#and don't know the filibuster exists

[bobapril]

Is "committing to radical change" a viable way to STAY elected? I'm asking in all sincerity, because I haven't researched it at all. But judging from the level of political knowledge I see around me, it sounds like a good way to get elected for one term, then dumped when your single vote in a 435-person House doesn't actually accomplish all that much. The people demanding radical change don't seem to have much patience for anything gradual - if you don't fix everything NOW, then you've sold out. AOC's done better, but she's also kinda assimilated enough to have a voice with the leadership.

also while we're at it, "progressive" doesn't mean anything and doesn't describe any specific ideology and is a cop out term for people who want leftists to vote for them while not losing out on corporate and further right support. meaningless catch all terms for ideologies that exist to appease rich donors result in people like john fetterman getting elected on vague promises.

it has been shown time and time again that committing to actual radical change and standing by it is the way forward and actually a viable way to get elected, making empty promises using vague words that sound radical and then slowly assimilating into the establishment has yet to result in meaningful change

[morlock-holmes]

I don't really know what messages young people in this country absorb about the Civil War these days.

When I was a kid the mainstream centrist narrative, one that I think was pushed in schools and was definitely pushed in pop culture, went something like this:

"We modern people understand that slavery was wrong. But it is a mistake to judge the people of past times based on modern psychology or morals; rather, we must understand them as people of their times, who understood their world in a way fundamentally differently then we do, so far in the future.

"During the late 18th and early 19th century, slavery was simply not a very important issue, either morally or politically, and it certainly didn't play into the civil war in any real important fashion. The idea of slavery as a moral issue is a modern-day viewpoint, and while it is morally correct, we simply cannot project those moral sensibilities back into a world where they didn't exist.

"The Civil War was a fought as the culmination of a complex, somewhat abstruse political debate about whether power should reside primarily in separate states or within the federal government, and while it is tragic that this debate caused a war, both sides of that debate had valid reasons for taking their position."

Do they still teach that kind of thing to kids these days?

Because the more I learn the more I realize what incredible horseshit that story was.

Here, for example, is John Quincy Adams, in 1838:

"Midway through the filibuster, on June 30, Adams responded to an interruption by South Carolina representative Francis Wilkinson Pickens and described a notorious incident from the previous year.

I do not doubt in the least that he is, himself, a kind and indulgent master; so, I doubt not, are all the gentlemen who represent his State on this floor. They know not the horrors that belong to the system, and attend it even in their own State; and when they are stated by those who have witnessed them, he calls the whole a tissue of misrepresentation. . . . He does not know the profligate villain who procreates children from his slaves, and then sells his own children as slaves. He does not know the crushing and destruction of all the tenderest and holiest ties of nature which that system produces, but which I have seen, with my own eyes, in this city of Washington. Twelve months have not passed since a woman, in this District, was taken with her four infant children, and separated from her husband, who was a free man, to be sent away, I know not where. That woman, in a dungeon in Alexandria, killed with her own hand two of her children, and attempted to kill the others. She was tried for murder, and, to the honor of human nature I say it, a jury was not to be found in the District who would find her guilty. . . . The woman was asked how she could perpetrate such an act, for she had been a woman of unblemished character and of pious sentiments. She replied that wrong had been done to her and to them; that she was entitled to her freedom though she had been sold to go to Georgia and that she had sent her children to a better world.

I recommend clicking through that link and reading about what Adams said about that case in his diary.

In general, that website, Story of The Week, has a number of excellent and readable primary sources about slavery and racism in America, and they particularly demonstrate that the Abolition movement objected to slavery for exactly the reasons that we now object to it today: That it was unspeakably cruel to separate children from their mothers and husbands from wives; that men should be allowed to profit from their own work, rather than having the proceeds stolen; that slave owners would rape their female slaves and sell their own children.

I'm just amazed at how much energy America has put into lying to itself about its own history.

[spinningbuster98]

Since yesterday we talked about my *favorite* story: I think what really confuses me about the NFCV fans who defend Hector's writing by praising his final action, letting Lenore go, as the rightful conclusion of his character arc... is that it only works if you completely memory hole S3.

Hector is introduced as someone who burned his own parents alive after a childhood of abuse, bitter enough to believe humanity needed to be culled. From this perspective, him learning to forgive Lenore, or at least granting her mercy and dignity, could be a good character development. But Hector through the show was not written to be bitter, vengeful and violent: that was Isaac.

Or alternatively, Hector's biggest flaw is that he needs to be loved, so much that his favorite spell is reanimating dead animals so that they could love him unconditionally. He forces those creatures to him. He keeps this behavior by clinging to Dracula, then Carmilla (he could have ran away, he chose to stay with her after Dracula's death), then Lenore (after Carmilla's death and Isaac making him live, Lenore became his only certainty in life). From this perspective, him not forcing Lenore to live an existence she didn't want to live, but accepting her decision, could be poignant. But Hector never actively sought anyone: he was swayed and lured in. Besides, his pets stopped being relevant after S2.

Hector's arc was one of passivity. You can't miss it: even Isaac points out that Hector lacked agency. Hector spent his entire arc being thrown around left and right, lied to, beaten, humiliated, dehumanized, and he simply... existed. He has no objective, he barely has any negative emotions. Hector in S3 was a blow up doll, and we audience were meant to laugh at his stupidity while jerking off over the submissive and breedable peggable guy being called "good boy". S4 pretends he grew, with his working behind the scenes to resurrect Dracula, but it's not enough, for all the reasons we know. That's why him letting Lenore go feels like the last spit in the face for him: not only Hector is the only character in the season who is left with a bittersweet ending at best, but... he didn't do anything to affirm himself. He didn't choose to leave Lenore: Lenore chose to leave him, and he simply nodded to that. He didn't talk to her about their problematic relationship, now that nothing was between them. He didn't take the chance to recognize his own self-worth in the same way Isaac did. We don't know what he plans to do with Isaac, we don't know if he plans to leave the castle at some point. The pattern of him going "sure why not" at everything thrown at him was not shaken.

(I don't need to tell you that as someone who loves the original Hector's story precisely for the way he seizes agency for himself, this pisses me off something fierce. More idealistic? Maybe, but also encouraging.)

I'll be honest: Hector as a character is so empty that I feel his fans simply project themselves into him, especially victims of abuse who see the way he crawled back to Lenore and think that it was an intentionally nuanced representation of the way abuse twists your mind and priorities. And if his story resonates with you, I can't take it away from you, but I can assure you that the guy who spent a whole episode writing his puppy fetish for no reason other than fanservice does not give a single shit about the realism of abuse, let alone the things he was accused of.

And I wonder if the same can be applied to other aspects of the show, like Trephacard's friendship that straight up doesn't exist on screen, or Isaac's "development" which might resonate with people similar to him. Just a lot of projecting and filling in the holes, of which the show has plenty because it would rather waste its time with pointless filibustering and people being mean and crass to each other or piss jokes.

This is gonna sound very cynical but the main reason for the show's success is, essentially, that it's superficially deep and insightful.

