Lurker > legendary_zell

A positive vision that inspires hope works pretty well actually. Democrats just refuse to present one and seem to prefer "the other guy is terrible" as their only strategy.

Fear doesn't have the effect of making people think in the exact way you'd hope or expect. It often simply paralyzes and embitters. That's why you need hope.

I've tried to explain it to you countless times: people do not vote or participate in politics based on the mindset you present in these topics. Even someone like Humble Novice who is constantly pushing the "save democracy" button thinks Biden is actually good, not just that we're choosing between slow ruin and fast ruin. People check out if they think that's the case.

The only things that have historically prevented Nazism or stopped it in its tracks are working class politics and solidarity providing an alternative, or denazification and violence.

DnDer posted...

A federal ban would have been nice, but I know there's not the political will or capital to do it.

It should be constitutional to do it. I don't think there's any state policing power that would override something like due process or cruel and unusual...

How is there not the political will???? We had the biggest protests of the century about specifically this. Democratic politicians kneeled wearing kente cloth in the halls of Congress. If there's not enough "political will" to stop this one thing after that, there's no political will for anything.

This has been something conservative/white supremacists have done over and over throughout American history and historically, the best response has been a federal military presence. That's what Biden should promise and do no matter how much anyone on the right howls about it.

Apathy comes from the ostensible """"left"""" and pro democracy party seeming unequipped and uninterested in doing the things that would reenergize democracy as we've hurtled towards the cliffs for decades. If not actively hostile.

It comes from all the worst elements of society seeming to get their way and avoid consequences over decades and them being unafraid to seek and wield political power over decades.

If the worst comes to pass, it'll be because of all that rot, not just because of Palestine or a lack of student debt relief. It'll be all the big and little failures of liberalism and the wins of conservatism and fascism..

It's what they do and what they always do. They exist as a concept to maintain borders, social hierarchies, break strikes, and destroy protests and social movements. That's been the only real constant in their role since they were invented.

They do it reflexively, even if they have no personal dog in the fight. Like how many of these cops really care about Israel, Zionism, campus safety etc? Likely very few, but they will brutalize whoever they're told to brutalize.

Hyena_Of_Ice posted...

Uh, that's more than just an optics problem.

Don't forget you have extremists who proclaim that any action is justified against occupiers, and "occupiers have no rights" We used to have a few people like that on 261; they held a cynical view of history in which major changes in civil rights only occurred after rioting and violent protest or outright massacres (e.g. Haitian independence from slavery.)
In this revisionist view, MLK Jr and Gandhi were completely ineffectual, and it was only the widespread rioting after the death of the former, and the continued widespread political violence in India in the latter case, that brought about the Civil Rights Act/independence for India. They additionally claim that peaceful protesting and even civil disobedience are useless.

I don't agree with that version of the view, I think both were absolutely essential to scaring the powers that be into conceding. You have to convince some, shame some, and yes, threaten others. It's always been that way.

I don't think any action is justified against occupiers because after a certain point, that deadens you to the humanity of others and makes you go off the rails. I mean Israel is doing this all this garbage because they have an "anything is justified to preserve our settler colonial apartheid state" mindset. But we've known for a long long time now that by making peaceful protest impossible, you make violent action inevitable. And Israel does not allow any action in any form, peaceful or not that challenges their vision for Israel. On pain of extrajudicial and collective punishment, torture, imprisonment, and death. And so we get our current situation.

LightHawKnight posted...

The thing is, the only really awful thing Biden really has done is what every single US president would have done, support Israel. So much of the good stuff he does never ever gets mentioned for some reason. Even by Democrats.

No President has done only one awful thing. It comes with the nature of the country and the nature of the office. And none of this is a reason not to hate Biden either. Other people doing it doesn't make it okay.

I agree that his positives are not advertised enough by his supporters. I just wish people would do that without adding the extra part of "therefore you're insane not to love him" or "he's the best President ever"

Doom_Art posted...

Why don't people like Biden? Are they stupid?

Just like each and every President we've ever had, he's done countless awful things and neglected to stop the doing of awful things. It probably has something to do with that.

That said, this is very good and this is what I wanted from him in the runup to the election.

Why get mad at people for pointing out that Biden and Democrats also wanted this ban? It's something they've openly talked about for a long time now. They weren't forced into this. The ban was popular among elected Democrats when it stood on its own.

It's their fault for committing an own goal if it affects them negatively. The status quo would have cost them nothing considering they're fine with mass tech surveillance and brain melting when it's done by domestic companies.

