sweetpotato

I think you are asking the wrong person, I’m the one saying the Palestinian genocide crosses the line. Although I don’t 100% understand the logic behind this. What’s the threat to cis women?

Although I’m suspecting the answer someone would give you is that it’s because the trans genocide will happen to “us the US citizens” not some Arabs at the other side of the world we don’t really care that much about.

I’m not disagreeing on the facts. The democrats truly are the lesser evil and they truly are very evil. They did awful and Trump will do worse. There should be protests and everything.

All that is good. I don’t know about you, you seem more open minded than the average user here, but most democrat supporters cannot understand the idea that someone can decide whether to vote and what to vote for with a different logic/philosophy - not with different facts.

Most of the time we judge things with a consequentialist mindset, it’s the default for most people. It goes like this: what action out of all the possibilities produces the best results, positive or negative, it doesn’t matter as long as one is above the other? I choose that. That’s very standard but it has problems and there are a lot of philosophers who have criticised consequentialism/utilitarianism. One criticism is what time in the future are you assessing the consequences? It can be a year, it can be ten years. If Harris had won, would the LGBTQ rights be protected more? Yes, but would the democrats become more unhinged in Gaza, as they basically got away with a genocide? Also yes. Would that further move them to the right(because that’s what the oligarchs who fund them want and since they met no resistance), adopting extreme far right policies, like endorsing the wall? So would they in the long term turn out worse and worse? Yes. Someone can argue therefore, that a crushing defeat can maybe help them move to the left even a little bit finally, which in the long term can be more beneficial.

Another criticism is that for a lot of people like I said there is a red line. That’s following the deontological framework, where basically the means justify the end, the opposite of consequentialism where the end justifies the means. I’m not saying one framework is better than the other, I believe both have their merits and can be applied in different contexts. In this particular example where the democrats have done so absolutely horrific on all fronts but especially on Palestine, voting for them cannot be justified. They have crossed too many lines to be justified by the end. That end being miniscule differences, basically non existent on anything other than a handful of social issues.

It’s ok if you disagree, I’m not going to tell you what to believe, the issue is not recognising the different perspective, which is just not going to lead you anywhere. I’m going to keep explaining this and you(or anyone in your place) will keep repeating the same consequentialist argument. It will not get you anywhere cause it’s not a matter of misunderstanding or not realising the consequences, it’s a matter of framework and a matter of ideology at the end of the day.

Because the democrats didn’t stand by any values that supposedly differentiated them from the republicans like I explained, but you don’t seem to really care. You can put it on non-voters or third party voters all you want, the truth is that Netanyahu got anything he ever wanted and asked for by the US under Biden and Harris and not acknowledging this is part of the problem. Immigrants got the same treatment under them as well, which I also mention and you don’t really care.

That’s the issue with not having any red line, you will always play by the rules of the far right. And that will make you indistinguishable from them which will alienate the people who want change. They don’t see an alternative to a very very dark situation. In good faith, you would very much understand why endorsing the wall, genocide Gaza and standing proudly by it, supporting Israel unwaveringly, not promoting any substantial progressive economic or ecological policies and in general why having an extreme neoliberal agenda would not compel people to vote for you.

It’s not on the disappointed voters that you people can’t understand what having a red line means. Consequentialism simply does not hold up when the difference are so miniscule and the evil is so big.

I’m really tired of going over this again and again, if you could feel a fraction of the pain the democrats and their oligarchs brought by committing the worst crime against humanity of the 21st century and how the millions of pleas for embargo went ignored this past year and a month, you wouldn’t be asking this.

I feel for your very unfortunate situation, but maybe you should’ve demanded more from your party, instead of putting the blame on people who draw the line at genocide. If the choice is between the number of genocides, maybe we should take a step back and reflect a little because this doesn’t stop anywhere. Next time there will be two, three…

Republicans can go as fascist as they want, but if the Democrats are drugged in this race to the right, they will lose. They endorsed the wall, they did nothing about the immigrants and they 100% backed a genocide no questions asked, ever, what difference is an immigrant or Arab supposed to see from this?

No matter how much you accuse the people who didn’t vote, the truth of the matter is that nothing will change if you don’t demand from your party to stand for some values. For now, they follow Trump moving to the right.

A lot of people don’t understand this honestly, it’s not about intelligence, it’s not even about being good or bad.

The reason we are against him is because he has conflicting interests with the people. He works for the oligarchs, for capital, not for humanity, not for the environment, not even for american citizens.

And my 2 cents on this discussion is that critiquing him for being a convicted felon and about the other cases he is accused of is a really disorienting and weak critique as well. He is not going to make our lives miserable because he is convicted, he is going to make our lives miserable because he is a far right, neoliberal fascist with no respect for human life. And on the contrary, many activists have been convicted of crimes, like Assange, but I’d do anything to have them as president. Having been convicted is practically irrelevant and highly dependent on the crime.

