Here’s me complaining about Democrats being criticized for enabling Israel:
Yes, I know what Palestine is like right now. I care a lot about it. I wrote my congresspeople, back when they were approving the aid, trying to tell them not to do it. I didn’t think it would do anything, and it didn’t. That’s why I didn’t want Trump to come, and make things quite a bit worse than even Biden’s already war-criminal level of performance.
Around 85% of the Palestinians in Gaza are still alive right now, as far as I know. How many once Trump is done with them?
50%?
80%? Will he solve the Middle East during his term, and bring an end to the killing? It seems unlikely.
Less than 10%, with a lot of it annexed to Israel?
That last one seems pretty probable to me. I think better than 50/50 odds. I don’t want to bet.
That was 8 months ago. I have nothing to add to it. It’s mostly come true now, and if you actively pushed in any way for people not to keep Trump out of power, you helped make it happen. Even if you don’t believe there is any difference between “sending weapons” and “sending even more weapons plus turning vague diplomatic complaining into excited diplomatic approval plus putting Americans on the ground to help make it happen,” you still helped usher in the situation where Palestinian protest leaders in the US are getting deported instead of being out there protesting. Good job.
I’m aware that you’re trying hard to reframe me saying “Trump is worse” as if it meant I was making excuses for Biden, or that I’m saying it for any reason other than concern for the Palestinians and all the other people Trump is current fucking up. I am not. Biden was very very bad on this issue, and Trump is worse. That’s what’s up. You can insult me or mischaracterize that any number of types of ways, but that’s what’s up. Tell me I’m wrong.
This is precisely what I’m talking about in my comment. You’re taking a point of view that you might or might not agree with, either of which is fine, and deciding to pretend that it is a horrifying caricature (that I’m so in love with Joe Biden of all the fucking people in the world that I am willing to overlook or downplay a genocide just to have a chance to distract people from talking about a bad thing he did). Because it’s easier than grappling with what’s really going on, you simply pretend that there’s a whole class of people out there running around who are just constantly stupid and wrong, and you comfortably assure one another that’s the explanation for why they sometimes come along and expose you to a critical viewpoint that isn’t what you want to hear.
Stop skirting around what the meme is talking about
“Look at this terrible tragedy” is not the same as “if we do not end our complicity in this active genocide, we risk losing everything”
Liberals act as if their only option is to vote or not vote, but that’s simply not the case. If your party is plugging their ears to the tragedy they are helping commit, your job isn’t to make sure everyone knows how bad the other candidate is, it’s to confront your party about why they’re complicating what should otherwise be an easy choice by doing something objectively evil.
2024 was nobody’s fault but the democrats’, for exactly the reason depicted in the meme. Instead of addressing the cries for acknowledgment in their base, they fucked us all.
And here we are again, dealing with their choice to revere and defend the life’s work of a neonazi while we are still waiting for them to acknowledge the genocide they helped commit and which continues a year later. I can’t blow smoke for a party that continuously runs cover for fascists while plugging their ears to their own base.
“Look at this terrible tragedy” is not the same as “if we do not end our complicity in this active genocide, we risk losing everything”
True, but that first one is directly what the meme is referencing. You actually accused me specifically I think of trying to distract from the terrible tragedy.
Liberals act as if their only option is to vote or not vote,
Well, but I don’t act that way. Am I a liberal? According to lots and lots of people on Lemmy, I am. Here’s a comment I made earlier tonight:
Real world non-electoral politics is going to be necessary to get us out of this mess (especially now), and it also leads to a good and fulfilling life. There’s something magic and human that happens with the people around you when you are fighting for something that’s actually worth fighting for, I’ve seen it.
You’d agree with that, right?
Or no?
This is what I’m talking about. Actually some of what you’re saying in this latest message, I agree with. But it has not a lot to do with the meme. My issue with the meme was this wild strawman, lumping congressional Democrats and people on Lemmy into the same ideological category “liberal” and then making a bunch of sweeping statements I guess about both, by which the whole thing can be motte-and-baileyed back around so that all of a sudden I’m an asshole who believes all these wild things and doesn’t care about genocide.
And here we are again, dealing with their choice to revere and defend the life’s work of a neonazi while we are still waiting for them to acknowledge the genocide they helped commit and which continues a year later.
Let’s try this. Who are some examples of who you are talking about here? Like who are 5 people who fit into this category who are revering Charlie Kirk and also won’t admit Gaza is a genocide? I am sure there are plenty of them (not sarcasm, I really do believe lots of those people exist, even some number of them on the American “left.”) Ideally out of government if you can, like I said I don’t think anyone in the US government is all that left (and if you’re only talking about congressional Democrats or something, then yes the meme makes sense.)
