Pretty much none of the “liberals” on Lemmy have anything other than horror for the killing that’s happening in Gaza
Feeling horror for the genocide isn’t mutually exclusive to attempting to drown out the sound of their suffering and your and your party’s complicity (which is what the liberals in the meme are doing, in case you’re unfamiliar). Acknowledging that the genocide is happening and incredibly sad 😔 isn’t very meaningful when you’re actively trying not to talk about it.
If youve complained about democrats being criticized for enabling Israel over the last year, then you’re in this picture.
It should have been enough of an indication of the way that was going to go by the fact that he went out of his way to complain about liberal being used as a term of derision while also insisting that he definitely isnt one.
I absolutely have not been insisting that I’m not a liberal. You are fantasizing statements by me that I never said again. When did I say that I was not a liberal? This is probably the closest thing I said:
Okay, so you think I’m probably a liberal. Noted. … you’re using this label in a very particular way. So I can’t even really say anything about the application of the label being right or not. By some definitions, I am. By some definitions, I’m not. My argument is that the application of the label by a big contingent on Lemmy doesn’t even really have any factual definition, it’s more just a trigger word with a pretty fluid definition which changes around as needed to attack enemies or accuse them of things. Your reaction to me saying most Democrats in government are center-right conservatives for example is super telling to me, where if we were talking about some other topic I feel like it’s likely that you would instantly agree with that.
I just noticed also that a big chunk of my whole discussion with you is violating rule 7. I think it is a pretty stupid practice to mandate that only one side of certain ideological arguments is permitted (“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” -TJ), but sure, rule 7 I guess. I’ll probably make some response in some other community at some point down the road, if you want to continue this whole sprawling debate in a different location; I feel like there is maybe some useful common ground to be had.
Lmao, you are Schrodinger’s Liberal - both a liberal and not a liberal, until the moment you are observed
I don’t care if you are one or not. I care that your utilitarian perspective on ‘minimizing genocide’ heavily skews toward a desired electoral outcome irrespective of the actual platform. You can insist all you want that you believe genocide is a huge problem and that you agree that democrats are complicit, but if at the end of the day your interpretation of others’ behavior is being guided by the one action that quite literally can’t effect whether genocide happens or not, then to me you’re a liberal in the only way that really matters. You are standing in the way of liberation by gatekeeping acceptable forms of protest and criticism that fall outside or antagonize your preferred liberal institutions. God forbid someone be critical of democratic governance that falls short of the radical change that is required to avert catastrophe because they, themselves, have decided to preserve the liberal institutions that created the problems in the first place. You thought people were being uncharitable to Biden’s accomplishments because your judgement of him seems to reflect some arbitrary scale and you assume it’s what everyone else must be using.
The only other way of illuminating the problem with liberalism is to point out just how much the ‘liberal party’ resists changing their policy toward Israel, despite the majority of americans holding negative views on Israel, their war crimes in Gaza, and our continued blanket support for them. Even Sanders and AOC took more than a year and a half to recognize it as a genocide. The primary feature of liberalism that I’m concerned with is it’s prioritization of protecting liberal institutions over addressing the harm and exploitation those institutions are responsible for. Israel being our flagship ally for influence and control over the ME is why liberals (democrats, republicans, and even most progressives) are willing to overlook, ignore, justify, or outright defend the atrocities that happen in the name of preserving that geopolitical cornerstone. That includes people like yourself who care about it in abstract but limit your view on acceptable action to what does or does not work inside our electoral institutions. I don’t care about preserving Israel as an ally - my ideological framework prioritizes liberation politics, not the preservation of liberal institutions. If a liberal institution is responsible for supporting oppressive regimes and genocide, i think that institution should be dismantled, which means that how or if someone chooses to vote is less important to me in achieving that goal than what football team they follow. That is what informs my self image as a leftist. Complain all you want if you think that line of criticism is unfair or ignores what you think is more important, I don’t care.
The more you try justifying your perspective in utilitarian terms the clearer it becomes that any alignment you might think we have is paper thin.
