3d ago

Liberal Death Cult

You're viewing a single thread.

625 comments

Liberal *slower death cult.
“Guys guys, lets work for the slow death instead of the fast death.”
Gives similar vibes to “capitalism is the least bad system”
- Lol
  I just want a little fascism .... not a lot of fascism.
  
  Just a little exploitation for my benefit, as long as it doesn't happen near me.
  
  The global south can have a little exploitation, as a treat.
  
  What have they ever done for us? /j
  
  "So long as we're exploiting the brown people in countries I don't have to care about, it's all good"
  
  "How about half a genocide?"
  
  With our latest promo, you can even have a full genocide as long as your communication remains civil !
  
  as long as your communication remains civil
  Alternatively, you can just call anyone calling out the genocide "antisemitic". /j
  
  Or you just say all your slurs in a conlang i dont speak, thats 5% yiddish 20% bastardized arabic you'll call me a bigot for recognizing and 80% slurs, mostly for arabs. That's also good.
  Edit: wait do you need money to think up new slurs? Its fine i just need a number to write on the check.
  
  Let’s just go for the whole genocide, otherwise we might have to pay for bananas.
  
  You can't make an omlette without cracking a few eggs, therefore, a little genocide, as a treat is fine.
  
  No, you got it all wrong!
  We shouldn't do fascism, we should do imperialism! since we're not affected, problem solved! Because as long as i don't see the brown people suffering, it's all okay.
  
  As a treat!
- Guys guys, lets work for the slow death instead of the fast death
  i mean... yes?
  
  No. If there is any hope of actual survival, that comes before all else. Accepting the slow death of "voting blue no matter who" means that there is no possibility of averting fascism whatsoever. It is an inevitability that if the only side representing "the left" is associating itself with a declining status quo while refusing to do any of the things necessary to keep that status quo functional, them people will abandon it, and if the only ones offering an alternative are the far-right, then they are the ones who will win. There is no hope of survival whatsoever.
  There are, however, two possibilities that do offer some slim hope of surviving. One is that the Democratic party can be pressured into doing the basic, minimal tasks of governance necessary to avert fascism - tasks that they will never simply choose to do of their own volition. The second is that the left can establish a credible alternative outside of the organization of the Democratic party, whether electorally or otherwise. Both of those objectives are furthered by voting third party when the Democrats are offering someone insultingly unacceptable, while "voting blue no matter who" flies directly contrary to both goals.
  You're thinking of it as doing chemo when there's no cure. That's not what this is. This is deciding to just take a nice little nap in the comfy snow because your legs are so tired and you'll totally get up again in just a few minutes, rather than choosing to get up and push forward through the darkness in the hope, however slim, of finding an actual shelter.
  This "buying time to organize" line is constantly thrown around, I don't buy it as sincere at all, for starters. But regardless, time is not on our side, buying time only means allowing conditions to deteriorate further, it's just procrastinating and kicking the can down the line. And how do you effectively organize an alternative to the status quo and present yourself as separate from it while simultaneously trying to rally around it and supporting it unconditionally? It's nonsense.
  
  This “buying time to organize” line is constantly thrown around, I don’t buy it as sincere at all, for starters.
  I've heard that line for close to 30 years. So, when is that organizing supposed to start? When things get so uncomfortable that we have no choice? Not sure how that's materially different than the accelerationist position, except that it means fighting the proverbial 800lb. silverback gorilla instead of an adolescent.
  
  Okay but have ypu considered that suggesting i shouldn't want to die is ageist and attacking my culture? Whos the real imperialist, huh, boomer?
  
  You're thinking of it as doing chemo when there's no cure. That's not what this is. This is deciding to just take a nice little nap in the comfy snow because your legs are so tired and you'll totally get up again in just a few minutes, rather than choosing to get up and push forward through the darkness in the hope, however slim, of finding an actual shelter.
  No, they were right. Chemo is the right analogy. Fascism is cancer, liberalism is chemo, leftism is the cure. Cancer kills, chemo is miserable but it's better than dying of cancer, and a cure isn't ready yet. Your options are to die of cancer waiting for the perfect cure, or doing chemo to live long enough to maybe see that cure.
  This "buying time to organize" line is constantly thrown around, I don't buy it as sincere at all, for starters.
  It's constantly "thrown around" because it's true. Your posturing as the sincerity police doesn't change that fact. The Dems told Palestinian activists to wait their turn to talk, MAGA stripped their degrees, arrested, and deported them. It's easier to organize on the sidelines than from prison.
  But regardless, time is not on our side,
  Exactly, because of the idealists who refused to help buy more
  buying time only means allowing conditions to deteriorate further, it's just procrastinating and kicking the can down the line.
  No, conditions are deteriorating either way. Buying time is just slowing that deterioration, so enough structure remains to build upon.
  And how do you effectively organize an alternative to the status quo and present yourself as separate from it while simultaneously trying to rally around it and supporting it unconditionally?
  It's not unconditional, it's based on two conditions: as long as fascism is getting enough votes to win, and as long as there's no viable alternative. I see plenty of suggested alternatives, but none that are viable. This mindset vastly overestimates the political will of the average voter, and vastly underestimates the time and effort necessary to effectively organize an alternative.
  People aren't just going to spontaneously rally around a vague impetus for revolution. Certainly not enough people to actually succeed. They need to see a specific plan of action, organization, and popularity. Third party candidates pulling <1% aren't it. You're suggesting a cancer patient replace their chemo with keto and essential oils.
  When there's a cure, I'll be behind it 100%. Until then, I'm sticking with chemo so I can live long enough to see a cure.
  