I can pretty much guarantee you that whoever those people are, they’re (a) a small subset of the people who the Lemmy consensus would describe as “a liberal” and (b) people I also despise pretty much as much as you do.
Right? Or do you believe that everyone the Lemmy consensus would describe as “liberal” also reveres Charlie Kirk, and also wants to silence any voices of Palestinian suffering?
True, but that first one is directly what the meme is referencing. You actually accused me specifically I think of trying to distract from the terrible tragedy.
No, and no. The meme is referencing liberals walking out of the Democratic National Convention last year literally plugging their ears to protestors who were kicked out for demanding democrats stop supporting Israel’s genocide against palestinians. Liberals then (and now) were refusing to address protestors demanding action against Israel’s genocidal campaign. They sometimes separately acknowledged it as a tragedy but refused to take action against Israel. “I think this is a tragedy, but unfortunately there’s nothing we can do until after the election”.
I haven’t actually accused you of anything, but it does kind of seem like i’m describing you. It’s not my fault you ascribe that label to yourself and hear that as a personal accusation.
Well, but I don’t act that way. Am I a liberal?
Don’t you? Could have fooled me. I could have sworn you were one of those people who place blame on voters for the 2024 election outcome, instead of recognizing the democrats torpedoing their own coalition by demonstrating complete contempt for their own base.
My issue with the meme was this wild strawman, lumping congressional Democrats and people on Lemmy into the same ideological category “liberal” and then making a bunch of sweeping statements I guess about both
They are talking about liberals, not a narrow group of congressional democrats
I don’t see any mention of lemmy in this meme.
I’d also point out that despite repeatedly agreeing that democrats are contributing to Israel’s genocide, you’ve also repeatedly taken offense at the suggestion that liberals are fascist collaborators.
the whole thing can be motte-and-baileyed back around so that all of a sudden I’m an asshole who believes all these wild things and doesn’t care about genocide
You can claim to care about genocide and also deny that democrats are defending and collaborating with the fascists committing it. The latter certainly casts doubt on the former.
Like who are 5 people who fit into this category who are revering Charlie Kirk and also won’t admit Gaza is a genocide?
There were 60 out of 212 democrats who voted against a resolution honoring Kirk and to my knowledge only 10 democrats have ever referred to it as a genocide. By my math that’s 193 democrats minimum who meet that description.
Or do you believe that everyone the Lemmy consensus would describe as “liberal” also reveres Charlie Kirk, and also wants to silence any voices of Palestinian suffering?
I believe those people would say something like, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”. Liberals are usually more upset that protestors may have killed momentum for their candidate than for their candidate openly collaborating in a genocide and giving protestors a reason to oppose them in the first place.
Yes, I was pointing to that contradiction. In your opinion, are liberal democrats fascist collaborators? I’m guessing that the question probably makes you feel a little uneasy. but that’s just a guess.
Am I a liberal?
Sure seems like the shoe fits, but if you want to make a case for yourself i’m happy to discuss it.
In your opinion, are liberal democrats fascist collaborators? I’m guessing that the question probably makes you feel a little uneasy. but that’s just a guess.
I don’t think most US Democratic politicians are liberals. They’re clearly center-right conservatives. I would definitely describe most US Democrats in congress as fascist collaborators, yes. But then the people on Lemmy who generally get accused of being “liberals,” I don’t think are fascist collaborators. Would you disagree with any of that?
This is part of the problem with reasoning by labels. You get into extended wrangling about which labels apply to which people or not, or how to define the labels, or other things that aren’t really connected to the reality of the situation. And also you can make weird little indirect constructions (“I know you’re a liberal because you believe X” -> “Therefore I know you believe Y, because I know you’re a liberal”) that can further distort the reality.
I don’t see how you could disagree with anything out of the first paragraph there, referencing directly the reality, although you’re welcome to if you want to. But then by introducing the label of “liberal” to the equation you can say something that to you probably sounds pretty sensible which is wildly at odds with it. Right? Or you don’t see it that way?
Am I a liberal?
Sure seems like the shoe fits, but if you want to make a case for yourself i’m happy to discuss it.
Okay, so you think I’m probably a liberal. Noted.
I have no idea how to “make a case” about it, since you’re using this label in a very particular way. So I can’t even really say anything about the application of the label being right or not. By some definitions, I am. By some definitions, I’m not. My argument is that the application of the label by a big contingent on Lemmy doesn’t even really have any factual definition, it’s more just a trigger word with a pretty fluid definition which changes around as needed to attack enemies or accuse them of things. Your reaction to me saying most Democrats in government are center-right conservatives for example is super telling to me, where if we were talking about some other topic I feel like it’s likely that you would instantly agree with that.
I don’t think most US Democratic politicians are liberals.
