We don’t live in a tame world, lots of people have deeply problematic viewpoints. When someone who expresses such viewpoints is otherwise well-intentioned it’s better to address them directly and potentially change some minds (or at least plant the seed) than to shun them and further entrench them into a problematic worldview.
I disagree with those comments, but they seem pretty mild to have been banned. I just don’t see how it’s productive to ban all liberals the moment they try to explain their views. All that does is push people away who could potentially have been a future ally.
I like how the New York, Florida, and Texas tristate border still makes my homeland of western Kentucky instantly recognizable by the weird little nubbin that is the Jackson Purchase.
Yesterday, at Union Station in Washington, D.C. we saw despicable acts by unpatriotic protestors and dangerous hate-fueled rhetoric. I condemn any individuals associating with the brutal terrorist organization Hamas, which has vowed to annihilate the State of Israel and kill Jews. Pro-Hamas graffiti and rhetoric is abhorrent and we must not tolerate it in our nation. I condemn the burning of the American flag. That flag is a symbol of our highest ideals as a nation and represents the promise of America. It should never be desecrated in that way. I support the right to peacefully protest, but let’s be clear: Antisemitism, hate and violence of any kind have no place in our nation.
Her statement on the protests frames them as pro-Hamas, anti-Semitic, unpatriotic, and violent by focusing entirely on a few bad-faith actors. Spending the entire statement condemning the minority of protestors and saying nothing of the majority who were there simply to protest genocide is disingenuous.
To take a page out of her book,
You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you
The condemnation of Hamas and anti-Semitism isn’t the issue, it’s the context in which it is done, absent of support for the protest as a whole. The best we get is
I support the right to peacefully protest, but
As a qualifier at the end of the statement. If she were truly committed to justice for Palestinians she would have pushed back against the framing of those who defend them as anti-semitic and pro-Hamas.
It isn’t so much what she said, but what she didn’t.
While she is better than Biden, her condemnation of student protestors still rubbed lots of gen Z the wrong way, myself included. It won’t stop me from voting, but it does dispel the delusion that Kamala is anything more than another corporate liberal.
I think this is an instance of people failing to think from a systems perspective rather than an individual perspective. Kamala Harris was a functionary of an oppressive system and chose the easy path of not challenging it from within. That in itself may not inspire confidence in her potential presidency, but it does not discount her completely. She is still an individual who has changed her views over the years in a way that suggests hope for her being a better president than she was an Attorney General.
Would you rather appease them and win, or not appease them and lose?
Sacrificing your values to win is no true victory.
Here’s the way I see it:
If you’re right and there are too many closet racists/sexists for a black woman to win, and we run her anyway, then we lose. If we don’t run her in order to appease the racists and we “win” we’ve actually still lost because we sacrificed a core value. That sacrifice will haunt the Democrats as the decay that was already happening will accelerate.
It’s the same cowardice that has plagued the Democrats for decades. Choosing appeasement for political convenience over and over, each time removing a section of their spines until there’s none of it left. Do not let fear control you.
While I don’t care what sex they are or color or whatever, a fuckload of garbage twats in this country sure as fuck do
This is my least favorite argument I keep seeing for why Biden shouldn’t drop out. The racist shit-heels you’re referring to were always going to vote for Trump regardless of who the Democratic candidate is. There is no reason for Democrats to try and appeal to racists, and even if there were it would be immoral to do so. Sacrificing your values to win is no true victory.
You’re losing your nerve, and while that’s understandable, it’s self-sabotage.
Kamala is going to be able to put a bullseye on Trump
I agree with you but this is an interesting choice of words given other recent events lol.
To be clear, the Bolsheviks were definitely Communists and Socialists, and implemented a more democratic and Worker-focused society than Tsarist Russia
I agree that the USSR was more democratic and worker-focused than Tsarist Russia, but saying they were definitely Communists and Socialists depends on your definition of those words. An originalist Marxist for example would vehemently disagree that they were communist because communism was envisioned as this pure ideal stateless society, the “end goal” to work towards. Statelessness is definitely no longer a requirement of communism for modern Marxists, but it used to be.
US and Western Powers deliberately attempted to shove a wedge in the Leftist movement by trying to paint the USSR as “not true Communism.”