Superficial presentation can go a very, very long way in hiding very egregious writing flaws, stuff like great fight scenes, emotional music and dialogues that sounds very cool, philosophical and deep can easily convince people that what they're watching is far more than it really is. These are cases where, if you don't pay attention to the finer details, you would really be led to believe that it's exactly what the show is presenting itself as

As another example: Sonic fans, even after all of these years, still like to parade Mephiles around as the best written villain in the series, even though his plan makes less than zero sense. This is because he looks cool (?), has cool powers, has a cool voice and the game consistently presents him as a mastermind...so folks fall for it, it's all about the vibes and how they emotionally impact the viewers, who in turn don't tackle the material with actual critical thought. Some seem to do so, given the plethora of in-depth analysis of characters like Isaac, but, and I know this is really offensive of me to say, I think they are still being influenced by the emotional impact of the way the story likes to present itself, preventing them from truly being 100% objective

People see Hector's pseudo philosophical speech to Lenore, they see her killing herself with the beautiful cinematography and music, and they mistake it for actual art, because it makes them forget or reinterpret the likes of S3. The reason why so many undermine or even justify Lenore's treatment of Hector in S3 is not, I believe, out of genuine rape apologism, but rather becaus people have a subconscious need to have everything neatly fit into their view of events

The ending of S4 looks so beautiful and deep and meaningful, but their relationship in S3 is in direct contradiction of that, so instead of recognizing that they twist the facts in their own head in order for all of it to make sense, because if you admit the existence of S3 as it truly was to yourself, then S4 and it's "beautiful" emotional impact falls apart like a ton of bricks

This is sounding very arrogant if not downright misanthropic I know, as I'm essentially saying that people don't know how to consume the media they like and that they don't even truly know what it is that they like. I feel a bit ashamed in saying this because it's the type of reasoning that would anger me usually, especially if directed at me, so in a way I guess I'm being hypocritical...but I truly don't see any other way to explain this phenomenon

Isaac is, of course, another good example: it's "easy" for most people to forget his hypocrisy because the show puts such a laser focus on his "development" and emotions and philosophy etc. It's like dangling keys in front of a toddler in order to distract them from some other thing

Something like Other M could have had the same effect, but the difference I feel is that Other M is far more egregious in its superficial dialogue: Samus sounds boring and stupid even at a surface level, she can't fool the audience, and Adam's character doesn't feature nowhere close as many "distractions" from his shitty behavior, especially since the authorization mechanic is pervasive throughout the whole game, so people immediately see what a douchebag he is and how self contradicting the story is about him.

[christmasintheloonybin]

it's actually insane and I've met people like this I understand why people completely lose their humanity because they lose contact with reality. like you can see all of these photos of Israel killing civilians and suddenly everyone's a philosopher, every news anchor is just asking questions "what is war? what is genocide? what is a civilian? who's to say what's right and what's wrong?" like they're just filibustering you know like they just debate and debate and then oh well times up I guess it's just too complicated. let's hear the perspective of the child murderers but it's actually very antisemitic to consider the perspective of murdered children.

but all of this is not so direct or out in the sunlight it's so underhanded and sneaky you don't even realize it. I mean if you're just a normal person watching the news it would be so easy to become brainwashed. it's like reality doesn't even exist, it's as if everything is theoretical and up for debate but only as long as you agree with them, if you have a different perspective then suddenly mean words or even thoughts against are more violent and evil than the physical violence inflicted on Palestinians. is this not insane? you can't be antisemitic in writing speech or even thought but it is fully acceptable to kill 35,000 people on the basis of race and religion. as long as they're not Jews. it is so clearly the same thing they just overcomplicate everything and argue everything into weird theoretical territory. it's totally psychotic.

[frothlad]

Before I dive into a closer look at two thematically linked cases, I want to make something clear: If Chief Justice John Roberts were standing on front of me, on fire, begging me to piss on him to put it out, I would say, no, that's the Court's prerogative, I can't intrude on that.

The two cases are Loper Bright v. Raimondo, and Corner Post v. Federal Reserve, and together they establish the principle that the courts are in charge of federal regulations, not the executive branch and the agencies charged by law with making those regulations, and these regulations may be challenged at any time by anyone, no matter how long those regulations have been in place.

When coupled with the potent and perfected weapon of judge shopping that the right-wing uses with such enthusiasm, the power of democratic Presidents past and present has been crippled. For instance, under Corner Post, there's nothing to stop Judge Kacsmaryk from re-opening the challenge to the mifepristone approval of 2000; after all, the plaintiff organization was not "injured" until the organization came into existence.

Since there is no corresponding lawlessness on the democratic side -- no massive legal movement, no indoctrinated judges, no pattern of behavior, no supermajority on the Supreme Court -- there is no corresponding loss of power to Republican presidents in the future.

Before I go any further, and before we give into despair: What can we do? Unlike the presidential immunity case, this can be resolved with statutory changes. This means that we must make Congress functional again. And that means electing Democratic members of Congress in the House, where a simple majority is sufficient, and electing young Democratic senators who are willing to overturn the filibuster, and then riding them as constituents with the demand that they modify the Administrative Procedures Act and related laws to make clear that technocratic agencies are responsible for technocratic regulations, not judges, and that final rules become genuinely final with the passage of time.

So, onto the cases. It is instructive to note that for all the talk about the grand principles that these cases turn into anarchy, these cases are penny-ante bullshit. That's what the Federalist Society and its associated projects do: They find -- or make up, as in the Colorado gay wedding website case -- some half-ass case and proceed to contort it into a case that attacks a grand principle.

Loper Bright is about federal observers on fishing boats. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service administers the fisheries in US marine waters in order to ensure that we don't vacuum up every fish and turn the ocean into desert. It's been sort of successful. E.g. the flounder fishery in Alaskan waters is very healthy, but the Grand Banks are sitting at less than 10% of historic catches, IIRC.

Anyway, under the Act, the NMFS has set regulations that (some) fishing boats must carry federal observers, and sets fees to pay for the observers. Loper Bright Enterprises and others don't want to pay the fees, because they have listened to evil advisors. Or, I dunno. Now, granted -- life on a fishing vessel is hard, and the market does not permit fishers to receive fair value for their labor, which is an issue throughout our economy. But we know as clearly as we know anything that without those observers, fishers will vacuum the oceans empty.

But again, who pays?

The Act does not lay any of this out; it delegates authority to the NMFS, which has made regulations to implement the Act's goals of not running out of fish. When Loper Bright et al challenged the fees, they lost in the lower courts, under the doctrine of "Chevron deference". Now, Chevron deference dates from a Reagan-era case, and it says, essentially, that as long as an agency justifies its regulations in a reasonable fashion that's compatible with the law behind the regulation, the courts should defer to the agency, which presumably has experts who have made their careers working in the industry being regulated and therefore know what's possible and what's reasonable. Since judges aren't any of that, it's not a good idea to second-guess those who are.

The decision here says that's bullshit; judges are the only people who can have final say over what a law means and whether a regulation is a reasonable way to achieve it.

It is breathtaking in its arrogance, and in its arrogating of power away from the executive to the judicial.

Fun fact: Justice Roberts speaks of Chevron being decided "by a bare quorum of six Justices". Guess what the margin in this decision is.

Also fun fact: Chevron was decided by a right-wing Court in 1984 when Republicans controlled the executive, and overturned by a right-wing Court in 2024 when Republicans controlled the courts. Yes, this is deeply, fundamentally, partisan. It is impossible to consider this case without considering the politics.

Roberts' opinion anchors its lawlessness in the Administrative Procedures Act, which says that courts will decide questions of law -- which is fair enough, but this case makes it clear that the Court thinks that everything is a question of law. This is why Congress could fix this; all it has to do is put Chevron deference into the APA.

Since as soon as Clinton was elected, the right-wing Court started chipping away at Chevron, Roberts concludes that there has been no "reliance" on Chevron, so there is no reason not to explicitly overrule it. Which is brilliant: All you have to do is hate on something long enough, and the fact that you hate it becomes justification to overturn it. But the fact is that agencies and Congress have been operating under Chevron for 40 years, so this is not a little change, this is a huge change. And, as we'll see, it opens a hunting season on every regulation that will overwhelm the lower courts, or empower courts like the Fifth Circuit to enact the 2025 Project knowing that the Court will not have the ability to respond to every case.