It might help a little if you were to provide your understanding of ‘liberal’, because to me it seems like it’s confused at-best. My working definition of liberal is this one, and my chief criticism against it is that it provides no framework or acknowledgement of power existing outside of ‘government’ nor way of preventing that power from superseding it. My definition fits congressional democrats just as well as internet forum users who write apologia for why liberation politics are unfeasible (at any given moment) because they lack support from capital or from ‘moderates’. Nothing you’ve said so far makes me think you’re not a liberal as I’ve described it, but I’ll wait for you to try defining it yourself before hitting you over the head with it too many times.
But then the people on Lemmy who generally get accused of being “liberals,” I don’t think are fascist collaborators.
I disagree, but not because they’re frothing at the mouth for genocide. Liberalism is a philosophical framework that functionally separates an individual’s objections to the realities of capitalist and imperial systems from the agency to actually address them. “I support you in the goal you seek, but I cannot support your methods of direct action”. You might actually think that democrats are committing genocide and that they should be removed from office - but it’s your liberalism that prevents you from taking action against them. Hell, even the sitting democratic congresspeople might actually believe they are complicit in genocide, but their belief in liberal systems is what forces them into collaborating instead of resisting. It’s the same logic that prevents workers from joining a union or conducting a worker strike - the system of capital traps them by tying their material well-being to the well-being of the capitalist that exploits them:
“I agree we should have safer working conditions, but acting against the company risks me losing my job so I can’t support a strike”.
“I agree that democrats are fascist collaborators, but acting against them risks letting the fascist take the place of the fascist collaborator, so I can’t support protesting them right now”.
Liberalism is a system that coerces objectors into being passengers to fascism instead of organizing against it. That’s what makes it the ‘moderate wing of fascism’ - not because liberals secretly harbor fascist opinions. Is being a passenger better than being the driver? Maybe…? but it also ensures that we arrive at fascism either way, and that’s what we’re trying to avoid. To me, there’s no need to delineate between liberals and conservatives because my working definition doesn’t make them mutually exclusive. You can be a liberal as a democrat just as easily as you can be a liberal as a conservative. Are there democrats who aren’t liberals? Sure, but I think you have the axis of your scale backwards.
Your reaction to me saying most Democrats in government are center-right conservatives for example is super telling to me, where if we were talking about some other topic I feel like it’s likely that you would instantly agree with that
I mean, sure, I guess an argument could be made to center an arbitrary scale on someone more like Sanders, which puts most democrats right of center. But my point is that using an arbitrary scale isn’t helpful in addressing the core issues of liberal democracy. The most it does is re-frames the field of actors so that some democrats are on the other ‘team’, but that’s only helpful for electoral politics, not liberation politics. You seem really keen on establishing an ‘us vs them’ dividing line but the the problem is more persistent than the individual actors we’re talking about.
Liberalism has a close but sometimes uneasy relationship with democracy. At the center of democratic doctrine is the belief that governments derive their authority from popular election; liberalism, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with the scope of governmental activity. Liberals often have been wary of democracy, then, because of fears that it might generate a tyranny by the majority. One might briskly say, therefore, that democracy looks after majorities and liberalism after unpopular minorities.
To achieve what they took to be a more just distribution of wealth and income, liberals relied on two major strategies. First, they promoted the organization of workers into trade unions in order to improve their power to bargain with employers.
Like other political doctrines, liberalism is highly sensitive to time and circumstance. Each country’s liberalism is different, and it changes in each generation. … In each case, however, the liberals’ inspiration was the same: a hostility to concentrations of power that threaten the freedom of individuals and prevent them from realizing their full potential, along with a willingness to reexamine and reform social institutions in the light of new needs.
It sounds like your entire conception of what “liberal” doesn’t have much at all to do with this article you sent me, and is kind of centered around this one thing:
This willingness is tempered by an aversion to sudden, cataclysmic change, which is what sets off the liberal from the radical.
… and then some predictions about how it will function to enable collapse into fascism. More or less, the MLK definition of “liberal.” Makes sense to me. I can kind of see the narrative you’re constructing about how liberalism functions, and we could talk about that whole thing if you want. I don’t think that is the academic definition of liberalism though. Basically, it sounds like you’re defining liberalism as “allegiance to the government and rejection of methods of change outside of the formal government structure,” and kind of nothing else beyond that. IDK, maybe I’m wrong in that, tell me. If that’s your definition, then I am not one.
In addition:
“I agree we should have safer working conditions, but acting against the company risks me losing my job so I can’t support a strike”.
By this definition Biden is not a liberal, since he supported basically every strike aside from the rail strike that took place under his term. His labor secretary providing additional weight behind union actions was one of the big enablers of forward progress for the working class under his tenure.