I don't think this will have a big effect due to the built up hatred against Trump and the Republicans, but if it did, I wouldn't be surprised. This is one of THE most anti-youth things they could do.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


This point is not going to get any better or more correct however many times you post it.

There's no conflict in the minds of the right. They wanted the ability to have free access to the minds of the youth to get them to blame minorities for problems caused by capital and other similar systems. They don't want free access for the people fighting that. No conflict there, all entirely consistent.

Just like there's no conflict between wanting an inclusive and pro-equality atmosphere on campus and not wanting to be repressed by the state and the school you pay tuition to for peacefully protesting a genocide.

specialkid8 posted...

When has the right ever not owned religion?

There's been many times when religion has been associated with radical reformist and even revolutionary left wing or at least populist movements. For example, the Progressive era was heavily associated with dominant strains of protestant Christianity. Before that, many peasant rebellions in Europe were inspired by a Christian socialist tradition.

The almost total capture of the "Christian" identity and political expression by the right is largely a 20th century thing.

This is always the default response to challenges to the status quo. Years/decades from now, when the genocide is completed/admitted and these protesters are repressed as they were in the 60s, everyone will be crawling all over themselves to regard the protesters as heroes and pretend they were on their side. The Universities will apologize and put up plaques commemorating all this.

But no lessons will be learned, it'll happen again in response to the next crime people can't accept. Because these institutions profit from war and expansion and the people who have the ear of University presidents and can threaten them are always on the side of whatever current evil is happening.

Johnson-Destroyed Reconstruction and our country's one real chance for racial and economic justice. We're still digging out of the hole this guy put us in and may never get out.
Buchanan-Gave up the farm to Southern slave interests, resulting in death and destruction.
Reagan-Completed capitulation to capital, death squads, empowered religious right.
Nixon-Shattered public trust, started creep towards fascism, killed millions, sabotaged peace.
Trump-Corruption, fascism
Bush-Criminal Wars, inflation of financial bubble
Jackson-Genocide

Honorable mention to Wilson for his racism. Honestly, almost all our Presidents have been awful. Even the two "best" ones, FDR and Lincoln did horrible things to people they felt they didn't have to care about.

Whether this stands will depend on why Obama's rule was struck down and whether there's been enough technical changes to this rule to let it stand. This is genuinely good, but I don't see why there should be an income cap on it. People who work over 40 hours should be paid overtime, regardless of if they're hourly or salaried, low income or medium income.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Now ban mandatory arbitration agreements

This is what I really really want. The dominance of these "agreements" pisses me off more than almost anything else. It's just such a false idea of agreement and consent that is inherently, purposefully titled towards the powerful/capital.

Always has been.

Businesses under capitalism want isolated, desperate workers who see other workers as competition, not allies in the same bucket. Regardless of their individual morality or intentions, they have strong incentives to use, abuse, and replace any particular worker. That's the regular course of things and has been from day one and will continue to be, no matter what coat of paint is put on it.

Their tees aren't great, but their sweaters, polos, and jeans fit great and have gotten me compliments damn near every time I've worn them. I never shopped there growing up, but they've become one of my go-to places.

This is the only type of thing they can agree on. Expanding the surveillance, police, and military states. Never anything to actually help people.

This is bad, not just because these guys lied and that could affect public trust in the agency and feds in general. But because the higher ups at federal agencies are TERRIFIED of this kind of thing. So terrified that they'll refuse to make necessary arguments in order to avoid the possibility of this happening and refuse to go out on a limb under any circumstances. And lawyers/government people are already typically a cautious bunch by nature. And possibly worst of all, this can be cited by crypto people when they want to be annoying or fight any and all regulation.

People need housing, not just shelter. They need privacy, autonomy, space, and services. And it needs to be provided as a public good. That's the only and ultimate answer.

Enjoy my celebrity status as a medical miracle, publish my memoirs, blow their minds of transphobes, open a burger joint.

I'm listening to it for work right now. I wish some real radicals and advocates for the working class and unhoused got to make these arguments, the SG is leaving so many points on the table by trying to seem "reasonable" and agree with restrictions.

To people saying there's no case here: you're very very likely wrong. The EEOC could lose due to a lack of evidence or a bad judge, but blanket criminal records bans are known to have an unjustified and illegal disparate impact based on race. It has to be a crime that's relatively recent, and relevant to the specific job. The policy can't be overbroad. This isn't just in employment, it's also in housing and other relevant civil rights laws.