While this is definitely the case, people at the time had legitimate critiques of the USSR that may have led them to see it as “not true Communism,” see above. Wedges are driven into splits that already exist.
Because everyone seems to have their own unique definition of what Communism/Socialism is, saying that something is/isn’t socialist/communist should be taken more as an expression of that person’s values than a semantic argument. If someone says they are socialist and [insert government here] is not, what they are really saying is that there are aspects of [insert government here] that they disagree with to the point that it’s a dealbreaker for them.
What do the words socialist and communist actually mean to you?
I think with the way you’re using the word socialist, what you actually mean is social democrat, which is a newer term people use to mean capitalism but with heavy regulation and strong welfare / social safety nets.
When you ask people who are actually anti-capitalists and consider themselves some flavor of socialist or communist to distinguish between the two you will get as many different answers as people you’ve asked. In Marxist theory socialism is generally understood as a transitional state towards communism. Historical events led to communism being used mostly to refer to the authoritarian ideology championed by the Bolsheviks, so people started using socialism to differentiate themselves from that definition.
The only thing you’ll get most leftists to agree on is that both socialist and communist mean anti-capitalist, and those who disagree are confused liberals.
Hillary undermined his whole presidency.
Yes, the fact that Russia ran a coordinated disinformation campaign that favored Trump does undermine his legitimacy a bit, but let’s not miss the forest for the trees. The fact that Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 and lost the election entirely in 2020 is more significant.
Al Gore tried to use law to win election.
61,000 ballots were not counted by mistake. Gore used the law to try and have them counted and the conservative supreme court interfered for political reasons. Gore was in the right.
Conspiracy theory
The amount of evidence supporting this theory rivals the theory of gravity.
A bot would surely have better grammar.
Hilary with making false russian claim
In what way do claims of Russian interference - which has some truth to it btw - directly result in the overturning of an election?
Gore with all the counting shenanigans
Insane to present an example of an election being manipulated in Bush’s favor as an attempt by Gore to overturn an election. How are we supposed to have a discussion when we clearly live in different realities?
How were they going to overturn an election by occupying a building?
The attack on the Capitol was part of a wider plan orchestrated by Trump and his backers. The fake electors, the call to Georgia’s secretary of state, the baseless accusations of voter fraud… All of these combine to paint a pretty clear picture. Hell, the crowd at the Capitol called to hang Mike Pence because he refused to count the fake Certificates of Ascertainment.
I’m only responding for the benefit of others since I know you’re just going to deny all of this or try to claim Democrats did the same or worse, but I really do hope you overcome your delusions someday.
Legal warfare, I dont like it either, but the losers do this a lot.
Show me one time Democrats have attempted to stop the certification of an election by force. You can’t just pretend this happens as a standard matter of course.
what was May 29th?
May 29th was a riot and not an insurrection because it had nothing to do with trying to overturn an election. Are you getting it yet?
Are you suggesting that an attempt to halt the certification of a presidential election endorsed and encouraged by the sitting president in the hopes of avoiding abdicating power is equivalent to a protest over police brutality?
Is that what you think happened on J6? Failure is not the same as giving up.
If they do replace him, it will just be with Kamala. The only thing up in the air would be who to appoint as her running mate.
IMO they should just do it ASAP. I honestly think Kamala would attract way more voters than Biden. She certainly has her issues but no worse than Biden’s and she’s way better on optics.
Any good leftist candidate would mobilize opposition voters, that is unavoidable. It’s no reason to not run a good candidate.
I agree that lemmy.world is a primarily liberal instance, but I haven’t seen the same level of censorship on lemmy.world as I have on hexbear, though I’m open to evidence to the contrary. You can create a space for a specific ideology without resorting to such an extreme level of censorship and lemmy.world is proof of that. Also see my home instance slrpnk.net, we’re a primarily anarchist instance and we haven’t had to resort to extreme censorship to achieve that.
By what method do you distinguish concern-trolling from legitimate concern? Concern-trolls generally want to shut down discussion, and the whole reason for my concern is that censorship shuts down discussion.
They’re not my views, did you miss the part of my comment where I said I disagree with the comments that got them banned?