  I've tried reasoning with you before so I know you won't listen, you are a devout believer in voting blue no matter who and I'd have about as much luck trying to reason with you as if I tried to convince my parents to become atheists.
  Everything you say is wrong, and your words constantly show your true beliefs that you refuse to admit. For example, "The Dems told Palestinian activists to wait their turn to talk," when in fact they disrupted protests through force, arrested many of them, denounced them as antisemites, and refused to give even the token gesture of allowing a Palestinians speaker at the convention. You don't mind any of that, because despite what you'll say, you don't care about the issue.
  I have no interest in discussing anything further with you.
  
  liberalism leads to fascism. it's the cause of cancer, not the cure in any sense.
  
  Didn't say it was the cure. Chemo isn't the cure for cancer, it's a treatment. Baby tigers lead to adult tigers, but I'd rather be locked in a tiger cage with a baby than an adult.
  
  but that's not the option. it's being locked in a tiger den, and you're choosing to play with the cub. you should be trying to get out of the den or kill the tigers.
  
  How do you figure? Getting out of the cage and killing the tiger are both tasks which are easier to do when trapped with a baby tiger than an adult one.
  
  both tigers are in there.
  
  You're losing the metaphor here. The tiger is the president, there is only one.
  
  your metapho fails to capture the reality of the situation. liberal democracy breeds fascism.
  
  What about working for the no death ?
  
  Well that's called necromancy and is generally frowned upon (ofc i get what you mean, avoiding death is the goal)
  
  Not always! If you add the rocket equation it's called cosmism.
  
  They're not mutually exclusive. I'd argue it's easier to work on the no death solution under a slow death regime than a fast one. We've still got a lot of work to do to get to an ideal solution. Lesser evil solutions ensure slightly more favorable conditions while we do that work.
  
  The fbi will murder you.
  
  Interesting argument, planet destroying weapon of mass destruction
  
  What can I say, my Gary is called anarchism 😛
  
  we all are working for it but clearly aren't there yet, to draw a parallel, we don't have a cure for cancer YET but you can bet your ass i'm gonna do chemo if i end up with it
  
  But how is liberalism [the slow death cult] going to get us there. Liberalism has been the dominant system for the past 70 years. And I’d say we’re worse off economically then we were in the 60s.
  
  Liberalism is what USA is founded on
  
  We could squabble about specifics for a long time. But using a broad definition. Yes, you are absolutely 100% correct. I was thinking with a narrow 20th century defintion.
  
  Liberalism has been the dominant system for the past 70 years
  8/14 presidents were republican. that's the majority, for those of you that can't do math
  And I’d say we’re worse off economically then we were in the 60s.
  doesnt take much for a billionaire-backed asshole to undo decades of progress cough trump
  
  Republicans have been broadly economically liberal until Trump’s second term.
  
  To reuse the analogy, I'm not saying that everyone becoming immortal will happen in a finger snap, I'm saying that "just dying from cancer Vs. chemo for a few wealthy" is a bullshit choice. The first wee basic step we should strive for is to make the treatment available to all those suffering from cancer.
  
  The wee basic step we should strive for is to make the treatment available to all those suffering from cancer.
  right. so the slow death. the one you were previously criticizing.
  In politics, the first wee basic step we should strive for is not a complete revolution without the support of the masses, but to put in power someone who, if not better, doesn't ruin more the already tragic and delicate system we have, to give us time to organize better.
  And uhh yeah we kinda failed at that
  
  without the support of the masses
  Good thing clinton and harris had all that support of the masses, love how they managed to get all that support from the masses. Im glad me not voting for them didn't matter, because 'the masses' supported them so much!
  
  Said it already, the slow death is accepting that the treatment should go to those who can afford it. That's the unacceptable compromise for leftists...
  
  Offer arrives from global council of oligarchs tomorrow:
  Kill all landlords, landback by the end of the month, cops are allowed only two pieces of kit¹, but we keep gig apps cops and for-profit healthcare for at least another decade. No struggle no tear gas no death.
  I'd take that deal.
  ¹pants bullets radio and a car each count for one.
  
  the slow death is accepting that the treatment should go to those who can afford it.
  and how does that relate to politics, especially seeing as you are actively sabotaging the party that wants medicare/medicaid
  
  The party doesn't want medicare4all, hence why they didnt pass it when they had the power to, or use some of the executive's powers to get as much non-means tested heathcare to the people as possible.
  
  since you all seem to get your one-liner responses from the same text file, i'm gonna follow your example and repost another comment from this post
  Democrats haven't had 60 senators since 1979. They had 58 in 2010 for exactly 72 days and tried to pass public option healthcare but only 1 independent voted with them so they settled for the lesser medicaid expansion that the current Republicans are gutting in the budget. For the record, that medicaid expansion passed with supermajority as every singe Republican voted nay.
  
  You only need a simple majority to remove the filibuster. We elected them to use their power, not to let their hands be tied by rules that never seem to stop them or the republicans from doing bad things.

625 comments