(this is a sarcastic post meant to highlight the absurdity of some of the “greater good” rhetoric we’ve been hearing, especially around leaving vulnerable populations like disabled people behind in case of revolution, basically accelerationism)
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
758 points (92.4% liked)
Microblog Memes
7437 readers
2617 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Difficult to raise this amongst friends but one 2022 story came to mind
https://www.vox.com/policy/385549/trans-sports-transgender-biden-harris-democrats-titleix
PS: obviously my conflict is about “fight for 1% of athletes vs. lose election to Hitlerguy and harm like 50% of the population”, to oversimplify greatly
I bet we could get even more of these conservatives on our side if we promised to repeal gay marriage. Let's try that, too
Ooh, and we could get even more people if we promised to put the Jews in camps
If you aren't going to fight for that "1% of athletes" even though you think they're right just because they're too politically inconvenient then I have zero faith you'll fight for me when I'm politically inconvenient and actually need you to
Liberals will say shit like this and then be baffled why leftists don't want to fall in line behind the party of moderate fascists.
You throw trans people under the bus and you also lose, or at least depress turnout, of everyone who supports trans rights. You also make it clear to every minority that if they're in the crosshairs next, they'll be sacrificed next for the same reasons of political convenience. Jews represented <1% of the population of Weimar Germany, and you may be familiar with a poem about what happened after they came for them.
Furthermore, by ceding ground to the Republicans on this you make them look correct and you discredit your own side for having previously denounced their position as bigoted, which makes people more likely to support Republicans. We saw this happen with the border, when the Democrats turned from "Building the wall is racist" to "We're the ones who are actually going to build the wall," they didn't win over moderate republicans, instead they lost on virtually every demographic. The people who are pro-immigration hated it and the people who are anti-immigration saw their views as being validated and if they had any lingering reservations about voting Republican, those reservations vanished.
Framing politics as a Trolley Problem is extremely stupid, and fundamentally not how the world works, it's liberal brainrot and one of the reasons Democrats are worthless. They literally did this "strategic" sacrifice with Palestinians and immigrants (and it's not like they fully supported trans rights either) and they still ate shit with the worst electoral map since the Republicans took California. When throwing trans people to the wolves doesn't work, which minority will you sacrifice next?
Republicans who got on the "Freak out about transgender policy" lost their elections in droves in 2022. Several big swing Senate seats flipped because guys like Blake Masters and Herschel Walker couldn't stop screaming slurs at campaign rallies. We've seen Republicans scrub out over and over again by downing too much of their own kool-aid.
Democrats didn't lose 2024 because they were too nice to Transgender people. They lost because they were too nice to Liz Cheney. Harris made a big show of aligning with neoconservatives on everything from immigration and trade to military policies against Russia and China to the stubborn endorsement of the Palestine genocide. All of this shit polled worse than support for Transgender civil rights. Harris had no problem throwing the country in front of Hitlerguy to endorse the tear-gassing of Columbia University and the Kids In Cages on the Texas/Mexico border.
Even then... even if you can argue with a stack full of polling papers that Harris knew with perfect certainty and well in advance of the November vote that an impassioned speech in defense of transgender athletes would doom her campaign and subject the US to Hitlerguy, so what? She didn't do this and she still fucking lost.
So she and the rest of her squishy latte liberal cohort threw away a big chunk of LGBTQ support for what? What did Dems gain by embracing reactionary policy?
This right here can't be said enough. The problem isn't policies that are too leftist. It's the "liberals" that a working so hard to cozy up to conservatives. If we wanted moderate Republicans we'd vote for 'em. We want fucking leftists goddammit!!!
Why are you asking what the dems gained? You’re the one now worse off?
What did you gain by not voting for her?
On one hand I don't fucking like Liz Cheney... on the other hand.... I think you should welcome (almost) anyone against an enemy like Trump. I thought that at the time, and now with the additional information we've gained since then (and I personally learned) only reaffirm that to me. We don't have to glorify Liz Cheney later.
But not voting for Kamala because the coalition allowed Liz Cheney in is probably just as dumb as not voting for Kamala because somehow... Trump isn't WORSE on Palestine?