Roberts for six, Kagan for three. Thomas solo concurrence to rant about separation of powers; Gorsuch solo concurrence to attack stare decisis as a principle. There's a reason why Gorsuch -- for all that he is sometimes principled -- is a key member of the anarchist wing of the Court. He would blow up any inconvenient precedent, and do so while proclaiming how principled it is to do so. You know how some left-wing activists fail to achieve anything because nothing is sufficiently principled to satisfy them. That's Gorsuch's relationship to precedent: No precedent is pure enough to survive.

Kagan is, of course, completely persuasive: Courts are not political and do not answer to voters, and Congress does not and cannot give power to the judiciary branch to execute its laws, and agencies have expertise that court do not have. Etc., etc. Any practitioner could write this opinion, as futile as it is.

The separation of powers that the majority invokes here is contrary to our understood theory of government: Instead of Congress binding agencies to law and granting them power to executive, and agency overreach checked by the courts, with the courts prudentially checking themselves and Congress having the power to check and rebalance by rewriting the law, in this case, the Court takes advantage of Congress's inability to act to declare the entire judicial branch unchecked by any prudence.

So every federal regulation is now subject to the whim of any district judge in Texas or Louisiana.

It gets worse.

The statute of limitations for challenging a regulation that has reached the Final Rule stage is six years.

Corner Post throws that out.

Corner Post is about credit card fees. Corner Post is a truck stop in North Dakota, opened in 2018. Credit card companies charge "interchange fees" for moving money from banks to merchants. Those fees were standardized under Dodd-Frank in 2010, which gave the Federal Reserve the authority to cap the fees, which became a final rule in 2011. You already know the critical point: This is an agency action. Under the APA, from the time the rule became final, there was a six-year statute of limitations to challenge it, which expired before Corner Post opened. (Industry groups challenged the regulation at the time, and lost.)

Now, if you're me, you say "Corner Post had fair notice of the business environment it was to operate in, and is presumed to have known that it would be subject to the interchange fees under the final rule". That's how law works. If Corner Post is so successful that it "has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in interchange fees" in the six years since its opening, the interchange fee rule is not really impeding their business. If it didn't want to pay interchange fees, it didn't have to open. If it didn't like interchange fees, it could lobby Congress or the Federal Reserve to change the rule.

But I am not a Federalist Society judge, and I am not part of a sexumvirate dedicated to granting itself power.

Corner Post joined an industry group that was continuing to challenge the regulation, and claimed that the six-year limit didn't apply to it, because its claim didn't accrue until it paid the first interchange fee.

The Court holds that Corner Post was injured by the rule, and because its injuries were within the six year limit, it has standing to challenge the rule. Barrett for six.

This is a technical decision about when a claim accrues; it is very inside-law. That technical aspect is probably why Barrett wanted to write the opinion, or why Roberts assigned it to her; it would have appealed to her professorial nature.

Kavanaugh has a long solo concurrence reiterating that Corner Post was injured (it's not subject to the rule, the bank and credit card companies are, but it must pay the fees), and a long discourse on the remedy available, arguing that vacatur of the regulation is appropriate. He's writing presumably because some of his colleagues like Gorsuch have been inveighing against nationwide injunctions and overbroad vacaturs.

Jackson has the dissent.

So, Greg, why is this a deal? It's a technical decision about when claims accrue. That's something only lawyers could love, surely? I think you can probably work it out.

If a claim accrues for purposes of challenging a regulation when a newly-created entity is subject to the regulation, then you can challenge any regulation, no matter how old or entrenched in the industry, simply by creating a new entity.

That is, in part, what happened in the mifepristone case: A new "physicians' group" was formed in Amarillo, solely that it could raise a new claim against the FDA's actions (and sue specifically in Amarillo). You could do the same thing with any claim against any regulation. If the petrochemical industry wanted to put lead back in gasoline, it just runs up a new refinery subsidiary that wants to market "no-knock gasoline"; now that subsidiary has been injured by the regulation against lead, so it can sue.

In combination with Loper Bright, that courts need not pay attention to agencies' choices in response to gaps and ambiguities in empowering laws, you now have courts with final authority over anything the federal government has ever done, regardless of the passage of time.

The Court is not empowering Trump's coup; it is empowering its own.

[p3rson27]

Hey, so I live in that horrible state, and there's an important update. Keep in mind I don't know a whole lot about politics, but I did my best to relay what I know in a comprehensive way

The anti-trans bill she's protesting against is going to the second stage. She's still fighting it, but it's moving foreward. She still has a lot of legal tricks up her sleeve.

She and a surprising number of other nebraska senators have made objections that have yet to be heard and debated (ironically because of her filibuster) so that also stalls it.

I won't go into detail on the objections but the biggest is that the bill refuses to call it what it is. The bill in question (Nebraska LB574 if you want to do your own research) bans "gender altering" procedures for people under age 19. The medically correct term is gender affirming. Fun fact, medicaid covers gender affirming treatments in certain cases for "individuals under the age of 21" so the bill creates an issue between federal and state law! Fun! I know I said I wouldn't go into detail, but there's a lot of issues with this bill from a legal and medical standpoint.

So why am I making this reply at all? Like I said, I live here, and as funny as this situation is, the reality is that it's a shit show. The bill blatantly ignores federal law and medical fact and ethics just because a handful of people are that determined to hate us.

I'm not saying you have to, and I know this will only reach so far, but when other states or countries have made or proposed bills like this, there's a call to action that is really easy to do: Call the people voting on this. Write to the people voting on this. Flood their mailbox and voicemail with the voices of concerned citizens. You don't have to live in the state. You don't even need to live in the same country.

I know that there are people like me in this horrible state, but we've been fighting a long slow battle for basic acceptance that we still haven't really won. My hometown is having their third ever pride this year, that's how far behind we are. Please please please do what you can. At the very least, we need the people in power here to know we exist under their jurisdiction and that we are not ok with decisions like this.

Nebraska hasn't passed a single bill this year because one lawmaker keeps filibustering in protest of an anti-trans bill: 'I will burn this session to the ground'

Damn. I thought she was just gonna up and make a fuss and her swearing to protect trans kids was a bunch of empty words (again).

But no. She's one-woman filibustering the entire Nebraska legislature into a complete standstill until they agree to protect the rights of trans kids.

She was 100% serious when she said she'd make it as painful for everyone as it is for trans kids. Gahddamn.

This is why small elections matter. She's not a country wide senator or president or shit. She's just a local official representing District 6 in Nebraska.

This is why the "smaller" elections between the presidential elections matter.

-fae

[shinra-makonoid]

Thinking misogyny is not structural but is instead individual is the status quo of society, because we live in a society that thinks in liberal terms (and by that I mean the classical liberal meaning of individualism, rather than collectivism).

I am an adult in my 30s, I have already wasted enough hours reading through what people you wrote have to say,

The status quo is not defined by the people you personally know, it is defined by culture and population. You could live in a bubble where you are the only conservative with literal communists as your only friends but that would make you a weird statistical outlier and not representative of the culture at large.

Most people in the USA are democrat or republican, and both of these parties focus on individualism and are in support of capitalism. Neither of the types people who support these political parties view things collectively, and even the liberal conception of patriarchy is individualistic rather than collectivist.

If you took 3 hours to write your reply why wouldn't I have to take the same amount of time to digest everything you wrote and then come up with my own counter sources? Once you start taking it to that level then I have to respond in turn, which I don't wanna do because I am not getting graded on these essays and I value my time more than that.

