They actually prefer Republicans in power, Trump in particular, because they harm America.

This is just something y’all say, it’s made up. On the rare occasions where I’ve encountered a Trump supporter on here I call them out the same way. I suppose I could go over to Truth Social and try to sell them on communism but I doubt they’d be particularly receptive (and you wouldn’t see it if I did), and besides, our people built the platform.

They want to divide the left and create litmus tests for DNC candidates that are impossible to achieve.

“Met with the news the Israelis delivered the most devastating bomb & artillery attack on W. Beirut lasting 14 hours. Habib cabled—desperate—has basic agreement from all parties but cant arrange details of P.L.O. withdrawal because of the barrage. King Fahd called begging me to do something. I told him I was calling P.M. Begin immediately. And I did—I was angry. I told him it had to stop or our entire future relationship was endangered. I used the word holocaust deliberately & said the symbol of his war was becoming a picture of a 7 month old baby with it’s arms blown off. He told me he had ordered the bombing stopped—I asked about the artillery fire. He claimed the P.L.O. had started that & Israeli forces had taken casualties. End of call. Twenty mins. later he called to tell me he’d ordered an end to the barrage and plead for our continued friendship. Spent rest of day meeting with Congressmen on Tax bill.”

Diary entry of Ronald Reagan, August 12, 1982.

Don’t try to tell me supporting an end to the genocide is “impossible.”

Notably, the MAGA grifters benefiting from this division are unbridled by these requirements.

No they fucking aren’t.

Tbh I think people are trying to hard to dunk on you rather than actually explaining how we see things and why.

Opposing war is generally the correct take, in most cases, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you should turn it into a hard rule, because there are exceptions. The American Civil War is an example I think most people would agree with. As violent and bloody as it was, it was still outweighed by the centuries of systemic violence baked into the system.

As Marxists we concern ourselves less with “who started it” (an inherently subjective question) and more with who’s fighting it and why, and what outcomes can be expected. War is the continuation of politics by other means, so to understand a conflict it’s important to look at the political questions at stake, on a case-by-case basis.

Without getting into the specifics of these conflicts, that’s what’s meant by “anti-war-ism,” not just opposing war, but doing so without really bothering to understand the specifics of a given conflict.

Yeah I didn’t realize this was a Republican vs Democrat “who is better” thing.

Lol, what? You said that Republicans love China because it’s authoritarian, when the reality is that they hate it more than Democrats. I have no idea how you got from there to it being a “who is better thing.” I’m just pointing out the fact that you’re wrong.

You’re dead wrong about Canada too btw:

Weird that so much more of them see China as an enemy compared to Democrats, and that the number of Democrats who see China as an enemy is also declining.

Also your graph cuts off at 2020 lol.

Meanwhile, here on planet Earth:

As most, if not all, trials will be carried out in absentia, the budget will focus on IT tools and save the expenses related to building and maintaining prisons.

10000 IQ strat unlocked: Saving money on building prisons by trying people you can’t apprehend.

So, continuing the successful policy the US has followed for the past 40+ years.

No one has ever accused me of not posting walls of texts before 🤣

I think you’re right about it being about a specific thread though.

I think there’s also an element of online spaces promoting the “extreme” version of every idea. The same way the right is so much more overt and unapologetic about racism, the “centrist” types go to the unapologetic extreme of, “The lesser evil, no matter how evil” with no concern about alienating people who aren’t on board with that. It’s like the one thing they get to have a “this but unironically” or “yes Chad” response to.

Damn, he do be posting.

Which party do you think is most likely to see the light on them… hmm

PSL, duh.

I feel like there was a time when voting for the “lesser genocide” would have just been presented as a hypothetical to show the logical extreme of lesser evil voting, but somewhere along the line people just started advocating that openly and unironically.

As things stand, unfortunately, the far-right is significantly better armed and better prepared for a breakdown in government.

While I would prefer to peacefully reform the system, it’s increasingly clear that there’s validity to the saying, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” The fact that the right is better positioned for a breakdown in order allows them to push further and further without fear. Civil war or revolution isn’t going to be something the left chooses, rather, if current trends continue (and it seems like they will) we may end up in a situation where it’s forced upon us and we are left but no choice to defend ourselves.