There is not a "single issue" that won for them beyond voter manipulation. They did the same thing as 2016 and did targeted ads and segmenting people on social media. Mass voter suppression in the south (Russian bomb threats in Georgia... the disenfranchisement across multiple states...etc) FB & Twitter owned by them. TikTok in question but absolutely started showing even more right wing content after the election. I'm sure one issue (or two) might be more influential, but that's only because of the coordinated reach of their voter manipulation.
We have ALL been targeted with propaganda and segmented from each other. They continue to do it now. They lie and Fox News, which something like 60% of the country, carries their lies for them. Bots barrage social media every where. Tech-bro toelickers and tankies promote right wing, anti-globalist propaganda everywhere. (Anti-globalism is primarily right wing, Kremlin propaganda to disconnect The Americas (primarily US ofc) from Europe).
Be wary of bots that feel like they're your ally, too.
"But the 63 per cent of the German people who expressed their opposition to Hitler were much too divided and shortsighted to combine against a common danger which they must have known would overwhelm them unless they united, however temporarily, to stamp it out.”
Excerpt From The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich Shirer, William
I would much rather have the people who hate the Cheney's guts in my coalition than have the Cheney's. How many people do they even represent? Who doesn't hate them, and with good reason?
First off they didn't just "allow" Liz Cheney, they actively campaigned with her. But secondly and more importantly, it's not about whether it was right or wrong for that to influence people's decisions, it's about the fact that it likely did. Call it "dumb" or "irrational" all you want, if voters were all rational and intelligent then maybe we wouldn't have to think or care about messaging or image at all, but that's not the world we live in.
The influence of "bots" is highly overstated and is basically just a way of dismissing legitimate criticism and preventing any kind of self-reflection or learning from mistakes.
It was a pathetic attempt to reach "middle of the ground" voters.
Did you not read that I opened with I hate Cheney? I suppose "don't fucking like" may not have been forceful enough.
I agree they probably leaned too much into it. A "thanks for speaking Cheney." is probably all I would have given her. If that's your only point, fine I agree. But I wouldn't exile her support entirely. If you're mad about that instead of focusing on Trump, you're losing sight of the problem.
I didn't say it wasn't influential. If you stopped responding emotionally or with the intent to derail and attack, you'd realize I literally said specific topics could be more important than others (once again, Palestine another highly controversial one I see you completely skip past). But it's the reach and targeting of these messages to those they resonate most with that is why they are so dangerous. Peter Thiel; Trump investor & close to all the tech bros funding things; was the 1st outside investor in Facebook. It was never "liberal."
Nothing I said implies we don't think about messaging. By now the inaccuracy of your attacks come off as firehose of falsehoods.
Your dismissal of bots and propaganda is not only stupid, it's dangerous. Propaganda has influenced EVERY democracy.
Tell me, which of these was not reportedly influenced and pushed by Russia or is not Russia friendly and has it pushed ties with Russia, both by propaganda & by literally influencing people with money? (Both people to lie for them in media, and politicians to vote for them)
MAGA/US, Brexit/UK, Marine La Pen/France, Bolsonaro/Brazil, AfD/Germany, Polliviere/Canada... the list goes on.
Are you blind? A bootlicker?
And absolutely nothing I've said has ever indicated we don't have a lot to deal with internally. But to fail to acknowledge that we wouldn't be here without our enemies helping these guys get here is to deny reality. I'd rather not drink the Kremlin Tea, thanks.
read the quote at the bottom of my first post again. That is the most important message anyone can take away from these posts.
I never claimed otherwise? Very confusing reaction.
Excuse me? In what way was my response "emotional?"
What "attacks" are you talking about? All I did was disagree with you on certain points.
They've got propaganda, we've got propaganda, everybody's got propaganda, and always has. The Democratic party has plenty of money to get their message out, the problem is their message sucked and didn't resonate.
All of those were driven by material conditions, yes propaganda had an effect but the reason the propaganda resonates and has influence is because of people being dissatisfied with the liberal status quo.
Every statement you've made has been in bad faith, purely attempting to derail the argument and make readers glaze their eyes over.
