I literally do blame the Democrats for Trump, and if you don’t, you weren’t paying attention.
Plenty of us were critiquing Clinton’s campaign on those merits and were consistently talked down to in shocker the same way we’re being talked down to now. Shocker, she lost. I remember saying a few weeks before the election “We’re about to get Brexited.” I put my vote down for Clinton, because Trump is fucking insane, and that was clear before he was President. It was clear in the fucking 1980’s.
Being able to critique our leaders is supposed to be what is the difference between us and conservative voters. They’re the cult who unquestioningly believes all the bullshit that comes out of Trump’s mouth and diapers. I find it weird that people think we should be more like them in regards to our leaders like that would be a good thing.
It couldn’t be something like Americans were involved in literally the largest worldwide protests ever leading up to the Iraq War and it did nothing to stop the war. It couldn’t be that Occupy Wall Street being ushered out of the park by armed police had nothing to do with it either.
Just get out and protest guys! Don’t forget you can’t leave the Free Speech Zone!
Remember George Floyd, well all our protests resulted in *checks notes… The largest police budgets in the history of the US!
Give me a break.
Yeah, this may come as a shock, but the “largest worldwide protests ever” also happened in Germany.
So no, it literally couldn’t be that.
I’m not here to advocate that protesting fixes all problems. I will, however, advocate that if you think protesting doesn’t fix anything, protesting on social media DEFINITELY doesn’t.
It can demotivate people politically aligned with you enough to cost you an election, though, so there’s that.
Why is the blame on me for talking about Democratic failures demotivating people and not… Democratic failures demotivating people?
Like, the actual action of their failure won’t demotivate people? Just people talking about it? How does that work?
Because motivation shouldn’t even be part of the conversation at all.
Again, end times. Fall of the empire. Looming fascism. Non-functioning democracy.
Because when you speak in a political campaign you’re campaigning. You can do two things and you’ll get no grief from me: campaign for fascists not to be in power or shut up.
The people campaigning against the people campaigning against fascists are the fascists.
You are in a restaurant that is on fire complaining that they mixed up your order. It’s infuriating and extremely your fault.
Wow, just wow. All right, good luck buddy, I really don’t even know how to respond to “if you want to critique democrats for not fighting fascism hard enough, it means you’re actually wish the fascists.”
That’s the second time today I’ve gotten the George Bush “you’re either with us or you’re against us” schtick. It would be really helpful if you understood how deeply you are channeling Republican attitudes.
(Which, last I checked, are fascist.)
No, hold on, I didn’t say with us or against us.
First of all, there is no “us”. That was my point up there.
But more importantly, I said you can shut up. Shutting up is an option. At least until after the election. This is entirely about the campaign. In the campaign there are three camps: there’s the fascists, there’s the other guys, who the fascists are campaigning against… and there’s everybody else. Shutting up.
And then, after the campaign and the winning and the narrowly averting the end of liberal democracy and the descent into fascism, then go nuts. No three camps there. Absolutely go wild and protest and raise havoc to try to achieve structural change. Set the country on fire. Flip over cars. At least put the same energy into it than the fascists taking over the Capitol.
But during the campaign? You don’t have to campaign for the Democrats, but you also don’t have to campaign against them. And in a two party system there is only one type of people campaigning against them.
You literally just did it again! You can try to hide behind flowery description all you want, but in the end, the attitude is “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
Just stop, this is sad. Admit to yourself that that’s how you feel and go have a beer something for fucks sake.
No, stop it. You need to try to keep track of more than two things at once or we’re not gonna get anywhere.
Three groups:
The fascists
The guys the fascists run against
The third group of people who shut up
And that’s only during the campaign.
Alright? Following me there? The number three? This is important, it’s not two, it’s three.
So in a two party system there is only one type of people campaiging against the Democrats. The people who want the Republicans to win. That’s all you’re doing if you’re actively campaigning against them. No other options. Nothing else that can happen.
And you can choose to be neither.
The fact that you’re not even conceptualizing the notion of not actively involving yourself in the argument is kinda shocking. I don’t know if it speaks to polarization, entitlement or what, but… this is a hell of a conversation.
The fact that you don’t see your position as coercive and controlling, I don’t know what to say, my man. You’re literally telling me I can’t talk about things I have valid concerns with. You used the term “shut up” which is a pretty unkind way to put it, no less. Can you admit to yourself you’re being an aggressive asshole who wants to control when other people can talk and what they can say, and that this is a controlling attitude, or are you going to keep spinning in circles to justify a shitty opinion?