If you want to discuss things one point at a time rather than filibustering me with an avalanche flexing how much free time you have to spend on one singular message, that's fine.

I normally don't even waste my time on people who don't acknowledge structural oppression exists, tbh. It's like trying to have to prove the earth is round, when I really want to discuss something that already assumes you know that fact of life.

So what I'm reading is that you come up with another excuse after I specifically answered to your whims once again.

I'm not understanding your move there. You keep asking me to answer your questions, make it more digestable, but then you won't read anything that I write, and then complain that I took too much time for it, and then say "oh but I don't want to spend that much time" then move along? Go away? What are you expecting from me exactly? Do you want me to dumb it down so you can reply and do fast food discourse? It's easier, probably, but that's not what I want to do. If you want to do that, you can do it with someone else, I'm not the only person on Tumblr I swear.

If you don't want to discuss, then don't discuss, don't do that weird third option where you mock me for my hobbies, portrays me as something I'm not, and straw man points you don't read? I'm not holding you hostage. I may mock you once in a while, but at least I'm open to discuss stuff, and I've been quite measured and rather polite with you.

We don't live in the same country, so that is probably why.

I also didn't flex about my free time, I specifically told you I didn't have much of it after you told me that you didn't have much because you have a job, to insult me over the time I took to carefully answer your points.

[rolandtowen]

HELLO IF YOU LIVE IN THE US YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE

If you're feeling hopeless in light of recent news headlines, don't panic!! There are still things we can do to turn around climate change!

CALL YOUR REPS AND TELL THEM TO SUPPORT CLIMATE ACTION IN THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION BILL

Hank (ya know, internet guy) explains this step:

The gist of the video is: budget reconciliations are special in that they don't need 60 votes to pass the filibuster. They only need a senate majority. And Democrats have that majority in the senate.

The budget reconciliation bill is capable of putting targets in place to drop carbon emissions by 80% by 2030. That is a big deal if we can get it passed.

Here's what you (a US citizen) can do:

call your senators (and representatives if you want!) and tell them to support climate action in the budget reconciliation bill. Hank has a script in the blurb of the video that's under the readmore - and I'll put my own modified script underneath as well.

Please. Call both your senators - Reps and Dems alike. We may not get this close to meaningful climate legislation for another decade.

Hank's Script:

Hey, I just wanted to call and say how important it is to me that YOUR REPRESENTATIVE OR SENATOR is taking climate change seriously. I know we've got a chance right now to set targets, like getting an 80% decrease in emissions by 2030 and investing a lot in new and existing technologies.

Anything that YOUR SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE can do to make this a reality really matters so much, and I appreciate it.

IF THEY ASK FOR MORE INFORMATION (sometimes you get a real person) I just know that the budget reconciliation bill is one of our last chances to pass meaningful laws that will affect our impact on the climate. Anything to spur investment in clean energy, carbon capture, or energy storage is really important. But most importantly, we need to see real, ambitious targets for decreasing carbon emissions.

My Modified Script:

Hello,

My name is YOUR NAME and I am a constituent from CITY, STATE. I wanted to email you and say how important it is to me that SENATOR/REPRESENTATIVE is taking climate change seriously. Right now, we have a chance to set targets, like getting an 80% decrease in carbon emissions by 2030.

I am urging SENATOR/REPRESENTATIVE to support climate change action in the budget reconciliation bill. This bill is one of our last chances to pass meaningful laws that will affect our impact on the climate. Anything to spur investment in clean energy, carbon capture, or energy storage is really important. But most importantly, I would like to see real, ambitious targets for decreasing carbon emissions.

Thank you for your time, and have a good day.

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

This is my honest opinion about the future of abortion rights in the United States: when the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer will announce a bill to protect the right to an abortion, and it will FAIL SPECTACULARLY, going down in flames! It'll pass the House by a razor thin margin, but it'll be rejected by the Senate. It will die in committee, or it will be tabled (in most countries tabling a bill means to push it forward, but in the US it means the exact opposite, it means to postpone it indefinitely, and it only takes one senator objection to table it), or Schumer will put it up to a vote and let it die on the floor without 60 yeas. There will be half-hearted talks about maybe nuking the filibuster, but it'll never go through; the Democrats don't have 50 votes for it. Joe Manchin will NEVER nuke the fillibuster; he won't come right out and say he supports an abortion ban, he'll say "we don't want to be too hasty, we don't want to retaliate tit for tat on every issue, banning and unbanning and rebanning based on political ideology instead of the constitution. I'm not gonna blindly vote one way or the other, I want to see a comprehensive bipartisan bill, and then I'll make my decision," which is kinda like asking to see a leprechaun blowing a unicorn. The Democrats will run on a midterm platform of abortion rights, and Joe Manchin will let all the wind out of their sails, sabotaging the entire party by refusing to commit to anything Schumer or Pelosi or Biden want to do, and they'll let him because they don't want to hurt his feelings and push him to become an Independent and caucus with the Republicans. The Democrats have power now, and are blowing it, and they think that they're gonna be rewarded with more power come November?!? Oh, I have no doubt that the base will be energized, but it's gonna be focused almost entirely in safe states where they already hold majorities because of Republican fuckery with the election maps and voting rights; the Democrats will win the nationwide popular vote, I guarantee it, but they will lose seats and the media will blame them for it for being "too radical." And even though the Republicans are the ones causing the problem, they will make huge gains because they are seen as more conpetent and unified than the Democrats; Republicans in power give Republicans what they want, but Democrats think their voters are babies who don't know what they want and have to be spoonfed the same decades old neoliberal bullshit because the party leaders don't want to shift one fucking nanometer back to the left. Abortion rights will evaporate this summer, and then we all get to grit our teeth and clench our fists until our knuckles turn white in the hopes that the midterms don't fuck us even more; best case scenario, the status quo is maintained, Democrats hold congress and continue to do nothing because a handful of conservatives among them want a compromise where none exists. More likely, the Democrats lose one or both houses of congress and then Biden becomes a lame duck whose only job is to veto Republican bills (and he'll never seat another judge for the rest of his term; McConnell will hold every single nomination hostage again, just like he did to Obama, and Biden will either not be allowed to make recess appointments or he will choose not to because he doesn't want to set the precedent that the president can put people on the bench without Senate approval, even temporarily, though we all know Republicans will have no such qualms should the tides ever turn against them like this).

We are witnessing a tragedy in slow motion. The ship hit an iceberg years ago, and the qater has been rising this whole time, but everyone in power has to pretend like everything is okay because they don't want passengers to freak out yet.

[rametarin]

I can unironically answer the proposed ways to do that, so far.

They've floated:

1.) Expatting the white Israelis (and they only care about the white Israelis as the intrusive 'species') into other parts of the world. Brazil, the US, Russia, England, Australia. Anywhere but Judea, Tel Aviv and historically occupied parts of the Jewish state, leaving behind only Muslims. Because in the end, that's all they care about; domination of the Holy Land by Islam and Muslims. Christians are no more welcome there as anything but tolerated guests in what are considered dedicated Muslim holy lands.

2.) Abolishing the state of Israel and making the Israelis citizens of Palestine, which again, they imagine as another Muslim state with a Jewish minority. And again, we know how that goes. We don't even have to cynically speculate; Look at every self-attested self-reported Muslim country on earth and the Jewish population that lives there. They do not play nice with non-Muslims.