You're doing it now, even in this response.
You're just hand waving things and saying all things are equal. I'm sure the $160 million from cryptobros and $250+? million from Elon made no difference at all. I'm sure Elon's $1m fake-raffles to convince people to vote didn't make a difference. Fox News is watched by 60% of the country. Got a similar stat for a "leftist" program you can show is like actually propaganda?
Bet you'll argue that because we were imperial, we should let Russia and China be imperial and conquer Taiwan/Ukraine too?
No, the NEOliberal status quo. We have never been a leftist nation. Our Overton window is very far to the right. Bernie is like a single step to the left of the center. Check out any other major democracy.
Part of this entire argument we are having HINGES on the fact that many corporate donors are basically conservatives even if slightly "socially liberal".. cause their money comes first. That even, they too, focus on. Both the neocons and neolibs have maintained this order since the 60s until MAGA came along to reshape the presidency into a "CEO dictator."
You're basically telling me to choose MY words carefully. Right back at ya, buddy. Attacking "liberal"ism is straight kremlin propaganda.
You, the tech bros, and Russia get along well it seems.
Well, that didn't take long 🙄
I love when people just say shit. Like, you haven't pointed to any actual reason why anything I've said is "bad faith" or "emotional." Really just rolling out all the go-to methods of categorically dismissing any and all criticism, huh?
Lmao no it isn't. You got a source for that number?
Yeah, no shit? Why are you telling me this as if I don't already know?
Lmao. A liberal is a supporter of capitalism, as a socialist, of course I'm opposed to liberalism. I guess every socialist in the world is a "Kremlin propagandist" in your view.
Why do you think the right-wing, free market "Liberal Democrats" of the UK are called that?
100% stand by my initial statement that you are genuinely an idiot to dismiss the legitimacy of how badly propaganda & bots have fucked us up.
after reviewing your comment history, I edited that out (after you posted). I take this statement back.
WHAT ACTUAL criticism do you have besides continuing to vaguely attack the democrats and whine they campaigned with Cheney -- which I already said they went too HAM into. But I also wouldn't exile her entirely.
You ignored the question... and continued to make attacks that have no actual end result/point to the convo you claim to be trying to have. That's why they're in bad faith.
Again. Re read #3 because I've already said it multiple times. Do you have any actual other point than that besides "dems & Cheney bad?" That's what I've been trying to get to.
I am wrong on the Fox News viewership and conflating it with specific numbers.
However, I'm not going to pretend the prevalence of Fox News being turned on in many businesses, hospitals, etc, and the internet also sharing clips of it (and being repeated places like edit: Joe Rogan. I'm tired, k?) isn't relevant to the convo.
Also Facebook working with Cambridge Analytica, the Trump campaign, & others to tailor their algorithms to target Americans and influence the election.
Because you just said that Americans were tired with the "liberal" way of things. What liberal way of things?
"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law."
I mean.. you have to go beyond socialism into communism to not think that some form of capitalism should exist. And I'm not saying I'm not on board with SOME of that, but you're kind of driving my point home that you're just... saying shit.
I'm a basically a fuckin' socialist you turd. That's part of why I've been asking "what the hell are you talking about" this whole time when I've addressed the Cheney point MULTIPLE times, which was your only real complaint until you kept attacking random shit. (However I do ultimately appreciate having taking the time to review a couple things you made me double check so I'm not repeating them again... just kinda lame it took your attitude of wanting to attack with once again... seeming no real end goal.. to get that)
Once again: if you're more angry that even Liz Cheney went "oh fuck this is bad I'll say something" and the democrats embraced that... than the fact we literally have a CEO dictator flagrantly going against the courts & constitution and deporting legal immigrants.. idk what the fuck to tell you. Being more mad at the system than the actual Nazis taking power is speechlessly stupid in my eyes. I have repeatedly said in past comments that we wouldn't be in this situation if the system itself wasn't broken, and I have never defended it.
Forest. For. The. Fucking. Trees.
What question did I ignore, exactly? And what convo do I "claim to be trying to have?"