I’d actually go further than this, into things like this and supporting the rail strike also even if it fucks up the economy, but if simply supporting strike actions makes you not a liberal, then I think a whole lot of people on Lemmy are exempted from criticism by this meme because they definitely are not liberals.
“I agree that democrats are fascist collaborators, but acting against them risks letting the fascist take the place of the fascist collaborator, so I can’t support protesting them right now”.
I mean that’s a very specific example lol. But sure.
I clarified what I think about this with some things here and here for example:
Where, something like the “uncommitted” movement is at least organized in a fashion where it seems like it could produce an improvement, by putting pressure on the Democrats, so that sounds fine. Just not voting for Democrats and hoping they’ll figure it out and move to the left seems pretty much guaranteed to give us something along the lines of the catastrophe that happened. Which is why I am opposed to it.
“Uncommitted” movement? Fine. Let’s put pressure on the Democrats to be better, in a way that’s organized and has some passable chance of saving some lives. Great stuff.
(I also at some point posted some articles I think about specific strategies to make effective protest against the Democrats that would actually make them change their policies, in addition to the obvious example of “uncommitted.”)
This is why I dislike having the conversation in terms of “liberal.” It’s going to mean that I’m going to have to spend an entire week clarifying what I believe and what I support, because you have such a strong narrative in your head that “PhilipTheBucket is a liberal -> PhilipTheBucket opposes protest movements if they might hurt Democrats’ chances -> because that’s how liberals are and he’s a liberal and I know that.” Even if I somehow managed to convince you of what I actually believe, you just perceive it as me trying to make this argument that I’m “not a liberal” or something. You’ll be deeply suspicious of it, because the bit is already flipped. You have this whole thing so firmly embedded in your worldview that you will tell me I’m lying if I try to tell just what I believe. I mean, it doesn’t help matters that I think something that’s kind of adjacent to that (“if Trump comes to power then things will be much worse, so it’s worth trying to keep him out of power”), but it’s not really rocket science to be able to distinguish between those two sort-of-similar sounding things.
Of course, if your whole point is just to trash me for being “a bad liberal,” then it suddenly does become really difficult to distinguish between them, and you can constantly keep swearing that I said the first one.
Id also point out that many of us have been screaming about this genocide for far longer than 8 months, but were yelled down by liberals for bringing it up while democrats were trying to campaign. I’m not going to trudge through your history for evidence that you cared about it before trump was president elect, but it’s a little telling to me that 8 months ago is when you made that bold declaration.
but were yelled down by liberals for bringing it up while democrats were trying to campaign
You were not yelled down. The majority consensus on Lemmy was that Kamala Harris was responsible for the genocide, I got banned from a couple of places for trying to say any different.
You’re confusing “someone popped up and disagreed with me” for “I was yelled down.” I don’t think you’ll ever find me going into some comments section about Palestine and saying, “Ssh! Don’t talk about this before the election!” Definitely you won’t find me banning anyone for it. What you’ll find is me pushing back hard on people saying “Don’t vote for Democrats, they did genocide!” That there was plenty of, because I don’t think that strategy makes any sense, and because I care about the Palestinian people, I was pushing back on it hoping that the genocide that’s currently taken a massive acceleration would not do that.
If I thought the DNC consultants who make up their awful strategy read Lemmy, I probably honestly would have approached it very very differently than I did. However I do not. I do not think posting on Lemmy influences Democratic politicians. I do think it influences voters (in some pretty tiny way), and so my main input to it is going to be centered around “how can voters behave in a way which will minimize genocide.” Surely that makes sense?
Id also point out that many of us have been screaming about this genocide for far longer than 8 months
When were you screaming about it in a way that didn’t also lead to “don’t vote for Democrats”? Most of what I see here looks pretty electoral. That’s an honest question, I am genuinely asking.
Go and check the political memes comm from early to mid 2024. Check the mod logs of the politics comm from the same time period. There were several struggle sessions about specific users, complaining that ‘all they do is post about Gaza’ and being super paranoid that they were intentionally trying to throw the election. Several were accused of being paid operatives.
I do not think posting on Lemmy influences Democratic politicians. I do think it influences voters
I’m pointing to the statement that places you in the same category as the ‘white moderate’ that MLK castigates in LfB. I don’t even need to find you a list of users I was referencing, because the evidence for your liberal perspective is right there in the next quote.
Yeah, this is exactly what I was talking about. “I want to influence voters” -> “You’re a liberal” -> “You don’t meaningfully oppose genocide, and I know that because that’s liberals”
No, it isn’t “i want to influence voters”, it’s the fact that the way you talk about democrats (and when) is dependent on how doing so will impact their odds of losing to fascists, even when the topic of conversation is about how democrats are themselves collaborating with fascists.