I'm saying this as someone who has brought cases like this under both housing and employment laws.

That example is legitimately chilling.

Comrade Green doing critical work!

But this is really just to set her up for the base to turn on her if that becomes necessary to preserve Republican power.

Some of the most outright fascist people online watch only the cutest anime tho.

Same here. It didn't manifest through coming out, but I saw a lot of view points here and it helped me see which ones meshed with my values and which ones didn't. It gave me glimpses of a lot of ways of thinking I probably wouldn't have encountered much in real life.

I've been coming here for a long time. As annoying as people can be here, it's much less cringey and abusive than what I've seen on Twitter, Reddit, etc, it's easier to have actual conversations, and the culture was just better. I learned a lot here.

But it seems like this is basically the end and it's about time to move on from GameFaqs as a whole. The only reason I come here for gaming related stuff is for PS1-3 era RPG walkthroughs when I don't want to just copy a visual guide.

Corporate control of community spaces is antithetical to free and meaningful conversations. The profit motive incentives businesses to disregard the actual needs and desires of users in favor of sanitized, soulless, ad friendly "content." It's disgusting and it's destroyed a unique and useful space.

sfcalimari posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/3/3e663274.png

What you still don't seem to understand 8 years later is that the Democrats never had these voters. These were voters who were sick of politics as usual, who hated both typical Democrats and Republicans and who only got involved in politics in that election because they thought something different might be on the table. They were not traditional "leftist" voters, the far far far more relevant factor for them was newness and a "fuck the system" vibe. These were not voters that were ever going to vote for Hillary, the most likely outcome was not voting at all, followed by voting for Trump.

There's no evidence that there's any similar movement now because this isn't that type of election. Trump is not considered a wild card anymore, he's a known, terrible quantity. And Biden isn't nearly as hated as Hillary, even if he's not as popular as he was in 2020.

I've never seen anyone say this. On this board or elsewhere. I've seen people say they won't vote or they'll vote third party. You can argue those have the same effect if you want, but I've never someone who criticizes Biden from the left and declares an intent to vote FOR Trump.

streamofthesky posted...

Really scary how the left has been brainwashed into seeing Israel/Palestine as a conflict between "white colonizers" and "brown people".
The US Census considers all of the Middle East to be "white", and Israelis have just as long a residence and claim to the region as Palestinians do.
Many don't agree with the official Census categorization, and that's fine. I'm just pointing out that....if one of the two groups is "brown", then both are.
The rhetoric is blatantly racist and hate speech, but is allowed and endorsed by Western institutions.

https://www.thecrimson.com/column/dining-on-sacred-cow/article/2012/11/16/Lispon-Israel-race/

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/17/1079181478/us-census-middle-eastern-white-north-african-mena

Fucking disgusting post.
Also, Palestinians are Iranians now?

Great post, though Jordan belongs in the former group.

Man, I just don't understand why Biden won't capitulate to their demands and beg for their votes! /s

What the fuck?!

While it's true there's a lot of brown Israelis and the conflict isn't as simple as white vs brown, Israel, as founded, and as it's operated up until today is explicitly a settler colonial project and it's early proponents and founders openly recognized that reality. So it's not entirely a racial situation, it is one of colonization and apartheid. The left is accurately assessing that situation and the right, Zionists, and people obsessed with "US interests" are heavily invested in obscuring that reality.

Shadow_Don posted...

Yea thats not why I pointed out that they fund hamas.

I pointed it out because your implication that Iran was fairly retaliating from an unprovoked attack.

I didn't imply that at all, you're inserting that reading yourself. States tend to retaliate against attacks, whether those attacks are justified or not, in order to save face, preserve sovereignty, deter further attacks etc. I said the retaliation is to be expected, not that it's moral or justified. As I pointed out, I called the Iranian state evil beforehand. And I said that people are happy because Israel is being treated as other countries would when they're glaringly typically treated as above meaningful reproach otherwise. None of that means or implies that Iran is some innocent victim that was attacked out of the blue.

You and stream are seeing red on this issue.

Shadow_Don posted...

Strangely leaving out the undisputed fact that Iran is the primary backers of hamas

Bro, I explicitly called Iran an evil country. They're not the good guys, what do you want?

This is reaching "do you condemn Hamas???" levels of absurdity.

Nah, they probably think a country is committing genocide with impunity and another evil country that got attacked by the genociders is retaliating, and that's why they're cheering. Because Israel is being treated normally for once. When you attack another country, you typically get attacked back.