It’s not necessarily an all-or-nothing deal. There are methods of fighting back that are more effective than relying on the Democrats but don’t constitute full-on revolution, such as strikes. While strikes are non-violent, history has shown that they have potential to become violent, for example, if a boss hires mercenaries to force people back to work at gunpoint.

Likewise, if masked gunmen started showing up to people’s workplaces, demanding some of the workers to be handed over to be taken as hostages, workers need to be prepared to deal with that emergency.

Practically speaking, even if you wanted a revolution, there’s now way that would even be viable while practical steps for community defense have not been made. I’m not sure it’s rhetorically necessary to go further than that, particularly on a public forum.

I honestly wonder if they ignore me because I’m meaner. But who knows what goes on in their heads.

I’m out here posting commie shit every day and getting into fights about it. But occasionally I take a peek at MoG and I’ve never seen my name there, it’s always just Cowbee this and Cowbee that. Now I don’t even make the blocklist.

What am I, chopped liver?

I believe that V. I. Lenin communed with Satan and received his unholy word, and so everything he wrote was pure lies.

Lies are actually good, according to my twisted, warped morality.

Whenever I encounter a question about anything, I just consult my unholy texts and blindly accept whatever I read.

If the answer’s not in there, I declare the person who asked it to be a treasonous heretic.

I actually love treason and heresy so sometimes we end up making out. But only if it’s gay.

I’m genderfluid so whether it’s gay or not depends on which gender I am atm, which is an open question. And whenever I encounter a question, I read Lenin about it.

I can’t find the answer and now I’m trapped in an endless loop where all I do is read Lenin and question my gender. And that loop’s name?

Samsara.

Thank you for coming to my poetry reading.

The point is to add another example to the mountain of evidence that Zionists don’t give a damn about actual antisemitism, just so long as you don’t say that Palestinians should have rights. The hypocrisy shows that banning protests had nothing to do with being sensitive about antisemitism and everything to do with shutting down criticism of the “state” of Israel.

I apologize for being harsh and accusatory, you do seem to be looking at things in good faith.

When it comes to moral rules, I’m less concerned with universal rules that apply to all theoretical cases without exception and more concerned with establishing good guidelines. Generally, it’s always possible to find some edge case or hypothetical where a rule may be questionable. In those cases, you just have to use your best judgement. But it’s useful to use your judgement to establish general rules that apply to most cases, because realistically you’re not going to reexamine everything each time you go to the grocery store.

thevegansociety.com defines veganism as:

Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

“As far as possible and practical” should clear up certain things, like the idea of starting wars to liberate animals. Killing farmers is not a particularly effective way of advancing the cause of veganism, extreme ethical positions aside, it discredits the movement, and it tends to impair one’s ability to advocate for change. Likewise, I’m not going to go visit an Inuit tribe and try to convince them to go vegan when there are people who are physically and culturally closer to me who are causing more harm.

There is a pretty wide gulf between a thing being morally wrong and a thing being a capital offense. I can’t speak for others, but generally if I draw comparisons to slavery or genocide, it’s not attempting to draw a moral equivalence, but rather trying to show a logical inconsistency in someone’s argument. Some arguments against veganism, if followed to their logical conclusion, could be used to justify things like slavery just as easily, but that’s not the same as saying the two are equally bad.

Applying absolutism to any moral principle tends to produce unreasonable and impractical conclusions. As they say, only a sith deals in absolutes.

It legit breaks my heart to hear stories of people like Jane Yang Wu (neuroscientist) and Wang Danhao (semiconductor researcher) killing themselves after facing racially motivated harassment from the government.

When I was young, I had this idealistic dream of getting into science for the benefit of all humanity. Racism has absolutely no place in science. Aside from having no place anywhere, it’s such a perversion of the ideals so many people hold. Of course it’s also stupid and self defeating because of brain drain.

The US seems to be fully committed to returning to mideval times.

No, but we can certainly reduce the harm caused by the machine through veganism. As for dissolving it entirely, veganism is essentially a prerequisite, because you discredit any advocacy or any criticism you make by refusing to engage in an actionable step to reduce harm.