I am not permitted by the community rules to respond to most of this.
All I will really say is this: I obviously know what I believe politically and why. This whole question “Is Philip a liberal to you or not?” hinges on how you define a liberal, so like I say I am asking you define the label by asking that. I am obviously not asking you to answer questions about my own politics for me. If you’re not sure about any element of my politics that you would need to know in order to answer, you are free to ask, but I think I’ve taken quite a bit of time to try to break it down for you.
You are the one introducing the Schrodinger element into it, and that was actually precisely the point that I was making by asking you to be specific. I actually think it’s pretty interesting that when talking with me, we were mostly going back and forth about facts even if I disagree with a lot of what you said (and you were sort of sensibly sticking with that you genuinely didn’t know if I am a liberal), but once you’re speaking to the echo chamber again you immediately revert to just backhandedly accusing me of being a “liberal” using it as a label meaning “enemy of the clique,” more or less. This intense discussion about whether or not you deem it appropriate to fix the label to me (presumably with the idea that it would be horribly damaging and you’re assuming I want to avoid it) is what I was talking about, too. It is how enemy labels like “communist” and “counterrevolutionary” have functioned in the past, and I don’t think you are realizing exactly how you’re using it when you do.
You’re also misrepresenting tons of stuff that I believe or have said. I won’t list the other examples even though there are a bunch and I spent (for whatever reason) a ton of time digging up old comments of mine to illustrate that you were wrong. Most are debatable in some way or another. All I will say is that it’s instantly objectively verifiable that I never repeatedly claimed I wasn’t a liberal, and now you said I did. You are lying so that you will get approval from your echo chamber. I have no doubt that it will work, probably you and the echo chamber will see it as a win and feel happy about the interaction. Like I said at the very beginning to other people, I would really highly recommend that you take time and reflect on why that is and what function that part of it is serving. In the meantime all the best and take care.
All I will say is that it’s instantly objectively verifiable that I never repeatedly claimed I wasn’t a liberal, and now you said I did. You are lying so that you will get approval from your echo chamber.
I love this ‘i never said those words’ game we’ve been playing, but i wasn’t quoting you as making that claim, only that you were insisting that my definition of liberal definitely doesn’t apply to you. The deeper I went into explaining the specific part of liberalism you were dancing around that I took issue with, the greater effort you went to either misunderstand my description to paint yourself out of the picture, or quote yourself talking about a specific issue you held that was undermined in all of your other comment history. I tried telling you repeatedly that it isn’t about a specific policy position or opinion, it’s the way in which liberals abandon those positions when forced to choose between them or their institutions.
You’re also misrepresenting tons of stuff that I believe or have said
Right, like you’ve been misrepresenting things i’ve never said? Like:
‘liberals oppose strikes’
‘it seems like your whole concept of it is as a limiting factor on progressive movements’
‘you’re defining liberalism as “allegiance to the government and rejection of methods of change outside of the formal government structure,” and kind of nothing else beyond that’
I’m not ascribing things you say to you, I’m interpreting your behavior through a liberal lens in an effort to give you examples for how you might fall into that category. Do liberals oppose protests? Decidedly not. Do they abandon their support for protest when those protests materially threaten the institutions they’re protecting? Resoundingly, yes. You’re ‘fine’ with the undecided movement, but make big time noise about people choosing not to vote as a result of those protests, even though that protest and every other always has the same implicit threat. It isn’t the fault of protestors or online agitators for souring the enthusiasm for democratic candidates, and it isn’t even the non-voter’s fault for seeing the lack of response to those protests and deciding that democrats aren’t worth the trouble. Democrats had an opportunity to address those concerns for more than a year before 2024, and they turned their back on their base at every turn. You might think non-voters are responsible for that loss, but it’s still the democrats’ fault for abandoning them.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter what you think. You’re right - I am absolutely in good company here.
“You’re using the word liberal wrong. But I’m not a liberal, I just defend liberals, and the parties of liberals, like they personally care about me when they would eradicate me if it meant good polling.”