They could hate Jews, but I don't think that's the most obvious or likely explanation here.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

And youve yet to show examples of more than 1 or 2 posters ON THIS BOARD that dont allow criticism of Biden.

Pelosi isnt a poster on this board, if you werent aware

This will be my last response to you since you're so fixated on the idea of moving goalposts. Your posts are a great example of that. Your stance was that no one in this topic or board were making those arguments and that people don't generally take issue with the bare concept of criticizing Biden. I demonstrated people in this topic and on this board doing exactly that and the former Speaker doing so. You then demanded more people. That's moving goalposts.

Cemith posted...

Only thing I've seen yung post is the same thing I did. If Yung is indeed saying people aren't allowed to criticize Biden, please quote them saying it.

That's not what I was claiming or taking issue with. What I was referring to was the claim that no one has made the type of argument Pelosi made. That's what yung claimed.

Specifically in this post:

"You keep talking about the posters who dont allow criticism of Biden but WHERE ARE THEY? They certainly arent in this topic, and I dont see them anywhere else on this board. You always just bring them up every time you post though."

I then cited people here and elsewhere doing that exact thing.

This is a very dumb argument though. I've made my point. Criticism, vigorous criticism, protest voting in primaries, and threatening to withhold votes are all valid actions and people who disagree are wrong. That's it.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

This is categorically false. Y'all are ignoring posts that are inconvenient to your argument and your conclusion that people who aren't making public loyalty oaths to Biden regardless of what he does or does not do are immature, bigoted, saboteur trolls.

Post #89 in the other topic. This is your exact post that i have not touched or edited.

Public loyalty oaths arent a cult? Again, come on now dude.

Biden cult is a specific phrase that I did not use, and you put it in quotes. That was misleading enough to make someone call me a Republican. That was wrong of you to do.

"Biden cult" is also the type of language associated with right wingers. Which is why I didn't use it and instead focused on the demonstrably true idea that many expect you to affirmatively state your support for Biden if you make any criticism of him or assume that you're not voting for him and trying to convince others not to as well unless you state that support.

I'm not going back and forth with you again.

Gritty posted...

party of projection calling others a cult is just adorable

I never used that phrase or called anyone a cult. Him using quotes like that is messed up. I'm not a Republican, I'm a lifelong Democrat civil rights lawyer that currently works for Biden.

Shadow_Don posted...

But I thought you said your issue was that people were getting mad for merely criticizing biden?

I don't understand what you're saying here. That's part of my point, I've seen people say they are voting for Biden or at least saying they're not advocating abstention/are only advocating protest votes be accused of suppressing turnout.

I'm not saying that his topic should advocate abstention, maybe I wrote that poorly?

Cemith posted...

Good thing no one is actually saying that. Everyone sees the criticism of Biden and his handling of Gaza. Reporters ask him about this daily. Because Pelosi is a moron it doesn't mean we can apply her stance to every Dem everywhere.

ssb_yunglink2, the main guy I've been going back and forth with did actually say that though. I'm not attempting to apply her stance to every Dem, only the people who echo her rhetoric and similar claims. I brought that up to counter the idea that "no one" is saying what she in fact said.

No, that's not your claim. Your claim was that criticism of Biden would net me criticism of people that think it's wrong to criticize Biden.

You do not then get to say "Oh but because you did it it won't count!"

That is a moved goalpost.

It's just reality. If you present the topic as a real topic with real criticism and go back and forth with people, you will be criticized for simply criticizing Biden. I haven't changed that stance. We've seen it countless times on this board and elsewhere. It's happened to me and other good faith posters.

Cemith posted...

Because Pelosi sucks and is wrong. This isn't a brave take.

That's my whole point! She's a powerful person and she's not the only one. So when people say they're not seeing other people saying this, it's not credible.

Criticizing Biden's handling of Gaza is a popular critique. It's one of the most popular things to do with your average leftist. You also said earlier that people are loudly criticized by a minority when they admonish Biden. My topic is the litmus test.

Because that's a stupid stance. This isn't a criticism of Biden. It is an admonishment of the GOP.

Oh of course. Would it kill you to stand by your claim? You think a vocal minority will persecute me for criticizing Biden. You do not then get to poison the well by saying "they'll be on their best behavior!"

