nOw iS NOt tHe TimE : memes

[–] EmmiLime@lemmy.ml 45 points 1 week ago (2 children)

And when Democrats are finally elected, fully in power in all branches: "They just won, give them time." "we won, why aren't you satisfied?"

Then of course, Democrats as usual will just go on about how it's time to move forward and do nothing against fascism because well, they all serve the same capitalist class so...

[–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 week ago

Dont forget that when Democrats lose its all our fault and when they win its proof they didn't need us. Doesn't really give me much of a reason to vote for them.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

while their supporters say the dems either need more time or not enough were elected

[–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They will usually point to the designated villain democrat or some piece of formalia like the parlamentarian. You know Zohran couldn't replace the commissioner, think of the norms!

[–] cornishon@lemmygrad.ml 22 points 1 week ago

The funniest thing is it was actually the absolute norm for NYC Mayor to replace the police commisioner until Mamdani.

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 week ago

True. But lately their arguments have been not that acknowledging dems do that, just saying if there were more it would out weight those villains!...

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 39 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

One of the main problems, is that US liberals have no historical memory of the scale of atrocities committed by their party. Once they learn that history, they unavoidably have to come to terms with the truth that the US is a one-party state, with the democrats playing the controlled opposition wing, and the electoral contest is nothing more than theatre, or a rigged game at a casino where the house always wins.

Even just a cursory glance over the history of some of their recent leaders, like Obama, Biden, or Harris should be enough.

[–] SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago

once the learn that history

roflmao

[–] Alenalda@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's a good cop bad cop situation.

[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

One hundred thousand percent

[–] ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm just gonna assume anyone downvoting OP supports Western imperialism and murder for profit.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Smh you just dont get it. Its only bad when the other team does it and I have to pretend to give a shit. Dont you know all bad things started under Trump? Nobody even cared about ICE!

[–] gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 week ago

your assumption is not only correct, but also correct

[–] Sapphy@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 week ago

90% of voters quit before voting finally fixes capitalism

[–] PunkMonk@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 1 week ago

[–] teagrrl@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago

perfect meme, no notes.

[+] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca -12 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Right, we need to act outside the electoral system if we want real change, 100% agreed. How does spending 1 hour every few years to vote for a party who won't round up your neighbours into ICE concentration camps, take away abortion rights, gut environmental regulations, and oppress your LGBT+ friends and family change that?

That's the part I don't get. Voting liberal/Democrat/whatever clearly helps MANY people materially. How does not voting help?

I'm in no way saying voting is enough, or voting will solve our problems, or get us out of neoliberalism. I'm just asking what material gain for your lives and the lives of oppressed people are you making by not voting that's better than voting liberal?

Are you just hoping conservative victories will lead us to revolution through accelerationism? I just don't get it.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The Democrats built up ICE along with the Republicans. The Democrats stood idle while abortion rights were attacked, and queer people attacked. At a certain point of ineffectiveness, even if we assumed that the Democrats really did want to improve things, their sheer incompetence is worthy of abandonment. The most oppressed people I know are also the most revolutionary and the most critical of the Democrats.

Also, "make things bad" isn't accelerationism. Accelerationism is the belief that we need to speed up centralization of capital in the imperial core in order to move the timeline of capitalist crisis forward, ie we need to support the most competent capitalists. The Democrats are generally better for corporate profits, and therefore are the actual accelerationist party.

Accelerationism is wrong and a bad strategy, but the idea that anyone is supporting the Republicans on the left is nonsense.

[+] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca -11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

When did I say you're supporting Republicans?

Accelerationism has multiple definitions and includes everyone who thinks there is salvation on the other side of speeding up some aspect of capitalism that warrants ignoring the destruction caused by the acceleration.

All neoliberals are accelerationists, but so are leftists who think that the destruction caused by the contradictions in capitalism will bring about social consciousness and revolution and seek to attain it on a faster timeline by speeding up capitalism.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago

No? Accelerationism is a specific strategy that believes supporting the most competent and stable imperialists will concentrate capital faster, and therefore bring about the collapse of capitalism sooner. That means supporting the Democrats, as the Republicans are more unstable. Neoliberals do not want the collapse of capitalism, and accelerationists do not want to elect the GOP because they slow down the concentration of capital typically.

I'm not an accelerationist, but it seems like you're arguing against a strawman.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago

No? Accelerationism is a specific strategy that believes supporting the most competent and stable imperialists will concentrate capital faster, and therefore bring about the collapse of capitalism sooner. That means supporting the Democrats, as the Republicans are more unstable. Neoliberals do not want the collapse of capitalism, and accelerationists do not want to elect the GOP because they slow down the concentration of capital typically.

