-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
He's saying everybody except whichever category sphagnum chose is terrible
OP
OP
looks like over half this thread believes in the primacy of politics
Can we add an option for Posadism, which will then get 100% of the vote because it's awesome and insane?
I don't know what I expected but it wasn't nuking the capitalism out of earth and UFOs.
The posadists were incredible. Something of a cult, as might not be surprising, but still involved in the day-to-day of supporting labor protests and things like that. I'd love to know what they thought of the research of someone like John. C. Lilly.
Let's stop beating about the bush and get to what everyone REALLY wants to hear about, from J. Posadas himself.
Here it is, everyone! And here's the rest of the Posadist library if, for some reason, you wanna keep reading their... things.
Thanks! I've got white russians and nothing to do, time to dig into this.
3-4 years ago I'd be at a rave, club or house party on a sat night, now I'm reading about madmen. 30s suck. Lol
Hey, I'm in my twenties and reading odd writings and manuscripts is one of my primary hobbies. Don't feel bad!
Thanks but I'm just laughing at myself and getting older!
It's one of my favourite hobbies too, I tend to get really into a subject and spend hours and hours deep diving it. Then something else catches my interest and the process repeats.
Was great at an old job where I basically had nothing to do for 2/3rds of the day, just read everything I could about odd things.
Something I've noticed in American primary election discussions, whenever someone on the left attacks a centrist politician people start the "so you aren't gonna vote and will let in trump" shit before anyone even hints at it.
Seems like the new go to deflection. The discussion is no longer about Centrist failure but about a hypothetical future vote.
Seems like the new go to deflection. The discussion is no longer about Centrist failure but about a hypothetical future vote.
Yup! And some people call them on that and just say no. Then, this amazing chain of logic happens.
>Centrist: Listen, we have to compromise with the swing votes. We can't get through [any number of decent, good things] because we can't win otherwise. We can't inspire these people on rhetoric alone.
>Tired Person: Well, I'm simply not voting for a centrist candidate. Period.
>Centrist: How dare you! This is how we'll get Trump!
Shaming the individual for being fed up is somehow understood to work where shaming the allegedly crucial swing votes (who are always, always treasured over the left and the unenergized base) is for some reason impossible so we have t compromise to please them at the expense of, yunno, the energized base. These people can't be shamed for having voted for Trump or permitted his ascension, but the people who are too tried to vote for Biden or Harris have to be FORCED to do it.
And look, personally, I'm voting for the Dem nominee no matter what. I'd encourage any who can stomach it to do the same. But what needs to be understood is that centrist candidates aren't somehow bulletproof. The electability metric isn't some mystical raiment. The candidate has to win the vote of the people? Well, then, that cuts both ways.
We're running far too short on time to coddle the incrementalist myth.
When I was in the Labour party back in the day this exact thing happened too. Also, I'm convinced Centrists would rather a right winger of any type get in than any sort of leftist.
Like you I've also noticed that they never, ever 'compromise' with the left but always fold for the right. I don't even think the centrist label is really correct, the centre implies they would be giving way to both the left and the right but they don't. I just use the label because everyone knows who you're talking about, but in reality they are centre right.
Fundamentally it's rooted in the belief that the tactics of compromise and triangulation are most effective without accounting for the Overton Window. Only one wing of the spectrum understands the Overton Window and thus welcomes (or tolerates in rather dynamic fashion) its extremists-- because the right wing understands that, in the long term, it's a messaging game to win the cultural battlefield. The center contrarily tends to scoff at the more idealistic (or, being specific, less data-centered proposals [as radical change naturally precludes statistical data]) policy proposals of the left rather than considering this whole thing as an ecosystem. The center doesn't understand that triangulation is a workable idea when two extremes are pushing with equal force for what they want. When the global left has been hobbled, that doesn't just affect the Left-- it naturally weakens the center too, which relies on a balance between the two forces. For whatever reason, the center seldom acknowledges this (or wants us to naturally take a subservient position to policy goals we simply don't have enough time for).