So instead the critique should be targeted at politics, not on personal issues… But then again the fact that the critique doesn’t always focus on politics is indicative a lot of times of the very small ideological gap between the two parties and how none offers any real alternative.

All lives matter type shit. We live in a patriarchy, the least you can do is listen to those most affected, women. Don’t expect compassion if you can’t show it.

Exactly how I am sure poor white people have it bad in this system(and it needs to be addressed), yet those primarily affected by racism have to come to the spotlight, exactly this way men have problems(and need to be addressed), yet those primarily affected by the patriarchy have to come to the spotlight, women.

Conflating one social problem (patriarchy) with others (economic inequality and poverty for example) is harming the cause and it’s disorienting, it’s wrong. When we talk about the patriarchy, the discussion should not be diverted and those mostly affected are women, so we talk about women’s problems and how they experience it. That goes for queer people’s problems as well. It goes for any underprivileged/minority social group. That’s it.

I really hate you people for spewing your propaganda like that.

1. The “worse” part implies the democrats didn’t give Israel everything it ever wanted which is in itself outright propaganda.

2. I don’t know why Ukraine is portrayed like Palestine. Where are they getting ethnically cleansed that I missed? Where is this coming from? Show some respect to the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century for the love of god

3. At how many atrocious policies do you say enough? At how many rollbacks from republicans that the democrats do nothing about do you say enough? At how many genocides do you say enough? If the democrats committed a second one? Trump would commit more you say. A third one? Trump would commit more. A fourth? A fifth? At what point do you draw the line?

https://medium.com/@ashwinjitsingh/the-trolly-problem-utilitarianism-vs-deontology-bd624a8e321e

"If one were to take a utilitarian standpoint, the means are justified by the end, which from a utilitarianist perspective, is the maximization of benefit. Hence, for a utilitarianist, whatever option guarantees the outcome of the maximum benefit is what is moral. Therefore, in the trolly case, a follower of classical utilitarianism would say that it is morally permissible to sacrifice 1 to save 5.

The deontological perspective in contrast, advocates for the means justifying the end. This, for a deontologist, the morality of the action should be based on whether the action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than being based on the consequence. In this light, a follower of deontologism would argue that it is morally impermissible to sacrifice one to save five because making the choice of having to kill someone is inherently wrong."

Ok because I see a lot of stupid shit in here, you don’t get to talk about banning tiktok if you don’t talk about banning Instagram, Reddit, X and YouTube, who use the same formula, with equal fervour.

Now please talk about healthcare, climate crisis, the Palestinian ethnic cleansing by that cancerous, land grabbing, terrorist Israeli state and the shrinking buying power of the people all around the world.

This is a very interesting thing to point out, but I believe you are not realising how intrinsically tied the generations of women unpaid work is to the economic system.

“mainstream economic theory is obsessed with the productivity of waged labour while skipping right over the unpaid work that makes it all possible, as feminist economists have made clear for decades. That work is known by many names: unpaid caring work, the reproductive economy, the love economy, the second economy.”

“the household provision of care is essential for human well-being, and productivity in the paid economy depends directly upon [the core economy]. It matters because when – in the name of austerity and public-sector savings – governments cut budgets for children’s daycare centres, community services, parental leave and youth clubs, the need for care-giving doesn’t disappear: it just gets pushed back into the home. The pressure, particularly on women’s time, can force them out of work and increase social stress and vulnerability. That undermines both well-being and women’s empowerment, with multiple knock-on effects for society and the economy alike.”

Doughnut economics - Kate Raworth

Capitalism thrived and keeps thriving in concentrating capital because it is able to get away with not accounting for the value it extracts. This is true for this example of unpaid labour as well as for natural resources extraction, ecosystem damage etc(we are beginning to realize this with carbon tax). That’s the cornerstone of the system function, not just a side effect. The unpaid labour may be starting to be dealt with in the West, but this just means it is aggressively outsourced in third world countries. Without these so-called economic externalities there is no profit (or extremely little of it).

I didn’t say I don’t find differences between them, you are putting words in my mouth once again. I said that the differences are miniscule to me considering how ideologically opposite they are to me. I deeply care about what they do, if I didn’t care, I wouldn’t hate them so much. This argument doesn’t make any sense. If I don’t care about what they do, then why would I hate them?

Am I spreading voter apathy? Apathetic are the people that go vote for these two oligarchs without thinking about it ever. These fanatics are apathetic. I’m actually trying to make people think about it. I hate them and I’m explaining why it is so, I’m not apathetic about them and I don’t want people to be so, I want people to hate them as well, why is it so hard to grasp? Why do you say unrelated, wrong stuff and have me waste my time answering them? This is so clearly not what I said.

For the last part I don’t know what to say honestly. You say I don’t know how the status quo works(?) and your argument for it is some of the most vague phrases out together ever. “We had governments in Europe, America, Asia and Africa that worked against corporate interests until people became apathetic about it”. What am I supposed to say to this lmfao. No justification, nothing specified, no thought put into this, just vague, unrelated words put together.

