For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
Maybe dont support the wholesome chungus nazi just because he says he is progressive next time?
Quote tweet
https://x.com/shreyabasu003/status/2074233808216305682
I wish the sexual assault survivor behaved in a way more politically favorable to me :( what a unnecessary and compassionless thing to say
This is unquestionably false. He did not give a blanket defense of Platner, but he defended various aspects that were already indefensible.
I have no problem with how he responded to the NYT article, and in fact I think his response was better than your summary, which mentioned the RW operative's possible motivation but still lent credence to what was said instead of de facto discarding it out of hand.
His approach amounted to tailism. You don't need to unconditionally crucify someone for being a vet (this was the false dichotomy that he still uses), but someone that has Platner's military record and wears that record as a badge of honor should not be considered leadership material for progressives. This should not be a hard sell even to left-liberals, and even if it was, that's an integral part of the job of political agitation and education. You can't just embrace wildly reactionary trends because they are currently popular, that's not a basis for a socialist movement and in fact works toward the detriment of such a movement, serving instead to entrench those reactionary trends and to muddy your actual platform.
it's even worse because hasan has actually shown himself to be willing to do this over gaza/palestine, he lost a big chunk of his audience for awhile over it and yet he's unwilling to do so again to go against the troop worship in this country for whatever reason
Yeah, I think it's kind of difficult to make sense of, though it's worth noting that while it's good he didn't endorse Harris, he did vote for her and publicly say so and has continuously defended "harm reduction" narratives, even as he's decided to push against it with Newsome's hypothetical presidential bid (for now), so I wouldn't call him completely principled there either even if I do need to give him credit for biting the bullet on the Oct 7 Hasbara backlash.
I can only find two real reasons: One is hyperfixation about a particular approach to fighting zionism, which is very consistent with how he talks about elections where he thinks beating an AIPAC-backed candidate overrides other concerns (e.g. the depravity of the "alternative" candidate being supported). Two is that he has increasingly become more open about his entryism, to the point that his "communist" supporters basically need to make conspiracy theories to justify him believing in the necessity of revolution in America. You can see this especially (but not exclusively!) in interviews, where he talks about his aspirations to reform the Democratic Party.