I'm not an accelerationist, but it seems like you're arguing against a strawman.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The short answer is that democrats aren't just not good enough, they are actively detrimental to all the causes you mentioned. Democrats expanded the ICE concentration camps (that Trump took over from Obama by the way), abortion rights were taken away under JOE BIDEN who DID NOTHING despite getting AMPLE WARNING, they likewise fuck over the environment and oppress queer people. So voting democrat clearly harms many people materially. Voting for them does not help.

THIS was the actual democratic party candidate

Longer comment

Newsom targets trans people

Chicago Police has had "black sites" for decades

Ferguson Riot leaders were assassinated and disappeared under Obama in a dem city with a dem governor [2]

American police used to (and still does) torture detainees [2]

Biden deported more than Trump 1

Biden expanded the concentration camps [2]

Biden was planning on doing mass deportations using ICE as well

Not to mention democrats are working with the republicans

Dems held secret meetings with Jared Kushner

Dems fund AIPAC republicans over non-AIPAC dems [2] [3] [4]

[+] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca -11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

You're being absurd. Joe Biden had 4 years and didn't do any of the things I mentioned. There is also no world where Kalama builds and fill concentration camps like Trump is doing, or take away abortion rights. Trump has done everything I listed in 2 years and has 2 left to go. If you have a Latin American friend there is a decent chance he'll die in a camp. That chance was almost zero under a democrat.

All you did it listed a bunch of unrelated other bad things Democrats do. I said they do bag things. I said we need to act outside the system to change things.

I asked you why you didn't vote when it makes a difference to your friends and neighbours. You just answered "they do bag things, we need to act outside the system to change things".

How can you be this callous, completely forsaking your duty to be in solidarity to act, not for yourself, but also for everyone you're in community with and for humanity as a whole.

Edit: You're effectively listing the problems with neoliberalism as a reason to not engage in harm reduction. This is a position you might have the privilege of holding, but others do not.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago

Whats absurd is looking at a list of sources supporting claims and stating "no none of that happened".

Joe Biden did all of the things you mentioned. That you dont like that fact does not change it.

Four years is plenty of time when it comes to overturning Roe v Wade, committing genocide, fracking like hell, expanding the police state, overseeing more queer persecution, expanding ICE, expanding the concentration camps, expanding the ongoing wars and starting new ones. Its funny how he had plenty of time and power to do that, yet four years is just no time at all when it comes to... Not doing those things. Weird. Almost like its bullshit.

I did not waste time reading the rest of your drivel. When you start out with writing something completely detached from both reality and the actual situation, then it makes it clear there is no discussion to be had, you pretty clearly signal you are a deranged zealot that cannot accept reality.
If you think you wrote something cogent which you want a response to, try to start out with engaging with material reality or at the very least engaging with the given sources.

[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

You're being absurd

"That doesn't look like anything to me"

[–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

accelerationism

Why are all of you all of a sudden using this term? And why is not one of you using it correctly? I am begging you to learn the words you use

[+] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca -12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Since accelerationism was coined in 2010, the term has taken on several new meanings. The term has been used to advocate for making capitalism as destructive as possible in order to cause a revolution against it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism

It's BARELY a change in definition. Most accelerationists in their delusion believe that we can ignore the bad/the contradictions in capitalism as we hasten towards some kind of technological or political salvation that will save us. This meaning just takes away the delusion and leaves the destruction, because that's actually what will happen.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Lmao the term isn't from the 2010's what kind of dumbass wrote that Article? And what kind of dumbass goes to wikipedia for political education?

That's the same definition with less academic language. Accumulated capital within empire is the most destructive form.
It is also not a definition that fits with what you wrote. An accelerationist is not just someone who "wants bad things to happen quickly." Even within your doodoo brain definition accelerating the destructive forces of capital is significantly different from just "wanting destruction". Of course one should not expect anything but asinine reduction of scientific terms from right-wing freaks like you, who do not seek to understand, but merely subjugate to serve your most immediate needs.

[+] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca -9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Well then fix it since you're so much more educated than everyone else. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone who has the sources to back the edit.

You're the epitome of this meme: all theory, no praxis

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone who has the sources to back the edit.

You can just admit you've never tried to edit Wikipedia

[–] BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sorry I dont volunteer for organisations started by zionists, nor organisations with a massive issue with nazi infiltration, nor organisations with a massive western imperialist bias with regards to sources, nor organisations with widely documented issues of power users and admins abusing their position. Since Wikipedia is all of that I see no value in wasting my time working on a broken institution, when there are so many other more worthwhile projects.
More importantly, which you conveniently missed, I do not use it as the basis of my political education.
You also missed the rest, but I figure you did that because you got mad I told you I didnt read your hallucinations.

Memes

Rules: