming dialectics and opposition to silencing dissent, takes a good deal of cognitive dissonance as is. Being forced to acknowledge that ramps that dissonance up higher.
(Holy long sentence Batman! Sorry about that.)
Just to be clear to auth-left folks (though any state or corpo actors can get fucked), I'm not trying to be sectarian or talk shit. This is honestly how I perceive this. Dehumanizing other leftists (or people for that matter, or hell, even bourgeois dickheads) is not something that has led to positive societal changes in history. Generally, it's just used to justify unnecessary death and suffering. Suppressing or ignoring data (or lack thereof) is not conducive to making data-backed theses.
Yeah. There are people who are just straight-up evil and trying to hurt people on purpose (Trump is one), but it's actually very rare, I think, even in political leaders. Mostly I think the destructive stuff in the world comes from people who have a weird reality built up in their head where what they're doing makes sense.
I see this even in internet arguments. It's very common that two people will both be saying things that makes sense, but because they both have this caricature built up of the other person and the other viewpoint in their head, they can't even understand each other and keep talking at cross purposes.
Person A says "How DARE you say that genocide is okay, genocide is NEVER okay"
Then person B says "How DARE you say Biden and Trump are the same, Trump is obviously way worse and we need to vote for Biden"
"How DARE you vote for genocide"
"How DARE you refuse to vote against Trump's genocide"
And so on. I mean, neither one is really wrong, and yet they're all angry at each other and each seem genuinely convinced that the person they're talking to carries cartoonishly wrong views like "genocide is okay as long as it comes from my political allies," and then they get all bent out of shape arguing against those imaginary views that almost no one really actually holds. And they can't even listen to the other person for long enough to understand what they're saying, because I can't possibly sit here and listen to a pro-genocide person, when I am ANTI genocide, and I just need to fight against this pro genocide person right now.
I'm not saying that you personally cannot like him. For you, those changes are substantial and good, to the point of justifying support. For leftists alienated by the DNC, this is obviously not enough, which is why I consider it unnecessary.
For leftists, generally, continuing down this descent into fascism that is happening slowly under Biden and rapidly under Trump is unnacceptable.
My broader point here is that if your goal is to get leftists to vote for Biden, trying to explain why you think Biden is good is counterproductive. Instead, explain how leftist change is impossible via electoralism, and that voting for a leftist party like PSL will never materially bring America to the left.
If someone's mindset is such that it's unnecessary to talk about what actions a politician has taken when deciding whether to vote for them, I'm comfortable with not being able to appeal to that person.
Honestly my goal isn't to "get" anyone to do anything. I am trying to communicate the reality I see in front of me. Obviously I hope that that will produce a result and a better outcome in the real world, if the reality I see seems compelling to someone else as a useful model, but I'm not into the idea of trying to move away from "this is how I see it and why" and into something else, to try to engineer a stated result in some other person. They can make their own decisions, as can you.
What are fascist things that Biden has done? How has he moved the needle towards fascism? Maybe this is where some of the disconnect between our views on him comes from.
That wasn't the point, though. It's necessary to look at the actions a politician has taken. The fact that you believe it necessary to "uhmm, akshually" someone who has expressed disapproval of Biden from the left is condescending and counterproductive.
As for the fascist and fasc-adjacent things Biden has done, there are quite a few. Enabling and funding a genocide, labeling protestors as anti-semetic, further entrenching US Imperialism, building Nationalism, and more have resulted in continued cancerous growth of fascists domestically.
In addition to overt actions, it's important to look at what causes fascism itself. Fascism is Capitalism in decline, a violent assertion of Capital. As the head of state, failing to push back against Capitalism is also failing to push back against it's decline, and thus is why I say voting for Biden is slow fascism rather than rapid fascism.
The US will inevitably continue down the train of fascism until derailed, which is accomplished via outside pressure. Voting for Biden buys time, but does not prevent fascism.
Forgot about the crime bill and like most of his pre-presidential actions, can't forget about those
You literally told me that my message listing actions Biden has taken was unnecessary.
Can I do this too? If someone posts a message I disagree with, can I say they're punching me, and silencing dissent, and "uhmm, askhusally"ing my message, and counterproductive?
Dude. I disagree with you. It's allowed. Stop trying to imply that it isn't, and either engage with what I'm saying, or don't. It seems like you finally are engaging now, so maybe it's late for me to be saying that, but it's just irritating me that you're trying to find so big a variety of words to use to imply that I shouldn't be allowed to say a viewpoint you don't agree with.
Quick unrelated question: What's your feeling on the war in Ukraine?
What would be a good end state, to you? Like what would be a good American system, if you had the perfect politicians in office and could set up the economy and the structure of government exactly as you wanted?
People do not need to hear from you to know what Biden has done. You can discuss individual actions, sure, but you provided a list you believed was good for the purposes of showing why you believe Biden is good.
You can disagree, I just find it condescending that you seem to imply you see things others aren't.
As for Ukraine, what specifically are you asking? Do you think opposing US imperialism must mean I support Russia, or something? My "feeling" is that war is bad and unjustifiable. Violence is purely justified against oppressors. I believe in Nation's right to self-determination.
I want Socialism, and eventually, Communism. Worker ownership of the Means of Production. Democracy of, by, and for the Proletariat. Do you have any specific questions? We could be here all day otherwise and I am not sure there would be a point.
Okay, so it's not punching left or silencing dissent if I disagree? Just want to get that clarified. You can call me condescending, that's fine; I probably am.
Should the US send weapons to them? Or is that more imperialism? I am just curious; you brought up imperialism, so I'm curious what that means.
I'm just curious about what your viewpoint is. Not sure why that's a problem when arguing back and forth with hostility wasn't, but you can stop any time, if you don't like it.
What's a country which has implemented the model you'd like to see in the US? Or would this be the US doing it for the first time that it's been implemented on a big scale in the way you'd like to see it implemented?