I don’t care if that makes you a liberal by whatever definition you want to use for yourself - I care that you ignore your convictions and turn a blind eye to atrocity when it’s politically inconvenient, and I care that democrats do, too.
Whatever word you want to use for that is fine with me.
By all means, protest against her Gaza policy, give her and any other politicians a hard time. Do whatever. God knows the Palestinians need it.
Putting pressure on her to break away from the DNC, Biden, every Republican, and everyone else in Washington that’s in love with the idea of killing Palestinians sounds like a good idea.
As a way to attempt to get Biden to understand the crushing urgency of stopping a second holocaust which is happening on earth during his time to be able to stop it, while the whole time he’s sending weapons to enable it to continue, by connecting it to his actual reelection which he cares about more than lives of people in Gaza for some fucked up reason, I thought it was pretty good. He made some “efforts” at a cease fire and I’m sure he is furious that Netanyahu is doing what he’s doing, but at the same time, he hasn’t stopped it yet, and so anything that might get him to wake up and also not for nothing send a strong message to Harris can only be a good thing, I think.
All from before the election. Usually it’s connected to some kind of “and Trump is still worse” reminder, but your whole picture that I was “turning a blind eye” is simply because you’re confused within this whole mental model where I am a liberal, and you’re convinced that you already know what all liberals did and you don’t need to learn anything about specifically what I did and said.
Actually, all of my actual engagement with people in congress on the issue was from before the election, too, because I thought there was a nonzero (even if infinitesimal) chance that it might do something. Everything has to start somewhere.
Edit: Actually, this whole thing is worth reading: https://lemmy.world/post/21463451 I posted an interview with the uncommitted co-founder, before the election, and then the top comment was someone saying “uncommitted” did more harm than good, and I somewhat disagreed with him saying I supported their right to do it. That was the context for some of the protest-supportive comments I posted above.
Like I say, I do understand why you have this view of what I believe and are repeatedly doubling down on it so, so hard in the face of me telling you different. The reason I am taking some decent amount of time to talk with you about it is because I think it is worthwhile to help you break out of this type of thinking.
Here’s me trying to drown out the sound of their suffering:
Here’s me complaining about Democrats being criticized for enabling Israel:
That was 8 months ago. I have nothing to add to it. It’s mostly come true now, and if you actively pushed in any way for people not to keep Trump out of power, you helped make it happen. Even if you don’t believe there is any difference between “sending weapons” and “sending even more weapons plus turning vague diplomatic complaining into excited diplomatic approval plus putting Americans on the ground to help make it happen,” you still helped usher in the situation where Palestinian protest leaders in the US are getting deported instead of being out there protesting. Good job.
I’m aware that you’re trying hard to reframe me saying “Trump is worse” as if it meant I was making excuses for Biden, or that I’m saying it for any reason other than concern for the Palestinians and all the other people Trump is current fucking up. I am not. Biden was very very bad on this issue, and Trump is worse. That’s what’s up. You can insult me or mischaracterize that any number of types of ways, but that’s what’s up. Tell me I’m wrong.
This is precisely what I’m talking about in my comment. You’re taking a point of view that you might or might not agree with, either of which is fine, and deciding to pretend that it is a horrifying caricature (that I’m so in love with Joe Biden of all the fucking people in the world that I am willing to overlook or downplay a genocide just to have a chance to distract people from talking about a bad thing he did). Because it’s easier than grappling with what’s really going on, you simply pretend that there’s a whole class of people out there running around who are just constantly stupid and wrong, and you comfortably assure one another that’s the explanation for why they sometimes come along and expose you to a critical viewpoint that isn’t what you want to hear.
Go on, continue with it, if you want.
Stop skirting around what the meme is talking about
“Look at this terrible tragedy” is not the same as “if we do not end our complicity in this active genocide, we risk losing everything”
Liberals act as if their only option is to vote or not vote, but that’s simply not the case. If your party is plugging their ears to the tragedy they are helping commit, your job isn’t to make sure everyone knows how bad the other candidate is, it’s to confront your party about why they’re complicating what should otherwise be an easy choice by doing something objectively evil.
2024 was nobody’s fault but the democrats’, for exactly the reason depicted in the meme. Instead of addressing the cries for acknowledgment in their base, they fucked us all.
And here we are again, dealing with their choice to revere and defend the life’s work of a neonazi while we are still waiting for them to acknowledge the genocide they helped commit and which continues a year later. I can’t blow smoke for a party that continuously runs cover for fascists while plugging their ears to their own base.
True, but that first one is directly what the meme is referencing. You actually accused me specifically I think of trying to distract from the terrible tragedy.
