if u carefully read my comment u will notice that i only used the word "good" to say something was not good, because it isnt good, non of it is and thats not what was asked the question was how is voting for democrats any better, yes its not good enough that much is self evident, i never said it was, that was never the claim i said it was better. there are 2 options at the federal level neither is good and again i didnt say either was but if u are going to bother to vote one is better.

ur response doesnt even engage with what i said at all, pointing out that the measures are half ass doesnt in any way contradict that they are better than the alternative of literally nothing, pointing out that biden is bad does not exclude the possibility that he is better. it is just mind boggling to me that some people can not understand the meaning of better and lesser it is just so bizarre.

when liberals say the communist oppressed lgbtq people thing they mean it as a criticism of communism in comparison to capitalism, as in "the ussr under stalin had bad lgbtq legislation therefore capitalism is a better system" this is a rejection of that criticism because how could this possibly indicate that capitalism is better when the failure of communist in this particular case is that they werent better capitalist like they were supposed to be.

we got some train money and the usa is back on the paris accord and they passed the best climate legislation the usa has (to be clear because i know u dont understand the word "best" it is not good nor enough it less bad than everything else), we got some student loan debt relief. a few good things have actually happened that would almost certainly not have happened otherwise.

stemlords?

what is that supposed to mean?

nothing apple ever has a normal price

while u can make a case that what the european powers did in what is now the united states was continued by the usa its insane to say that it is the same event as what other or the same european powers did elsewhere some of these genocides are separated by centuries they were carried by different people often from different countries using different tactics for different reasons to completely different people who were not in contact with eachother and they often did this without even known what other colonizers were doing, the idea that what the european powers were doing was somehow cohesive is ridiculous.

i think ur scale of time is way out of whack for this, for example the peoples of the caribbean had already been complety erased for decades before jamestown had been stablished let alone the colonies let alone an american national identity.

And also the original meme about the united states not the entirety of the americas it was about what the united states did which israel and nazi germany copied.

yes 130 million in the americas not in what is now the usa the most populated areas where in central america and the Andes. even high estimates for what is now the usa and canada are at around 8 million the highest dont go above 13 million which is around the number of soviet civilians the nazis killed and much lower that the total number of civilians the nazis killed. and going even further most of those people died from diseases. by the time the usa became a country there were only 700k indegenous people in what is now the the contiguous us i think its fair to say the usa is responsible for the genocides that happened even before that but point is in terms of raw numbers there is no comparison.

u say in terms of scale it was the most expansive but what scales are those.

Biggest genocide by what metrics? Certainly not by percent, the genocides in the Caribbean take the grim prize there, and even the highest estimates of pre 1492 population of us and canada combined are lower than the number of soviet civilians alone that the nazis killed and not all of those people died and most of those who died did so from disease before the genocide even begun so it cant be by raw numbers. so im curious by what metric u evaluate it to be the biggest genocide? maybe by land area held while doing the genocide? but im pretty sure even then the tsar's russia would win.

u are a wierd type of "left" com u reject unprincipled anarchist views but by objecting to violence u also reject principled anarchist views. so let me ask u what the fuck are gonna do, like u cant not be violent when the ruling class will murder u if u do something that meaningfully challenges their power, so like why even believe in anything if u also refuse to do anything. like whats the plan try to do something and either fail or get close enough to "suicide" by 2 shotgun shot to the back of the head? like a stick of dynamite is gonna win a fucking war mate we need an army.

maybe u are right and i am just bad at spotting it, i have nothing to do with Islam nor have i ever since luckily i was raised atheists. Maybe we are just operating on different understandings of what it mean for something to be built on racism because to me new atheists seem about as racists as any other random grouping of westerners, like racism or Islamophobia doesnt seem to be any more prevalent than in say online gaming discourse or in shitposting spaces, like it seems to me like the racism is there just because a bunch of white people are there and they arent explicitly against racism which is fucked up but its like background levels of fucked up.

yeah so many propagandists point to the slow down in economic growth from "socialist god" levels to "economic miracle" levels and are like china is falling apart they are due for a depression any day

i just looked at the tittles for about the top 200 post on r/atheism right now and 1 was about Islam (an ex-muslim complaining that libs were calling them Islamophobic) and one talking about all abrahamic religions, most were about the concept of religion or christianity, and in my own personal experience being very far into the entire skeptic "movement" back when it was an actual thing, i think that while Islamophobia was around it wasnt core to whole thing and most people were concerned with Christianity much more than other religions.

dont get wrong reddit atheism is mostly a western and specifically and english speaking thing, that is not explicitly leftist so it reflects that in the people who take part so there more racism and Islamophobia and everything else than u would find in other groupings of people but it certainly never seemed to me like reactionary views were core to it or that it was built on them.

dude got banned from lemmy world for crusading/proselytising and is butthurt.

why? if thats the case they are saying all atheist are reactionaries otherwise they would have specified, or better wouldn't have said atheist at all. also im not inclined to give anyone who upholds reactionary ideologies the benefit of the doubt and no one but a theist would have made this.

mls drink lightly colored shit water instead of coffee? that doesnt seem right. idk only aes country i know enough about to say is Cuba and there u WILL find a minimum of 1 italian style coffee maker in every home.

does a revolution stop being possible when the soldiers that oppose it have tanks or planes or submarines or chemical weapons or even nukes or missiles, clearly not. why would "autonomous" weapon systems be any different, they still have to be made and maintained by someone and they still have to be directed by someone. Drones and "robots" are just new weapons there are still people behind them. And if u are warried about ai that can potential replace people in all those roles 1 there is no actual ai and we are not even anywhere near actual ai (like there is nothing in the horizon that even indicates that it could be possible) but even if we were an ai that can do everything humans can, can well... do everything a human can including being mad about its own material conditions. Besides if anything a technology that allows for capitalists law to be upheld by fewer people under normal circumstances, pushes more people into a position where they would benefit from a revolution.

Also why would it even matter the red army didnt win because the white army felt bad about what they were upholding, Fidel's march on Habana didnt succeed because batista's fascists goons felt bad about what they were doing it.

thanks, it was a good read, maybe i was wrong about Hamas. Tho i found the argument that a mosque can be just as revolutionary as a church humorous because a church cant be revolutionary.

that is not what i said and that is not what i meant, i think Hamas is the only option for Palestinian liberation but i dont think we should be upholding them as any kind of a gold standard which seems to be a thing thats happening around here lately, my point was that we should have a more measured take on Hamas as an organization, maybe i didnt use the best words (tho i still think i did).