Reblogged
Miaou
Reblogged quantum-dragon
Honestly, the history of the Republican Party since at least the Tea Party era proves the lie to leftists who say stuff like "well if we don't withhold our vote, the Democratic Party will never move left!" In fact, Republicans have shown that it is specifically voting for their candidates faithfully in every election that allows a "radical" faction within a party to have leverage. That you can do that and also criticize candidates for not conforming to your views enough - but you only get leverage to do that by voting for the party regardless, but utilizing primaries, the media and other tactics to try to make your voice heard as much as you can within that party. I know this doesn't make "logical" sense on first blush, and isn't how other forms of political pressure (like boycotts) work, but history has proven that that is how you get leverage within a political party in the United States. And the left has done the right thing on this a lot! But when we don't get our full wishlist (or even when we do, but checked-out people online lie about it - see the myth in the 2024 election that the Dems "weren't doing anything/were the same as Republicans" on trans rights, and then after the results where Dems lost big, a few of them wrongly concluded that they should back off on trans rights!) we pull away and that sends the message that we can't be relied upon. Republicans, though, know how to play the long game and that even if they don't have their preferred person this election cycle, faithfully turning out and then reminding those politicians that they did later will, little by little, over time, result in more of their preferred candidates. This is the story of how the far-right took over the Republican Party - and the left could learn from it, if we wanted to. (Well, I want to, a lot of us want to, but we are too often drowned-out by the ideological-purity, no-knowledge-of-history-from-before-a-couple-years-ago, would-rather-critique-power-than-have-power ignoramus segment of it.)
Reblogged quantum-dragon
"We stand with the working class, by which we mean a real estate heir, against the ruling elite, by which we mean this McD's cashier."
Reblogged quantum-dragon
In general, there's no bottom to internet discourse when a significant amount of it is run by anti-social weirdos who basically just seek to out-do each other, out-radical each other. It's just shock value, like the political equivalent of early 2000s gross-out movies and TV shows. One of the reasons why I tend to dislike media like that is because it's so boring, and it feels like something a group of edgelord 12 year-old boys would come up with when sitting around and making a movie script: "And then this disgusting thing happens! And then this guy gets his head chopped off and put into a blender! That'll scare the audience!"
The same vibe applies to terminally online discourse, with them trying to go lower and get a rise out of everyday people by saying things like rape, terrorism, and mass murder are akshewally based and you're a pussy shitlib if you disagree. It's so boring and predictable by now. "Oh yeah, this terrible thing? Great and revolutionary! Oh and uhhh this bad thing? Also part of our praxis!" Whenever something happens, you can sit there and think "what's the dumbest and grossest take someone can come up with?" and that'll be close or identical to what the terminally online are saying, just like you can sit and think about what the grossest possible thing could be in a shock film, and probably guess the turn of events
Great example:
This is saying the McDonald’s worker who called the police on the CEO shooter—a wanted murderer—is comparable to those who called the Nazis on Anne Frank.
It’s deranged, but think about it: doesn’t it feel like someone did a political game of Mad Libs? Don’t you think you could have predicted this if you sat and tried to think of the most offensive thing you could come up with?
I just decided to see if my mom could predict this over breakfast:
Me: What’s the worst possible take you can think of about the McDonald’s worker who called the cops on the CEO shooter?
Mom: Hmmm. Are they blaming Jews?
Me: No, but it has to do with Jews
Her: Ahhh. Hm. Palestine?
Me: No, they’re saying turning him in is like turning in…
Her: Anne Frank?
Me: Yes!
Her: *groans loudly*
When your whole shtick is just being as shocking as possible, it stops being shocking after a while. It’s lazy. It’s cringey. It’s appealing to the lowest common denominator. It’s the political equivalent of coming up with the grossest joke possible in a shock film meant to amuse tween boys.
And this is what’s dictating popular internet discourse