Maoo

Liberals write bad poetry

video game

The most revolutionary people I know are trans lol

"Leftist" continues to be a label that can mean basically anything

Given what American flags are made of probably carcinogenic fumes

Rhetoric is a fight and the best defense among liberals is always deflection. They are incurious and 90% of them don't care about what is actually true or happening in the world, they just want to feel good and right in their limited understanding. (Incorrectly) quibbling about language is a way, as you note, to avoid acknowledging the obvious of an ethnic cleansing happening right in front of them and by a country they openly support even in that ethic cleansing.

Rather than resolve this internal contradiction by becoming consistently against genocide, or even just shutting the fuck up because they don't even know anything about this topic, they gladly find a foothold in playing with words until they don't have to feel like they support genocide anymore even though they are still supporting the ethnic cleansing, i.e. the genocide.

Their masters know this psychology well, it is part of PR strategies to ensure that the wider settler population does not materially oppose the ethnic cleansing. Their lackeys gladly write the op-eds and soften journalists' articles to throw all of this up as a smokescreen. The liberal hubris of trusting every bit of bullshit from "the experts" at, say, The New York Times thus functions as a security blanket for liberals that might otherwise realize they're the bad guys in this situation.

Browbeating insufferable liberals about their incapacity for media criticism is something that has worked for me in the past. I would probably reserve it solely for the people for whom empathy means nothing or is entirely self-serving, at least in their current state of mind. You don't need to be as harsh on people who really do care about others but are just misled. Those people can be pulled to accurate opinions through exposure to knowledge, so getting them to come to your reading group or whatever is a better option.

Burn it

The first propaganda aspect of this discourse is to make you believe that who you personally vote for as an individual matters. Emphasis and focus are the most powerful tools of propaganda. When confronted with this topic by liberals you should dismiss it and change the subject to how to actually build power (not voting lol) to oppose the 98% Hitler and the 99% Hitler.

Your vote, as in a vote by you in particular, for President doesn't matter. You are just one person and the electoral college makes even your miniscule vote almost entirely irrelevant if you live in one of ~45 non-swing states. Also your vote is anonymous, it doesn't even hold discursive value. Vote for Stalin. It literally won't matter if you're acting as one person on your own.

You can make electoralism somewhat matter if you consider it as a mass action (mobilizing and growing your organizations, forming a disciplined bloc) or as a vehicle for exposing the masses to your positions but that's a very different thing than liberals trying to pretend that guilting you into voting for a genocidal Zionist segregationist is good political work.

You are making other good points, some that I use as well. Liberals are stuck in myopic thinking that's handed down to them by their political class because it benefits that political class at the expense of their voters. It's always "this particular election is what matters so vote lesser evil" rather than thinking for two minutes about what it means to be a guaranteed vote whose demands can always be ignored. In fact, they even delude themselves into the exact opposite position of pretending that is the less consistent voters that will be ignored. Guess what: campaigns are going to run based on (1) donors, (2) trying to get people likely to vote for them to just vote at all and (3) trying to get swing voters in their side. Notice how none of those things include, "listen to the requests of those who always vote for us no matter what". That's a waste of limited resources. I can't emphasize enough how much contempt most politicians have for their voters.

Anyways this myopia is exactly why you get public consent for a 98% Hitler. It's why liberals side with fascists and genocide. They're not just morally bankrupt, ignorant cowards being duped by obvious cons, they are an actual threat to us. They're the ones that turn you in when you do direct actions. They're the ones building the surveillance state. Working for military contractors. Creating bad faith propaganda against your organizing projects. Always reject their bullshit in the strongest possible terms.

Tankies when an American presidential election: this is the same liberal kayfabe that's been going on for our entire lives and the best thing we can do is point out what its true function is.

Tankies on Putin: he's just one guy, you're not describing a Tankies because we don't believe in your Great Man Theory fairytales. Feel free to rephrase once you know literally anything about this topic.

On centrists: wrong again Tankies just call centrists reactionaries. Y'all are right wing.

Your only excuse for being this confidently ignorant is if you're 12.

ProleWiki logo centers The Atlantic.

Pretty problematic, sweaty.

Technical debt is any technical decision you make where you'll certainly have to "pay for it" later. Folks here have pointed out that one version of this is in not following best practices and letting things get done in a lazy or hacky way that will need to be fixed later for the system to reliably operate correctly etc.

But there are a lot of other ways in which technical debt can occur. For example, if you organize your work in a way that neglects documentation, you're taking on technical debt for keeping your system working when there is turnover or promotions. Anyone coming in who has to now improve on or fix that system will have to make (sometimes wrong) guesses, try to figure it out by studying the system in painful detail, or just plain not know how it works and have to work around it, all of which takes way, way more time and resources than just having the people that originally did the work write down documentation.

Similarly, many people take on technical debt by being lazy in specifying how something is supposed to work in the first place. They believe that it doesn't really matter because they're trying to "move fast", but usually this means they move fast aimlessly, wasting a ton of time and resources because their thinking and communication is unclear. Very often this kind of person asks others to build a very general-purpose system or one that they can control without having to have a clear idea of what it's supposed to do, which is its own form of technical debt, as those systems are always overly complicated and difficult to understand.

Basically, I think technical debt is thought of as taking an easy option that makes it so you have to do even more work later, but in my experience the "easy" option isn't even easier, it just works around managers / leads that don't know what they want or how the problem domain functions. "Just fix it by X date" instead of "fix it properly" usually belies a lack of understanding of the problem in the first place and of failing to plan and check in properly on work as it was happening originally.

jQuery bby