If people like you, on the dnc payroll call me fascist(even in the most shameless way) I’m doing something right. This was such a waste of time lol

You are so clueless and excessively confident I don’t know why I keep on replying to you.

Can you distinguish in your mind media whose revenue depend on your clicks, through ads and engagement and media that don’t depend on your clicks because they are funded by readers subscriptions? Can you, or is it too hard?

Any rich person/oligarch owned media is run with profit incentive, it needs to increase its revenue, because otherwise it’s an unprofitable investment. It’s in their direct interest to make you click on their articles.

Non profit, people-funded media on the other hand depend on their subscribers confidence that they will deliver valuable and accurate journalism. That’s why people would subscribe. And that’s why they aren’t touched by your stupid repetitive arguments, they are not businesses, they don’t run on profit, they are detached from it. Not every single one is good, but they are the only ones that have the prerequisites to be good

As for the last part I don’t even know what to say honestly. You don’t even use the word sensationalism correct. Does sensationalism mean having a positive opinion for any reason about any media? Where are those assumptions coming from?

You’re obviously not worth discussing with. You are spewing words without any cohesion. You didn’t even answer any of my statements, you started speaking as if I didn’t answer you, saying the same thing with your previous comment and explaining to me something I’ve already addressed.

If I pay the right media, yes. The incentive of these media is justice, the right of the people to know the truth and how they are being robbed by the upper class, their passion for journalism and the trust they build with their community.

They don’t sensationalise stuff because their income doesn’t depend on clicks in the Google feed but rather on the people who fund them. They don’t depend on clicks, because they don’t depend on ads to make profit. They don’t want to make excess profit, they want to cover their running costs and salaries which is achieved by monthly subscriptions. Readers who are willing to pay for a newspaper, are not persuaded to do so by thumbnails and clicks, but rather by the value of the content. The sensationalism and clickbaits and ads are mainstream, rich-people-owned media job in fact, the exact opposite of what you claimed. This is because these media seek profit and the only way to get it is by making you watch ads and click on articles. Let alone the fact that they have contradicting interests with the people, so their covering of the news will be skewed accordingly.

Why do you think I’m imagining this or that I’m thinking about something unrealistic lol? I have years of experience with grassroots non-profit media, I’m following lots of them and I get my news from them. I am talking from experience, not imagination.

“exactly what I want” is so funny to me, when those 2-3 parties are ideologically entirely opposite to me. In every core political topic they are working against what I stand for. So speak for yourself, we are not the same.

In the second paragraph we have the same old stupid false dilemma I’m tired of hearing. I’m a fascist for wanting an actual democracy more than the oligarchy we have now, that protects, serves the interests and perpetuates the existence of these monopolies right?

Also, I’m sure my critique about the revolving door, the oligarchs controlling and funding the politicians and promoting them in their media are the “lines made by anti-democratic institutions”. I’m sure they say those things and I’m sure the mega corporations are not thriving and better than ever with the system we have now lol.

Not only didn’t you answer my critique but you didn’t even acknowledge it. Did it bother you so much that I critiqued the status quo? This is one of the most bad faith answers I’ve ever gotten, good job👍

What is the point of this question? My critique of the current state of “democracy” is about how undemocratic it is and why this is not a good thing and that it should be more democratic. I’m not advocating for even less democracy, I’m advocating for more. It’s not either this oligarchy we are living in, or corporatism

There should be a post about all the non-profit, grassroots, funded exclusively by the people journalist sites and media that people know of.

We need to share and learn about all the media we should be supporting and getting our news from. It’s one of the foundations for an actual democracy and a better society.

Till you realize that you actually only have 2-3 realistic voting options in every country and that these candidates are funded and promoted by said corporate monopolies. This is in fact a necessary prerequisite for a successful election campaign. Not to mention the revolving door.

Different roles, same people.

If you don’t pay to get your news, someone else does, and that someone might not have the same interests as you do.

Support media initiatives that are funded exclusively by the people, not by the state or the oligarchs.

You do realize what instant you are in right?

Considering what you’ve tried this might seem obvious but since I didn’t see these explicitly mentioned:

Have you tried being really consistent with your sleep schedule? Especially the time you wake up? (Probably the most important thing one can do for sleep quality)

Have you checked wether the temperature you sleep in is ideal(cooler than normal)?

Have you eliminated lights and noise from your bedroom? It needs to be completely dark and insulated from noise.

Have you checked your sleep position and mattress? There are certain professional suggestions I’ve read about, like you should sleep on your side ideally with your dominant hand on top(fetal position) and the mattress should not be too hard or too soft and you sink into it too much and you should be replacing it from time to time(5-10 years).

Have you optimized your pre and post sleep routines? Like staying away from screens and blue lights, winding down(for pre sleep), not changing up the routines as much as possible.

Are you exercising enough and enough time before sleep?

Nah buddy, we always have been and always will advocate for abolition of this idiotic bipartisanship.

You just happen to notice it only when you are begging us to vote for these genocidal neoliberal freaks.