This coupled with an inability to see themselves. Like it seems on the face of it an interesting question why not all that many people are motivated or impassioned to draw strong distinctions between Democrats and literal fascists but nah we can perhaps just preempt that whole uneasy train of thought by identifying the symptom as the problem instead lol. They get totally hung up on the idea that we're making some kind of naive moral equivalence when often for us it's a counter-intuitive conclusion borne out of repeated experience. I'm sure a part of it is that there in truth exists no possible 'centre' between say revolution and reform. We sort of present them with a binary choice on whether the order of the day can be preserved, so it's unsurprising that they'd break that way, but it's really the lack of internal and external transparency that's frustrating about it ime.
Last edited:
Another thing that drives me nuts is the idea of constantly trying to inspire people with "it'll still hurt but it'll hurt less than under the other guys... Probably!".
I dunno how many times in multiple different countries this has to fail before they realise it's fucking dumb.
'Vote for harm reduction' even ignoring it not working, is just so fucking vapid.
I dunno how many times in multiple different countries this has to fail before they realise it's fucking dumb.
'Vote for harm reduction' even ignoring it not working, is just so fucking vapid.
The discourse isn't helped when people try to argue Warren is a centrist.
Like lol.
Don't disagree relative to the politics of America. Within socialist politics, she's self-admittedly not a socialist. She's got a chance of not killing the planet, though, so I'm willing to give her a shot.
If it annoys you, then it helps (。≖ˇ∀ˇ≖。)
Lol jk. I think we should all dunk on Biden, tho.
The issue is leftists/socialism isn't the only part of the leftist axis.
You can be a "leftist" without being socialist.
Well, sure, there's anarchists as well, for example. I suppose Mutualists wouldn't be on the right either. But of course, grammar is descriptivist, not prescriptivist, and that affects things too. For a lot of people, "what happens after capitalism" is the question that defines the left/center divide. For others, it isn't.
The problem is economic systems themselves aren't right or left by themselves. You can have a leftist capitalism based society. You can have a right-wing socialist country.
Left Right divide has to do with attitudes of how to tackle issue. Economic structures don't answer those questions by themselves so thus ascribing a side is silly. And trying to purity test is a good way to scare off allies.
I mean, fair, although I'm not sure left-right is based on how to tackle issues. Sure, the conservative-progressive divide is based on that idea to some extent, but even then, it's a somewhat meaningless description for half the people using it. Conservatives will never admit that, nine times out of ten, their solution to solving problems is to not solve them, but that's effectively the truth, innit.
And I'm not really interested in purity testing. Contrarily, I think the future for the socialist (and radical) endeavor has to be basically as an informal network for disaffected labor in this country whenever it attempts to do something that's in line with socialist ideals. Such as unionizing. Yunno, building solidarity, that sort of thing. But consequently, I'm more interested in the disaffected, fed up individuals who don't participate in the political system than the race for swing voters-- a group of voters who, at this point, I have somewhat of an active contempt for.
Let's be real for a moment, the ONLY reason anyone puts up with allies of the kind you describe is because if you don't, they have the ability to destroy you. This is basic history.
This idea of "play nice" is tired. It assumes that these things can be obtained through appealing to...what, exactly? White Hegemony? Capitalism? Patriarchy?
People on the periphery will continue to have systems in their communities to take care of each other, even when those in power will not. So threats (and that's what they are, no matter how sweet they sound) of eventual failure are misguided.
Like a comrade once said,
Meghan Thee Stallion said:
Last edited:
I was speaking about left leaning to Warren types not milquetoast middle fencers.
I agree that there's always going to be multiple very different ways to achieve the same outcome, but I don't think you can have capitalism without a class hierarchy and a socially sanctioned reward for selfish individualistic activities, and I don't think either of those things are very left.
Captialism is a very defined problem, but socialism is kinda an open ended solution.
Soc Dem my friend.
I don't think we will ever be without hierarchy. That's less a problem of class/left/right and more just scale. Too many people requires leader/class divide. You simply lesson that divide/privilege as best you can.
Well anarchy sucks so there is that :P
Still better than Objectivism!