3.) Removing the rights of Israelis to live there and not caring about them, so long as the "real" Palestinians "get their land back." A sort of pub-like, "You don't have to go home, you just have to get off land that doesn't belong to you." And declaring the land doesn't belong to them, because they're not Muslim Palestinians. Despite the fact Palestinian Jews existed since the times just after Emperor Hadrian went on his massive war. They will simply delegitimize Israelis existence as having any legal validity and then say "get off my lawn," and then ED-209 them unless they leave under their own volition.

4.) Demand Israel undermine itself by attaching a second head to co-dominate the land with a Palestinian (read: explicitly and exclusively Muslim) group, which will filibust and veto at the best of times, with only the interests of Muslim Palestinians in mind for the state. Much the same way certain parties demand businesses and services need a czar to represent their particular demographic, so you can't make videogames or movies without, "How is this product going to service my group, first and foremost?" and requiring it be answered for there to be anything produced at all.

So... destruction of the Jewish state, and driving the Jews out of legal legitimacy. Perhaps somewhere that is wet and salty or fresh but running extremely fast. From the river to the sea, in so many words.

For some reason they can find every toothless redneck heehaw motherfucker speaking horrible bigoted slander and caricaturize that as the REAL face of rural America, in all its prejudiced glory, and go, "This is who [the bad party] is representing." But they can't seem to figure out who Hamas is, how in power they are as representative of the groups and powers in Palestine, and exactly who would be in charge of the Palestinian state were they to come to legitimate power.

Really… Still seeing people reblog posts calling for the total eradication of an entire nation, and going “This is a totally normal and reasonable position to have - disagreeing means you support genocide” without a hint of irony.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so fucking awful - truly, has everyone lost their damn minds?

I unapologetically believe in and stand for Israel’s right to exist - and that has never, ever meant that I don’t believe Palestine also has a right to exist. Those have never been opposing positions and there are many incredible organisations working together for all the people involved.

If you honestly believe that the solution to this is the total removal of the only Jewish state on the planet from its indigenous land - without truly understanding or caring what that would actually mean in real world terms for the people living there - then it's you who are supporting genocide actually.

[morningsound15]

I agree with you that the whole political system in the US is rotten to its core. I don't know what it is, but it's not a democracy. And yes, Biden won't bring the structural change that's needed. However, don't you think it'll be easier to get any change at all if after the election we get a blue house, senate and president? (Not to mention the supreme court seats won't fall into Republican's hands.) I mean, at least this way there's a chance progressives can get some of their causes through.

okay, so this is like the only ask i’m going to answer about this because i do NOT want this page to turn into this, this blog is the only part of the entire internet for me that isn’t entirely devoted to politics, organizing, radical education, theory, community-building, mutual aid, agitation, etc. i do that on literally every other social media platform and i do not want to do it here. that said i will answer this ask, i guess, though not exactly in the way you asked it i’m just gonna dump my thoughts on electoralism & this election here and i apologize in advance for how long this is going to be

to your general ask: yes, some people believe that. that is a reason many people are participating in this election (i go into that further down). my objection is not to the idea of participating in this election, the idea of voting, or the idea of voting for joe biden. it’s the entire framing of the situation & it’s the complete disregard for any people who have decided not to participate in this election, or who have decided to participate in this election & not vote for joe biden (i am NOT talking about republicans or trump supporters, that is a party of fascists & white supremacists & i am NOT talking about them, i’m talking about young people and the disaffected left). i’ll explain (under the cut so it doesn’t clutter y’alls feeds & so hopefully i won’t get as much hate because if there’s one thing i know it’s that no one on the internet reads)

what i object to is the framing of joe biden as anything less than an active enemy of the left & progressives. (the left & progressives are not the same thing, but they are both to the left of the dem party so i am putting them together for the sake of this argument but progressives are not leftists, though some leftists do describe themselves as progressives & vice versa, just want to put that out there to start.)

what i object to is the framing of joe biden as an ally. this kind of “at least he is willing to be pushed” “at least he’s already been pushed to the left by progressives” “at least he’s willing to listen & maybe with enough pressure we can get him where he needs to be!” “at least maybe a biden administration will support the policies we want them to!” because he’s not willing to learn, he’s not willing to help, he’s not willing to listen, he’s not willing to support progressive policies to tackle the healthcare/climate/war/imperialism crises or do any of that stuff. his policy goals, his entire campaign is basically to figure out what is the absolute bare MINIMUM thing he needs to do in order to say that he’s “moving the country in the right direction” so he can get elected & so he can get political cover from well-meaning but ultimately extremely sheltered dem figureheads while at the same time actively standing in the way of any real reform, progress, change, abolition, justice, etc. that’s his goal, he’s been very clear about that fact, i do not need to go into all the ways he’s already said & proved that! it’s obvious in his speeches, in the entire dnc (i watched every night of the dnc hoping for someone to lay out a good reason for me to vote for biden & i came up with 0 thanks democratic party), the people he has running his campaign, the donors he has, the lobbyists he hires to write his policy platform, the way he cozies up to billionaires, racists, segregationists, war criminals, and the way he always has in order to ‘maintain the order of politics’ & it’s gross & we don’t really need to go into it. he’s a capitalist, he’s a corporatist, he takes $$ from pharmaceutical companies and oil lobbyists and he is not a good person. BUT! many progressives know this and believe this, & still are voting for him. that is fine.

but we have to remember that joe biden is not our friend, he is not our ally, he is an enemy of the left, he is an active obstacle stopping us from achieving what we want to achieve (liberation, equality, justice, the dismantling of capitalism). so let’s not get it fucking twisted, like we need to be clear about that from the jump. we shouldn’t talk about him like he wants those things, like he’ll help us achieve those things, because he doesn’t, and he won’t, so we do not need to talk about him like he does. it is damaging to the progressive left of the democratic party to talk about biden like he’ll help us achieve any of our goals, because he won’t. we will need to fight just as hard if not HARDER under a biden administration to get the things we want, because we’ll be fighting with the people supposedly in our own party too, and they (along with the political machine they worship & kill themselves to support) are going to do everything they can to demonize and push out the young progressive diverse left, to break their spirits & destroy the political potential of the few politicians they actually do like, because that’s what they’ve always done, because the progressive left represents a threat to institutional capitalist white supremacist power. so our job would not be EASIER under a biden administration. it will just be different. we have to be very clear about that when we talk about what might happen in november.

now, that’s NOT TO SAY that there are not good reasons people have for voting for joe biden. i’m not telling people not to vote for joe biden and i am not telling people not to vote. that’s not what i’m saying. you just have to understand what this country is, what these politicians are, what they want, and what they are going to do to achieve what they want. just don’t lie about it. and only when you understand all of that can you make a truly informed decision about this upcoming election.

you can support joe biden for a lot of reasons. there are a lot of people whose politics don’t align with mine who want me to vote for joe biden, and there are people whose politics do align with mine who are making the choice to vote for joe biden. and the things that the latter group says, stuff that i find persuasive, is stuff like “joe biden is an enemy. donald trump is also an enemy. putting joe biden into office is better for the cause of liberation/leftists/revolution because he is a weaker enemy. he is a weaker opponent. we might be able to do things with him in office to help us tinker with the way our system is structured that will ultimately be for the benefit of the true left wing of this country, which will help future political actors survive in our rigged electoral system and maybe actually gain & maintain political power.” (stuff like abolishing the filibuster, getting rid of the electoral college, packing the courts, systemic changes that we need to make if we want to wrest control of this broken political system from the hands of fascists and white supremacists - many of whom sit inside the democratic party too, so let’s not get that twisted. all of these proposed changes, by the way, it’s important to note (unless i’m incorrect which i don’t think i am) joe biden doesn’t openly support or advocate for ANY of them, so let’s not get THAT twisted either.)

