I love Twitter rule

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

334 comments

I think you'll find that goes both ways. We can defend ourselves too. You are not on Hexbear. This is Blahaj.
- Defend what? I don't think the parallel you want to draw works quite as well as you think. My point is that Redditors can cast stones in their ignorance at people who they would struggle to string a whole sentence together to describe without buzzwords because they know jack shit about what those people actually think. Western communists are typically quite familiar with the ideology of liberals.
  
  Defend what?
  ourselves
  they know jack shit about what those people actually think
  I'm interested to learn more about what those people actually think.
  Western communists are typically quite familiar with the ideology of liberals.
  I'm not sure how they can be if they think everyone to the right of them is a liberal.
  
  But defend yourselves from what?
  Not everyone to the right is a liberal, people like theocrats exist, but the whole of mainstream American society is neoliberal (with influence from those evangelical theocrats), which is a subset of the larger political-philosophical category of liberalism. We can point to some differences between Republican and Democrat, but they are overwhelmingly of style and PR, not the substance. There are very specific issues, like abortion, where you can pretty reliably see differences, but even here the difference is overstated and this is evidenced by the fact Obama didn't even try to codify Roe when he got elected and had Dems controlling congress.
  Why is this? Well, I think you can avoid needing to offer people a carrot if you can just offer them not getting the stick, but if you make them secure then they'll start asking for carrots. But that's personal speculation.
  More important is the overwhelming consensus seen on a variety of issues when you look at their actions. Biden has over and over had the chance to let Trump-Era executive orders simply die, but he has repeatedly signed on to their continuation or even expansion. All the power that Trump unfortunately wielded in office to push EOs and theoretically to veto seems to have evaporated when they touched old Joe's hands. Why is that? It can't be ignorance.
  I knew people who thought Joe would be less hawkish on China, since that is traditionally the role of Republicans, but he in fact has been more hawkish! He has done a better job of stabilizing relationships with America's North Atlanticist allies, but the imperial policies under Trump and Obama have continued aside from pulling out of Afghanistan (which Trump began working on but was too much of a coward to follow through on, we need only see the media backlash to Biden doing so to understand why).
  I'm interested to learn more about what those people actually think.
  Then consider speaking of them less presumptuously
  
  But defend yourselves from what?
  Brigading, trolling and logical fallacies.
  the whole of mainstream American society is neoliberal
  The mainstream politicians definitely are. But polling suggests an overwhelming majority of Americans support progressive ideas.
  https://www.citizen.org/news/progressive-policies-are-popular-policies/
  Then consider speaking of them less presumptuously
  I'll speak how I want thanks. I live in a free country.
  
  Brigading, trolling and logical fallacies.
  In order: learn how federation works, oh no you poor thing, and Ben Shapiro wants his shtick back.
  The mainstream politicians definitely are. But polling suggests an overwhelming majority of Americans support progressive ideas.
  You don't need to tell a communist that the people are to the left of the politicians, but apparently a communist needs to tell you that as far as engaging with individuals go, that means shit if they are too occupied with the same "gommunism no food" talking points the politicians to their right fed them.
  As an aside, Denmark is still liberal, capital is the dominant power there as much as in the US.
  I'll speak how I want thanks. I live in a free country.
  I said "consider," you have the right to be willfully ignorant and undercut your professed interests, those freedoms are some of the few that really are protected in the US. Regarding speech, it is only free if it doesn't matter and otherwise you're in jail or shot, and you need only look at Assange for evidence of that.
  But please tell me how your country stands for freedom as it tirelessly works to oppress the bulk of the rest of the world, overthrowing whatever country it deems too much of a problem unless that country hardens itself remarkably against external threats. Huh, I wonder if there's some throughline here?
  
  Your argument is getting throughly scattered and devoid of meaning. You might as well say, "I'm trolling you.", and save yourself the effort.
  I said “consider,”
  I did.
  But please tell me how your country stands for freedom as it tirelessly works to oppress the bulk of the rest of the world
  I don't agree with the US cold war policy of toppling socialist countries and instating capitalist dictatorships. Thankfully modern US foreign policy is about supporting democracies. edit: spacing
  
  Do you, like, investigate any of this? Are you not familiar with the attempts to topple Venezuela, the brief coup government in Bolivia that massacred protestors, or anything that isn't a White House Press Release? Do you think the bombs dropped on Yemen were for democracy? Do you think the continued colonizing of Palestine is for that purpose?
  
  Weirdly I can see the actions you're describing as wrong, but still understand the benefits of American democracy.
  
  Just so we can move on and not talk in circles, is that you tacitly admitting that the US FP is not about "supporting democracy"?
  
  Twenty century US foreign policy was about supporting capitalism, not democracy. I assume you're referring to the CIA lead coups in the 20th century that upended socialist countries. I would like to think we've learned from these mistakes in the 21st century.
  As for drone strikes in Yemen in the 21st century, which is what I think you are referring to, killing civilians is obviously wrong. I think not fighting terrorist organizations would also be wrong. It's in the interest of democracies to fight back against terrorists.
  edit: Oh and I am ethnically Jewish, so I do have a lot of opinions about Palestine and Israel. Israel is an apartheid state, but I still believe in a two-state solution.

334 comments