I stand by my claims that I actually made. If a person completely unrelated to either of us said even what you said, they'd be attacked. Much less if they made an actual leftist critique. What you posted is not a leftist critique, it's pretty much the median opinion of the liberal/Democratic voter, if the polls can be trusted.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

The goal posts have been moved

If you read my posts, I directly identified what causes people to go feral. As I said in post 110:

"At least if you tie that post to any suggestion of actually doing anything that could potentially have an impact on Biden's calculus in the real world or that could reduce enthusiasm for Biden in any manner."

No goalposts have been moved.

Cemith posted...

I just made a topic criticizing Biden's handling of Gaza.

Now let's see that vocal minority in action.

Why cutoff the rest of my post? The former speaker of the house doesn't post on this board, but made the exact type of argument I'm talking about. Why not address that?

Go ahead and make your topic an actual leftist/popular critique and defend that position. Say Biden is doing something incredibly unpopular, facilitating a genocide, etc. You're not saying why it's a weak response or what you'll do in response, without saying you won't vote for Biden. As I said, that's what provokes the feral response. Saying his stance is weak without saying its unacceptable, immoral, and must be changed doesn't prove your point.

And of course people will be on their best behavior if they're reading this topic or posting in your topic in response to this topic.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

So youre fully admitting that youre spending this much time arguing that a small minority of people will go feral if you criticize biden.

Okay dude.

I didn't say it was a small minority. I said a vocal minority. They're also a powerful minority. Earlier this year, the most powerful Democrat of our lifetime other than Biden or Obama accused anti-Israel protesters calling for a ceasefire of being Russian plants spreading Russian propaganda. This stance I'm talking about is much more common among the more establishment-pilled politicians, officials, and journalists.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

I think Bidens stance on Israel is bad, and he shouldnt give weapons to a genocidal government.

Will i now be silenced and destroyed by the biden public loyalty cult for making this post? @legendary_zell

Make your own topic with this premise and see what happens. We know what happens. A 500 post topic accusing you of destroying democracy and helping Trump genocide LGBT people. At least if you tie that post to any suggestion of actually doing anything that could potentially have an impact on Biden's calculus in the real world or that could reduce enthusiasm for Biden in any manner.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

Fucking read this post and tell me how this is not a persecution complex jfc.

There are probably 1 or 2 people on this entire board that think criticism shouldnt be allowed. You are wrongly attributing the opinions of 2 random posters to the entire board and Biden voters as a whole.

It's not persecution for me, because luckily almost all of the online attacks at least are impotent. But if you attach your name to these criticisms in real life, you can experience pretty significant negative consequences, ranging from ostracization to job loss, depending on what your job is, especially in my line of work.

You refuse to understand that it's not just about one or two posters. It's a vocal minority of online and offline hyper-Dems who think politics exclusively means voting, don't participate in, understand, or even actively disparage other types of politics, have given up on influencing politicians or (or don't actually want Biden to change his stance) and so go feral when someone says something that could potentially impact turnout.

Shadow_Don posted...

Sir, please show me your signed in blood loyalty to biden oath card

Yes people are definitely saying stuff like that lmfao

You can laugh all you want, but there are many who react to any mention of Biden that's not unqualified praise with anger. Go ahead and try it. Make a topic on this board or post on any social media a valid criticism of Biden, even say that you're going to vote for Biden in bold, underlined, rainbow colors. People will react as if you're personally taking democracy out back, you'll be called a Russian operative, etc.

There are many people who have decided that since democracy is at stake, they must police all criticism of Biden and treat it with extreme suspicion and hostility. You can disagree or ignore it, but it's happening.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

The basic reality that youre fabricating and exaggerating?

Am I fabricating it from whole cloth or exaggerating what is there? Am I making up posts or am I ascribing too much weight to real posts? Make up your mind.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

Yes, you do clearly have a persecution complex about criticizing Biden. The vast vast majority of people here do not give a shit about criticizing Biden in good faith.

You choosing to focus on one or 2 posters in a topic instead of everyone else telling you its okay to criticize biden is just ridiculous for how much you bring it up.

You are not worth responding to on this topic if you won't acknowledge the basic reality of what arguments are being made by me or by others.

hockeybabe89 posted...

Yes, and literally zero people on CE are mad that anyone criticizes Biden. There is only constant arguments because we have trolls and low-intelligence voters arguing that not voting will help people.

This is categorically false. Y'all are ignoring posts that are inconvenient to your argument and your conclusion that people who aren't making public loyalty oaths to Biden regardless of what he does or does not do are immature, bigoted, saboteur trolls.