here’s the argument i think you’re making anon, from the mouth of comrade Angela Davis (libs love to weaponize angela davis’ words on biden without comprehending any of her politics or supporting her abolitionist policy positions, also there are other abolitionists who do not agree with davis here but i digress):

“In our electoral system as it exists, neither party represents the future that we need in this country. Both parties remain connected to corporate capitalism. But the election will not be so much about who gets to lead the country to a better future, but rather how we can support ourselves and our ability to continue to organize and place pressure on those in power. And I don’t think there’s a question about which candidate would allow that process to unfold… if we want to continue this work, we certainly need a person in office who will be more amenable to our mass pressure. And to me, that is the only thing that someone like Joe Biden represents.”

i don’t know if i fully agree with that argument per se! but i understand it, and i think it’s valid and valuable, and i understand arguments like that, and they are persuasive to me in many ways. because the republican party maintaining power is the way we slow-march into fascism, but also the democratic party getting/maintaining power is the way that we continue to slow-march to neoliberal destruction of the planet. so they’re both bad, obviously. but there are people who think (maybe they’re right! i’m swayed by this argument) that the biden administration would be easier to manipulate, easier to transform, than a trump administration.

(the counter-argument would maybe be that there are a lot of fucking liberals paying attention & even showing up in the streets right now because donald trump is the president, and if donald trump is no longer the president they’re gonna go home and be quiet and go back to brunch and close their eyes and plug their ears like they did with obama, just like they did during standing rock and ferguson and occupy, and be like “oh kamala harris wore CHUCKS on an AIRPLANE look at how COOL she is don’t you remember when there was a COOL war criminal in the white house?” there are people who are going to do that if biden/harris win, and that’s risky to me! like that is a risk we need to be talking about. i see that as dangerous. now, that’s not to say that’s more or less dangerous than what we currently have, it’s just a different kind of danger we need to be cognizant & wary of. and it’s people who post statuses like “fuck you all if you don’t vote for biden you privileged snowflake how dare you look at everything biden’s ever said done or promised he will do and decide that you don’t like that and you don’t want a part of it how dare you you fucking cuck you fucking idiot you support fucking fascists you fucking idiot” who make me lose my mind because like shut up! you don’t know what you’re talking about. there are people who know what they’re talking about who have decided they’re going to vote for joe biden and there’s people who know what they’re talking about who have decided they are not going to vote for joe biden, and you know what they don’t do? they don’t fucking fight each other, they don’t attack each other, they understand & support the reasons their comrades have for taking the action they are taking. and that is just what this is about. stop yelling at people that you don’t know who are making choices you don’t understand just because you don’t understand their choices.)

(this is even assuming biden will win, which is unlikely, or that trump will relinquish power, which is unlikely, or that there will be a peaceful transference of power and not a full-scale right-wing armed militia explosion of violence on american streets after november 3rd, so let’s all really be prepared for what might be coming in the next couple months!!!! all of these arguments mean next to nothing when we don’t even know what kind of violence awaits us in november)

it’s just psycho to think that joe biden is anything but an enemy. he is an enemy. and you can vote for an enemy and you can have your reasons for voting for an enemy, but don’t sell me shit and tell me it’s gourmet.

that’s mostly what i object to. the framing of this. and i’m not telling people not to vote for joe biden i’m not telling people not to vote. i think people should vote, because for those of us who are able & haven’t had that right stripped away from us or stolen from us by our own government, voting is easy, it’s literally the easiest thing that you can do because it’s also the LEAST politically effective thing that you can do. it’s like step fucking 1 because its impact is so low. that’s not a reason not to do it! that is not a reason not to do it. voting is important because any functioning society needs to have an engaged citizenry and an engaged electorate. now we don’t have that here, but you know what i’m saying. electoralism is a conditionally useful tool of enacting change and what we choose to do with that tool is an individual choice and there are people who are making different calculations than you, and they’re coming to different answers. and those people are often radicals, they’re often poor, they’re often black, or indigenous, or undocumented, or incarcerated. they’re often the most marginalized people in this society who are making these kinds of non-voting decisions, and it’s racist and misogynistic to assume that it’s all privileged white kids who are making that choice, because it isn’t, okay? it fucking isn’t.

and it’s so crazy because it’s always white cis libs who are talking about how important it is to get out and vote and to vote for people who aren’t like you and to vote for someone who isn’t you and it’s like, the black radicals i know are not voting for biden! they just aren’t. they do not see the electoral system or the fucking presidency as the thing that’s going to help & protect their communities. so instead they’re organizing on the ground, they’re distributing food & funds & housing comrades & fighting the police & helping elders shop and pick up medicine & making sure kids have internet access so they can go to school and that is what people are doing on the ground. they aren’t all up on instagram or tumblr sharing voting memes & telling people to hold their nose & “just vote for biden he’s the best choice we have” because they understand that for their communities, that’s not what liberation looks like. that’s y’all doing that goofy social media shit.

political power lies with the people always. the people collectively will prove whether or not the biden electoral strategy (of appealing to older, conservative/moderate, white voters in the midwest instead of young voters, poor voters, and voters of color all over the country, but i digress) is successful. whether or not his strategy is successful, the responsibility for the outcome of this election lies SOLELY with the biden campaign, capitalism, voter suppression, white supremacy, and our undemocratic election system — NOT the individual voters. know your enemy & know which system you need to fight. hint: it’s not apathetic or disengaged voters.

vote for whoever you want to vote for. don’t vote for trump, obviously, he’s a fascist do not vote for him. but for people who are not fascists or white supremacists, just try to understand what you’re doing and your position in the world & in this political system & act accordingly. not voting is not an excuse to do nothing; if you are choosing not to engage in electoral politics the expectation is you should be working twice as hard to make sustained impacts and improvements in your community. and if you ARE choosing to engage in electoral politics, the expectation is you should be working twice as hard to make sustained impacts and improvements in your community.

if what you think the liberation fight is is making sure you turn out at the ballot box on november 3rd, if that’s how you think you are being the most helpful, it isn’t and you’re not. you’re doing something, sure, and it’s not bad. like i did this, this was my job for a year, my job was to register voters and get young people to vote. i don’t have that job any more because i don’t believe that’s the solution. i just don’t believe it’s the solution. i don’t believe we should be talking about this upcoming election like it’s a solution, because it’s really just another problem we’re going to have to face and tackle, and we can’t talk about this election like anything is going to be solved if joe biden is president instead of trump because it’s not, and it won’t be, and these people are all our enemies, and we have to treat them like they are. that’s not to say don’t vote for them, if you understand all that & that is the decision you come to! just know what you’re voting for, and know what it means.

whatever, i’m not gonna keep going on this, rant over forever just had to spit that out somewhere and if i put that shit on my Facebook i would get unfriended by every white lib i went to high school with so fucking quick…

[the-manwich-horror]

This was going to be a reply to a post but they blocked me before I could respond.

People responding to complaints about the Democrats not eliminating the filibuster by saying "they don't have the votes!!!!", yes, that is indeed the problem. The party's representatives in government include a great many people who do not care about our problems and won't do anything to fix them. Sinema, and Manchin, and Kelly are the most vocal about it, but they are hardly alone. "The Democrats" doesn't refer to the idealized version of the party that exists in your head. It refers to the actual party, made up of actual politicians.

They know they can coast on being the less fascistic party. Doesn't mean they don't deserve to be criticized for that fact. If talking about their actual behavior costs them votes, that isn't the fault of the people criticizing them.