Well, but I don’t act that way. Am I a liberal? According to lots and lots of people on Lemmy, I am. Here’s a comment I made earlier tonight:
You’d agree with that, right?
Or no?
This is what I’m talking about. Actually some of what you’re saying in this latest message, I agree with. But it has not a lot to do with the meme. My issue with the meme was this wild strawman, lumping congressional Democrats and people on Lemmy into the same ideological category “liberal” and then making a bunch of sweeping statements I guess about both, by which the whole thing can be motte-and-baileyed back around so that all of a sudden I’m an asshole who believes all these wild things and doesn’t care about genocide.
Let’s try this. Who are some examples of who you are talking about here? Like who are 5 people who fit into this category who are revering Charlie Kirk and also won’t admit Gaza is a genocide? I am sure there are plenty of them (not sarcasm, I really do believe lots of those people exist, even some number of them on the American “left.”) Ideally out of government if you can, like I said I don’t think anyone in the US government is all that left (and if you’re only talking about congressional Democrats or something, then yes the meme makes sense.)
I can pretty much guarantee you that whoever those people are, they’re (a) a small subset of the people who the Lemmy consensus would describe as “a liberal” and (b) people I also despise pretty much as much as you do.
Right? Or do you believe that everyone the Lemmy consensus would describe as “liberal” also reveres Charlie Kirk, and also wants to silence any voices of Palestinian suffering?
No, and no. The meme is referencing liberals walking out of the Democratic National Convention last year literally plugging their ears to protestors who were kicked out for demanding democrats stop supporting Israel’s genocide against palestinians. Liberals then (and now) were refusing to address protestors demanding action against Israel’s genocidal campaign. They sometimes separately acknowledged it as a tragedy but refused to take action against Israel. “I think this is a tragedy, but unfortunately there’s nothing we can do until after the election”.
I haven’t actually accused you of anything, but it does kind of seem like i’m describing you. It’s not my fault you ascribe that label to yourself and hear that as a personal accusation.
Don’t you? Could have fooled me. I could have sworn you were one of those people who place blame on voters for the 2024 election outcome, instead of recognizing the democrats torpedoing their own coalition by demonstrating complete contempt for their own base.
They are talking about liberals, not a narrow group of congressional democrats
I don’t see any mention of lemmy in this meme.
I’d also point out that despite repeatedly agreeing that democrats are contributing to Israel’s genocide, you’ve also repeatedly taken offense at the suggestion that liberals are fascist collaborators.
You can claim to care about genocide and also deny that democrats are defending and collaborating with the fascists committing it. The latter certainly casts doubt on the former.
There were 60 out of 212 democrats who voted against a resolution honoring Kirk and to my knowledge only 10 democrats have ever referred to it as a genocide. By my math that’s 193 democrats minimum who meet that description.
I believe those people would say something like, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”. Liberals are usually more upset that protestors may have killed momentum for their candidate than for their candidate openly collaborating in a genocide and giving protestors a reason to oppose them in the first place.
Well, that sure makes sense.
Am I a liberal?
Yes, I was pointing to that contradiction. In your opinion, are liberal democrats fascist collaborators? I’m guessing that the question probably makes you feel a little uneasy. but that’s just a guess.
Sure seems like the shoe fits, but if you want to make a case for yourself i’m happy to discuss it.
I don’t think most US Democratic politicians are liberals. They’re clearly center-right conservatives. I would definitely describe most US Democrats in congress as fascist collaborators, yes. But then the people on Lemmy who generally get accused of being “liberals,” I don’t think are fascist collaborators. Would you disagree with any of that?
This is part of the problem with reasoning by labels. You get into extended wrangling about which labels apply to which people or not, or how to define the labels, or other things that aren’t really connected to the reality of the situation. And also you can make weird little indirect constructions (“I know you’re a liberal because you believe X” -> “Therefore I know you believe Y, because I know you’re a liberal”) that can further distort the reality.
I don’t see how you could disagree with anything out of the first paragraph there, referencing directly the reality, although you’re welcome to if you want to. But then by introducing the label of “liberal” to the equation you can say something that to you probably sounds pretty sensible which is wildly at odds with it. Right? Or you don’t see it that way?
Okay, so you think I’m probably a liberal. Noted.
I have no idea how to “make a case” about it, since you’re using this label in a very particular way. So I can’t even really say anything about the application of the label being right or not. By some definitions, I am. By some definitions, I’m not. My argument is that the application of the label by a big contingent on Lemmy doesn’t even really have any factual definition, it’s more just a trigger word with a pretty fluid definition which changes around as needed to attack enemies or accuse them of things. Your reaction to me saying most Democrats in government are center-right conservatives for example is super telling to me, where if we were talking about some other topic I feel like it’s likely that you would instantly agree with that.