I mean, if you want to get into a more general discussion of why the democrats lost, we can do that - the main reason being that they were associated with a declining status quo. I talked about the Cheney's because that was the specific topic being discussed.
I don't really get why you seem to be taking my points so personally.
I don't understand how you're using any of these terms. To me, "communist" and "socialist" are pretty much interchangable in the same way that "liberalism" and "capitalism" are.
See, I don't have any understanding of why you think my criticism of the Cheney's or the Democratic Party was an attack on you that you had to defend against.
Wow. It is shocking you have the lack of self awareness to criticize the messaging of having Cheney around.. but are what, ignoring on purpose the messaging in America around socialism/communism?? Totally oblivious? Yeah good luck walking around telling the average American that isn't already a leftist "yeah come join me, I'm a socialist communist!"
Do you.. not see what the right would.. do with that? Not only are you butchering the reality and history of these terms, you literally make the world black and white in exactly a way that benefits MAGA?
But I'm supposed to believe you are arguing in good faith? I've made some mistakes in this convo but jfc this is egregious.
Whereas if I just say, "Yeah come join me, I'm a socialist" the right will just call me a communist anyway. I'd rather own it and wear it with pride than allow it to be used as a boogeyman. The way I see it, reclaiming the term means I have a better chance to define it, if the right says, "Communists believe this," I can say, "I'm a communist and none of us believe that shit, this is what we're actually about." Whereas if I let it be a boogeyman then I'm stuck giving them ground and punching left, "I'm a leftist, but I'm not like those dirty commies." They're still gonna hate my fucking guts for being a leftist and in the process I've alienated potential allies and given in to their rhetoric.
It's no different from reclaiming other insults, except it wasn't originally an insult and we shouldn't allow it to be.
Please define them and explain how they're different, because again, I genuinely don't know how you're using them. The way they're commonly used varies tremendously and generally leaves a lot of ambiguity, I'm guessing the difference is that communism has a harsher vibe or something.
Socialism as a system is a transitionary state that aims to establish communism, that is, a classless, moneyless, stateless society. A socialist is someone who aims to establish communism through such a transitionary state. I guess you could distinguish socialists from anarcho-communists, who seek to go straight to communism without a transitionary period. There is also a distinction between Marxists and Social Democrats, but Social Democrats, at least originally (Karl Kautsky, Eduard Bernstein, etc), still claimed that their end goal was communism, and that they could achieve that through reforming existing systems. And on the other side of that, the USSR was called the USSR and not the USCR, because it did not claim to have achieved communism but rather to be a transitionary state towards that eventual goal.
The problem with this is that it assumes Democrats have no agency. Democratic politicians have treated trans issues like those crusty old male Dems who don't like saying the word abortion.
Dems have never provided loud and full-throated support to trans issues. Go watch the recent John Oliver video on trans sports. There are very very good arguments on why excluding trans people from sports is incredibly anti-scientific and just thinly disguised bigotry. But Democratic politicians have never bothered developing the talking points to defend trans people, like they have for other core issues.
Look at how Kamala responded when asked about trans issues. She didn't provide full-throated support to trans people. Her reply was simply, "I'll follow the law."
Democrats have completely failed to defend trans people. They've quietly passed a few state level anti-discrimination laws, but in terms of rhetoric, they've completely ceded the space to conservatives. The only mainstream voices talking about trans issues have been the anti-trans bigots. The Democrats have instead just called the whole issue a distraction and hoped it would all just blow away.
They're right that it is a distraction, an artificial one concocted by Republicans. But that doesn't mean they can just ignore it.
Propaganda works. And if you don't do the hard rhetorical work to fight it, it eventually does change public opinion.
Well, that's more than she was willing to do for Gaza.
So, how large does a minority have to be before they are no longer disposable?
Interesting: nuance (do not restrict unless it would harm) was possible to beat Republicans on this policy. Internal rifts led them to stay silent on a stance (already being realized) that would resonate.
Really interesting. Thank you
reminds me of 2003, when the bush regime convinced everyone that their marriage would somehow be worthless if they let the gays get married.
and it worked, the stupid fucks bought it. iraq paid badly for it tho, whoo hoo...