[preston-t-umber]

'...Why do I need a "positive vision" of the things the democratic party should stop doing? '

You are complaining a lot about Democrats. It is reasonable to ask what exactly you want them to do instead of what they are doing, and I find it telling that your response is just to write increasingly resentfully about them. You are aware that politics involves coalitions, sacrifices, pandering, yadda-yadda; you just don't care.

Not sure why the Hillary point is what's making you see red especially, because "this politician has gotten more votes than her opponents in all of her races (treating 2008 primary as a single race)" is in fact a very good track record for someone who has 16 years in electoral politics. Still, I'll stipulate to Hillary being a bad politician if you can explain why that fact is relevant to the Democrats of 2024.

'Talking about the Democrats being stopped by the Republicans is a direct response to "It's true that Democrats only have agency over themselves, but they are not the only actors in this system." The agency of the other actors in the system is the Republicans, whose job is to stop them'

Why? There are in fact lots of areas where there is, or used to be, bipartisan consensus. Republicans and Democrats are *opponents*, but that doesn't and needn't always mean the same thing. It's worth bringing up when that changes, particularly if the incentive structure changes - if only for us, as voters, to understand what is going on.

'and the Democrats know this and their job is to deal with it. Thus, saying "there are other actors in this system" is not relevant when talking about the Democrats being incompetent at doing things and getting people to vote for them.'

Again, no response to the fact that Democrats have won more votes than Republicans in all but one Presidential election since 1988, or are arguably a much stronger and more successful center-left party than most their international peers. I personally agree with the idea that Democratic officeholders have been feckless about, for example, the filibuster - but the people who are the most feckless tend to be the Democrats whose social, economic views are the closest to yours as far as I understand them. Maybe you'd be very happy with a moderate Democrat who also fought like a Republican, but when all the moderate Democrats talk about institutional barriers to getting their shit done like it's something sacred it does make centrists whining about nothing getting done seem a little incoherent.

As for the other parts:

I will ignore the giant rant about the social justice movement more broadly, except to say that I perceive this to not be a federal issue where you clearly do. I'd like to focus in on this Trump EO, since this is more fact-based than the resentments you have that social justice types exist. Do you have a link to information about it, or a name or number I can look it up on? You claim I'm too ideologically blinded to see it, but one reason I might not have heard of it is maybe that I don't pay *that* much attention to the news - or maybe there is context that is missing.

They know they're authoritarian, and they're proud.

[rametarin]

There's something more important than this. Something that often goes unspoken and AGGRESSIVELY so.

Many of the supposed pop "anti-fascists" and "Nazi-punchers" aren't doing it because they give a shit about Jews.

Nazis to socialists and communists have always represented an insult. They talk a big game about standing up for, "minorities," but they don't actually care about the human beings and their respective groups. They care about the political concepts of them. They care about them as distinct, imaginary bloccs called classes. They care about them as toys in a toybox for acting out psychodramas and telling history. To them, minorities are just political entities to LARP protecting from "evil bad people."

So they've put on aires and talked about how awful antisemitism is, and have since during and after WW2. Not because they care about the Jews, but because they can ride their coattails and collaborate with them as "oppressed minorities." And look good as their "protectors." Because they're poow widdle minowities that need protection from majorities.

They also needed the clout for public relations. Because for socialists, the only thing better than actually doing what they think is right, is having a spotlight put on it to use for propaganda points. They want the public perception to be that they care about minorities and the downtrodden and the at risk and are willing to fight to protect them from those that'd do them harm.

They pretend they hate Nazis because they hate the ethnosupremacism and that the Nazis are antisemitic. History in the Soviet Union, South America and all across Africa and Asia in places that the SU had official and unofficial ties with will confirm, self-avowed socialists and communists don't care one whit more about Jews than your average liberal capitalist. They value the opportunity to run around screaming "Adolf" (wolf) about how many Nazis are hiding under every bed and behind every street light, and how hate speech from a neo-Nazi is worse than hate speech from any other.

The real reason they're so focused on hating Nazis is because it becomes easy to filibust every person that dissents or rebukes their collective stance on anything. Someone asks a hard question about what they want will accomplish? Accuse them of being one of those million gorillion Nazis asking questions in bad faith. Someone takes issue with a questionable action? Accuse them of just opposing them because they're Nazis. Scream about them with a zealous insistence that the person you're pointing at is definitely a Nazi, put them on the defensive, make them EXPLAIN how they're not a Nazi! And it makes them look super good for hating the Super Bad(tm)

But if you want to know the true character of an antifa, ask them how they feel about indigenous rights, ask them about Arabization, and then ask them about Israel and the right to return.

They don't give a damn about the Nazis because of the atrocities they committed. On paper, they also hate ethnocentrism, and will use that as an excuse of why every culture that exists that is not their socialist state and is an ethnic tribe with a territorial claim (which they dispute is invalid on grounds it's by default an ethnostate.) But the real reason that socialist and communist sympathizers hate Nazis, is simply because the Nazi party was what opposed guerilla campaigns and saboteurs that were taking over swaths of eastern Germany. The Weimar Republic had a choice between a party that promised to dismantle their identity as Germanic people, force them into a union of Socialist Republics (which history has shown us just became Russified and ethnically cleansed to make way for Russians), or the Nazis, which promised to protect them from the exploitative, bureaucracy infiltrating, business taking over, the brown shirts marching and beating up anti-communists to teach them a lesson for opposing communism.

They hate the Nazis less for the REAL reasons a normal, mentally sound hates the Nazis (the atrocities, the ethnosupremacism, the desire to genocide all non-them) and simply despise the Nazis because the Nazis dared oppose having communism forced on them.

And the truth is? They don't see any white person as distinct or different from the Nazis. To them, a non-communist is a supporter of the status quo, committing the violence of capitalism by compliance. To them, a person of European descent exists as an antagonist in their worldview and narrative that justifies hurting people and putting people on shit lists where they are or aren't allowed to speak based on their level of, "privilege." Which they arbitrate and make up based on geopolitical and social convenience.

This is how you get an ANTIFA that will stomp around after an antisemitic attack screaming at the top of their lungs about all the Nazis in an area, hoot and holler about "protecting Jews and at risk minorities" after even every hate crime, both real and false reported.. and those same Nazi-punchers will be rebuking and casting down Israel, Israelis and just calling it, "white supremacy."

For antifa and that sort of left person, it was never about protecting Jews. It was about living up to an image they want to convey, manufacturing the caricature of their ideological opponents as having white supremacist bias if they were anti-communist, and using it as an excuse to punch first and ask questions later. It was about shaping narrative. It was about publicity and controlling peoples thoughts, and convincing people to join them until it's too late to not be used.

This is something many Jewish people that swallowed the Antifa load are learning, now. And it's a sour lesson to learn that leaves an awful taste in the mouth and a numbness in the heart. To Antifa, Jews are just another ethnosupremacist group, religious group and extension of white, right wing colonialism. The only difference is they opened their mouth to say it, or it's something that can be inferred by parroting Hamas' and similar groups' slogans.

I hate to say it but everyone saying there's Pre-Holocaust vibes are correct

We're seeing a massive spread of unchecked, unrepentant antisemitism spreading quicker with social media now. People are cheering on murdered Jewish kids and then fact checking us to tell us it didn't happen

Blood libel is gaining traction like never before all the while Jews in the Diaspora are being attacked

So to all you proud Nazi Punchers, I must ask,

Why are you standing by, letting this happen, repeating things the Nazis could only dream of? Why aren't you standing up, dismantling antisemitism in your movement, helping Jews once again forced to hide in their homes?