It might help a little if you were to provide your understanding of ‘liberal’, because to me it seems like it’s confused at-best. My working definition of liberal is this one, and my chief criticism against it is that it provides no framework or acknowledgement of power existing outside of ‘government’ nor way of preventing that power from superseding it. My definition fits congressional democrats just as well as internet forum users who write apologia for why liberation politics are unfeasible (at any given moment) because they lack support from capital or from ‘moderates’. Nothing you’ve said so far makes me think you’re not a liberal as I’ve described it, but I’ll wait for you to try defining it yourself before hitting you over the head with it too many times.
I disagree, but not because they’re frothing at the mouth for genocide. Liberalism is a philosophical framework that functionally separates an individual’s objections to the realities of capitalist and imperial systems from the agency to actually address them. “I support you in the goal you seek, but I cannot support your methods of direct action”. You might actually think that democrats are committing genocide and that they should be removed from office - but it’s your liberalism that prevents you from taking action against them. Hell, even the sitting democratic congresspeople might actually believe they are complicit in genocide, but their belief in liberal systems is what forces them into collaborating instead of resisting. It’s the same logic that prevents workers from joining a union or conducting a worker strike - the system of capital traps them by tying their material well-being to the well-being of the capitalist that exploits them:
“I agree we should have safer working conditions, but acting against the company risks me losing my job so I can’t support a strike”.
“I agree that democrats are fascist collaborators, but acting against them risks letting the fascist take the place of the fascist collaborator, so I can’t support protesting them right now”.
Liberalism is a system that coerces objectors into being passengers to fascism instead of organizing against it. That’s what makes it the ‘moderate wing of fascism’ - not because liberals secretly harbor fascist opinions. Is being a passenger better than being the driver? Maybe…? but it also ensures that we arrive at fascism either way, and that’s what we’re trying to avoid. To me, there’s no need to delineate between liberals and conservatives because my working definition doesn’t make them mutually exclusive. You can be a liberal as a democrat just as easily as you can be a liberal as a conservative. Are there democrats who aren’t liberals? Sure, but I think you have the axis of your scale backwards.
I mean, sure, I guess an argument could be made to center an arbitrary scale on someone more like Sanders, which puts most democrats right of center. But my point is that using an arbitrary scale isn’t helpful in addressing the core issues of liberal democracy. The most it does is re-frames the field of actors so that some democrats are on the other ‘team’, but that’s only helpful for electoral politics, not liberation politics. You seem really keen on establishing an ‘us vs them’ dividing line but the the problem is more persistent than the individual actors we’re talking about.
Is it?
It sounds like your entire conception of what “liberal” doesn’t have much at all to do with this article you sent me, and is kind of centered around this one thing:
… and then some predictions about how it will function to enable collapse into fascism. More or less, the MLK definition of “liberal.” Makes sense to me. I can kind of see the narrative you’re constructing about how liberalism functions, and we could talk about that whole thing if you want. I don’t think that is the academic definition of liberalism though. Basically, it sounds like you’re defining liberalism as “allegiance to the government and rejection of methods of change outside of the formal government structure,” and kind of nothing else beyond that. IDK, maybe I’m wrong in that, tell me. If that’s your definition, then I am not one.
In addition:
By this definition Biden is not a liberal, since he supported basically every strike aside from the rail strike that took place under his term. His labor secretary providing additional weight behind union actions was one of the big enablers of forward progress for the working class under his tenure.
I’d actually go further than this, into things like this and supporting the rail strike also even if it fucks up the economy, but if simply supporting strike actions makes you not a liberal, then I think a whole lot of people on Lemmy are exempted from criticism by this meme because they definitely are not liberals.
I mean that’s a very specific example lol. But sure.
I clarified what I think about this with some things here and here for example:
(I also at some point posted some articles I think about specific strategies to make effective protest against the Democrats that would actually make them change their policies, in addition to the obvious example of “uncommitted.”)
This is why I dislike having the conversation in terms of “liberal.” It’s going to mean that I’m going to have to spend an entire week clarifying what I believe and what I support, because you have such a strong narrative in your head that “PhilipTheBucket is a liberal -> PhilipTheBucket opposes protest movements if they might hurt Democrats’ chances -> because that’s how liberals are and he’s a liberal and I know that.” Even if I somehow managed to convince you of what I actually believe, you just perceive it as me trying to make this argument that I’m “not a liberal” or something. You’ll be deeply suspicious of it, because the bit is already flipped. You have this whole thing so firmly embedded in your worldview that you will tell me I’m lying if I try to tell just what I believe. I mean, it doesn’t help matters that I think something that’s kind of adjacent to that (“if Trump comes to power then things will be much worse, so it’s worth trying to keep him out of power”), but it’s not really rocket science to be able to distinguish between those two sort-of-similar sounding things.