Or was it never about protecting Jews? Just about protecting your egos

[rametarin]

I've thought about this a lot, honestly. Nazis were just ethnic supremacist socialists- and yes, they WERE anti-capitalist socialists with an ethnosupremacist angle on their socialism- and their regime had to be put down because it was gearing up to ethnically cleanse everybody that wasn't their particular brand of German and perpetuate a culture based on that. That had to die.

But clearly, because social subjects are more complex than that, they had to have had more going for them than ,"GRR WE ANGRY GRRR JEWISH PEOPLE BAD GRRR WHITES SUPREME." They had to have had cheesy slogans, they had to've been inspired by socialist writers and movements even if they disavowed many of them for one reason or another. ("Too Jewish," "too Slav." "too not-German-supremacist.")

But I found that many of the people screaming the loudest about how Nazis were just evil caricatures for the sake of being evil caricatures, tend to be the ones that don't want to talk about what the Nazis actually had to say regarding the Bolsheviks and the Soviet Union. And they don't want to discuss that, because they don't even want to entertain a discussion of whether or not they were right about them. So, they filibust any conversation about them, at all. "The Nazis were bad so everything they believed was bad, period."

The existence of Nazis and the ambitions of ethnosupremacist white socialists have been a justification to argue that culture and speech is top-down, and that the only way to "stop Nazism" is to criminalize speech and those that say things that could eve be affiliated with people they don't like. That even, "sounding like" a Bad Person(tm) means what you said could therefore be disregarded as Bad Person Speech. They just have to tangentially affiliate you, every by proxy of a proxy, with Nazis, and argue this mythological way culture works means anyone exposed to propaganda touting the benefits of eating shit, will naturally just embrace eating shit, no matter their own senses.

They argue that the truth is subjective and doesn't matter, that the human mind will naturally just start believing anything it's exposed to reading, so justify outlawing things they view as wrong- which is ANYTHING that stands in the way of their values or any contemporary feelings, and that explains why all the Germans were evil and just did what the Nazis said for no other reason, simple as that.

They don't tell you about how the Bolshevism and guerillas were slowly taking over parts of Germany business by business in the interests of international socialism, that citizens of the Weimar Republic were scared of this growing internaitonal cult menace, and that the Nazis represented a violent and reactionary response to this conspiracy that promised not just bowing to international russo-supremacism, but a focus of the German people, in defiance of the proxy Russo-Supremacism and socialist hysteria. Because they want you to conclude unambiguously, the Nazis did everything they did because they were evil.

Because if they acknowledged there was nuance to this historically, they'd start talking about things like the Maltov Ribbentrop Pact between the Nazis and Soviets and they were allies, until they were enemies.

Instead they talk about how certain American figures were praised by the Nazis or that they praised the Nazis, to poison the well of them as evil capitalist white supremacists and just throw them under the same umbrella, because to them, there's no difference between the evil of a religious person, a capitalist, and certainly no difference between white people and the evil some white people do.

They like their useful idiots to be impassioned and angry and to already confidently feel like they have the solution rather than know the history and the circumstances and the conclusion. Fewer questions, fewer second guessing complicated mental gymnastics about exactly what the socialists across West, Central and East Europe were doing during all this and before it.

And heaven forbid you point out that the Nazis' ideas are bad no matter what ethnic background sees itself as the Ubermensch. "Nuh-uh! The Nazis ideas are only bad if white people use them! They're perfectly fine so long as you're Black/Hisp@anic, Asian or Indigenous." To this crowd, the Nazis' ambitions were only wrong, because it said white people were the supreme group. That these terrible, supremacist ideas re ONLY proiblematic if white people do themm but just violence from others.

I absolutely despise how since the end of WWII Nazis were turned from a complex sociopolitical movement into cartoonish bad guys, a shorthand for everything evil in the world.

It just strips all the nuance from the discussion. Fewer (thankfully, far from none) people are willing to address why and how Nazism ever gathered steam, what were the motivations of both the party and the German people siding (or not siding! Lots of Germans were against the Nazis!) with them.

Most dangerously, it leads to people thinking that they did evil abhorrent shit just because they were evil and hated humanity, which, in turn, leads to shit like the modern resurgence of antisemitism.

Because if Nazis were evil because they were evil, then we can't act like Nazis ever, since we're NOT evil, right? Anyway, here's Nazi antisemitic propaganda almost word-for-word, but since we're the good guys, you're a bigot if you point it out.

[rametarin]

that about sums it up. 'Normal' feminists fall into three camps:

1.) Those that are on the surface, and believe feminism is equality and the desire for women to be equal to men is feminism. It's simple enough, that's good enough for them. They either haven't gone into academic college feminism closer to the source and core, or choose to argue that those aren't real feminism, which is the shallow sentiment "feminism is just an idea, not a culture or group. You can't even be a renegade feminist because it's not a religion or organization" kind.

2.) Those that know the hideous shit radical feminism says at its core, and know feminism is just bourgoise vs. proletariat rhetoric that focuses the female sex (yes, sex. Feminism was originally about female as a biological sex, not a gender) vs. the male, with the male as the oppressor class and female as the young adult novel plucky protagonist subjugated princess class. But, they pretend they don't know, that it isn't, and demand you prove your statements on it. They may clam up if you cite literary sources, exact speakers and quotes and can cite the bibliography when they feed other budding feminists quotes from manhaters with the serials filed off so people work radical feminist values in without knowing.

3.) Those that know the hideous radical feminist shit, and play it straight. These ones are the ones that scream about, "Moids," probably either are, or in the past, were, part of "witch covens" or ironically adopt it just as a symbol of exclusive feminine identitarianism. They'll gladly joke about aborting male babies on principle, dream of gender apartheid, and imagine a society where through clever use of laws and separatism, they've only kept enough men around to do the manual labor to provide societal perks and benefits for being a woman. Radfems are the mask off Ku Klux Klan members types that progressives film being horrible bigots and then boadcast them to raise conversation about how white supremacist and horrible western society is for tolerating them.

Except, until it grew unsustainable, leftists did everything they could to memory hole, filibust, deafeningly silence and gaslight away any cultural presence of hateful radical feminists from pop culture or anything even approaching conversation aboutthem and their real bigotry. The same people choosing every opportunity to talk about white supremacist hate groups or the rarer organization centered around "traditionalism" (actual objective patriarchy, usually religious organizations) were deliberately preventing discourse about how harmful radical feminist values were, because feminism could not ever be talked about as bad. Trying to talk about how problematic feminism is would get you shouted down as "helping the enemy win."

Mainstream Feminism either doesn't know or pretends not to know the radical feminists have published beliefs and those feminists aren't disavowed like Richard Spencer or other white supremacist figures are disavowed by mainstream conservative political candidates. They pretend those college tenured radfem professors, their adjacent sycophant professors that use their published work in classes, are not in any way affiliated with feminism as a movement and feminism as a movement is not responsible for their extremism. No other ideology shares that special selective power.

If any white supremacist exists, he or she is IMMEDIATELY lumped into the 'conservative' category, and all conservatives or even non-partisans/moderates are smeared as the worst of that person's shit. But a radical feminist cannot reflect bad even on feminism. They're always only culpable for themselves and no feminist has to explain themselves for adopting the radfem's views.

It's actually vastly improved from before. The internet age not only made it easier to prove they exist, but made it more likely you'd experience interaction with them firsthand. Like finding where the sasquatches live. It made finding their literature and being able to read copies of it without paying them money, easier. It made it easier to figure out what colleges or universities cited or featured these hatemongerers works in public institutions.

Feels like radfems like this are just what it looks like when someone boots up the ethnic conflict hardware for something other than ethnicity.