Of course, if your whole point is just to trash me for being “a bad liberal,” then it suddenly does become really difficult to distinguish between them, and you can constantly keep swearing that I said the first one.
Id also point out that many of us have been screaming about this genocide for far longer than 8 months, but were yelled down by liberals for bringing it up while democrats were trying to campaign. I’m not going to trudge through your history for evidence that you cared about it before trump was president elect, but it’s a little telling to me that 8 months ago is when you made that bold declaration.
You were not yelled down. The majority consensus on Lemmy was that Kamala Harris was responsible for the genocide, I got banned from a couple of places for trying to say any different.
You’re confusing “someone popped up and disagreed with me” for “I was yelled down.” I don’t think you’ll ever find me going into some comments section about Palestine and saying, “Ssh! Don’t talk about this before the election!” Definitely you won’t find me banning anyone for it. What you’ll find is me pushing back hard on people saying “Don’t vote for Democrats, they did genocide!” That there was plenty of, because I don’t think that strategy makes any sense, and because I care about the Palestinian people, I was pushing back on it hoping that the genocide that’s currently taken a massive acceleration would not do that.
If I thought the DNC consultants who make up their awful strategy read Lemmy, I probably honestly would have approached it very very differently than I did. However I do not. I do not think posting on Lemmy influences Democratic politicians. I do think it influences voters (in some pretty tiny way), and so my main input to it is going to be centered around “how can voters behave in a way which will minimize genocide.” Surely that makes sense?
https://lemmy.world/search?q=palestine&type=Comments&listingType=All&creatorId=13369510&page=1&sort=Old
https://lemmy.world/search?q=gaza&type=Comments&listingType=All&creatorId=13369510&page=1&sort=Old
https://lemmy.world/search?q=genocide&type=Comments&listingType=All&creatorId=13369510&page=1&sort=Old
When were you screaming about it in a way that didn’t also lead to “don’t vote for Democrats”? Most of what I see here looks pretty electoral. That’s an honest question, I am genuinely asking.
Go and check the political memes comm from early to mid 2024. Check the mod logs of the politics comm from the same time period. There were several struggle sessions about specific users, complaining that ‘all they do is post about Gaza’ and being super paranoid that they were intentionally trying to throw the election. Several were accused of being paid operatives.
Whoomp, there it is.
Go take it up with MLK.
You’d have to go look at my previous accounts. I rotate accounts regularly and keep them as separated as possible.
Which users?
Which part of this were you disagreeing with?
Or do you think me saying these two true things is a gotcha about something else? Tell me.
I’m pointing to the statement that places you in the same category as the ‘white moderate’ that MLK castigates in LfB. I don’t even need to find you a list of users I was referencing, because the evidence for your liberal perspective is right there in the next quote.
You’re in the picture, buddy.
Yeah, this is exactly what I was talking about. “I want to influence voters” -> “You’re a liberal” -> “You don’t meaningfully oppose genocide, and I know that because that’s liberals”
Logical fallacy speedrun IOW
No, it isn’t “i want to influence voters”, it’s the fact that the way you talk about democrats (and when) is dependent on how doing so will impact their odds of losing to fascists, even when the topic of conversation is about how democrats are themselves collaborating with fascists.
I don’t care if that makes you a liberal by whatever definition you want to use for yourself - I care that you ignore your convictions and turn a blind eye to atrocity when it’s politically inconvenient, and I care that democrats do, too.
Whatever word you want to use for that is fine with me.
https://lemmy.world/search?q=biden&type=Comments&listingType=All&creatorId=9155326&page=1&sort=Old
All from before the election. Usually it’s connected to some kind of “and Trump is still worse” reminder, but your whole picture that I was “turning a blind eye” is simply because you’re confused within this whole mental model where I am a liberal, and you’re convinced that you already know what all liberals did and you don’t need to learn anything about specifically what I did and said.
Actually, all of my actual engagement with people in congress on the issue was from before the election, too, because I thought there was a nonzero (even if infinitesimal) chance that it might do something. Everything has to start somewhere.
Edit: Actually, this whole thing is worth reading: https://lemmy.world/post/21463451 I posted an interview with the uncommitted co-founder, before the election, and then the top comment was someone saying “uncommitted” did more harm than good, and I somewhat disagreed with him saying I supported their right to do it. That was the context for some of the protest-supportive comments I posted above.
Like I say, I do understand why you have this view of what I believe and are repeatedly doubling down on it so, so hard in the face of me telling you different. The reason I am taking some decent amount of time to talk with you about it is because I think it is worthwhile to help you break out of this type of thinking.