Here’s me complaining about Democrats being criticized for enabling Israel:
Yes, I know what Palestine is like right now. I care a lot about it. I wrote my congresspeople, back when they were approving the aid, trying to tell them not to do it. I didn’t think it would do anything, and it didn’t. That’s why I didn’t want Trump to come, and make things quite a bit worse than even Biden’s already war-criminal level of performance.
Around 85% of the Palestinians in Gaza are still alive right now, as far as I know. How many once Trump is done with them?
50%?
80%? Will he solve the Middle East during his term, and bring an end to the killing? It seems unlikely.
Less than 10%, with a lot of it annexed to Israel?
That last one seems pretty probable to me. I think better than 50/50 odds. I don’t want to bet.
That was 8 months ago. I have nothing to add to it. It’s mostly come true now, and if you actively pushed in any way for people not to keep Trump out of power, you helped make it happen. Even if you don’t believe there is any difference between “sending weapons” and “sending even more weapons plus turning vague diplomatic complaining into excited diplomatic approval plus putting Americans on the ground to help make it happen,” you still helped usher in the situation where Palestinian protest leaders in the US are getting deported instead of being out there protesting. Good job.
I’m aware that you’re trying hard to reframe me saying “Trump is worse” as if it meant I was making excuses for Biden, or that I’m saying it for any reason other than concern for the Palestinians and all the other people Trump is current fucking up. I am not. Biden was very very bad on this issue, and Trump is worse. That’s what’s up. You can insult me or mischaracterize that any number of types of ways, but that’s what’s up. Tell me I’m wrong.
This is precisely what I’m talking about in my comment. You’re taking a point of view that you might or might not agree with, either of which is fine, and deciding to pretend that it is a horrifying caricature (that I’m so in love with Joe Biden of all the fucking people in the world that I am willing to overlook or downplay a genocide just to have a chance to distract people from talking about a bad thing he did). Because it’s easier than grappling with what’s really going on, you simply pretend that there’s a whole class of people out there running around who are just constantly stupid and wrong, and you comfortably assure one another that’s the explanation for why they sometimes come along and expose you to a critical viewpoint that isn’t what you want to hear.
Stop skirting around what the meme is talking about
“Look at this terrible tragedy” is not the same as “if we do not end our complicity in this active genocide, we risk losing everything”
Liberals act as if their only option is to vote or not vote, but that’s simply not the case. If your party is plugging their ears to the tragedy they are helping commit, your job isn’t to make sure everyone knows how bad the other candidate is, it’s to confront your party about why they’re complicating what should otherwise be an easy choice by doing something objectively evil.
2024 was nobody’s fault but the democrats’, for exactly the reason depicted in the meme. Instead of addressing the cries for acknowledgment in their base, they fucked us all.
And here we are again, dealing with their choice to revere and defend the life’s work of a neonazi while we are still waiting for them to acknowledge the genocide they helped commit and which continues a year later. I can’t blow smoke for a party that continuously runs cover for fascists while plugging their ears to their own base.
“Look at this terrible tragedy” is not the same as “if we do not end our complicity in this active genocide, we risk losing everything”
True, but that first one is directly what the meme is referencing. You actually accused me specifically I think of trying to distract from the terrible tragedy.
Liberals act as if their only option is to vote or not vote,
Well, but I don’t act that way. Am I a liberal? According to lots and lots of people on Lemmy, I am. Here’s a comment I made earlier tonight:
Real world non-electoral politics is going to be necessary to get us out of this mess (especially now), and it also leads to a good and fulfilling life. There’s something magic and human that happens with the people around you when you are fighting for something that’s actually worth fighting for, I’ve seen it.
You’d agree with that, right?
Or no?
This is what I’m talking about. Actually some of what you’re saying in this latest message, I agree with. But it has not a lot to do with the meme. My issue with the meme was this wild strawman, lumping congressional Democrats and people on Lemmy into the same ideological category “liberal” and then making a bunch of sweeping statements I guess about both, by which the whole thing can be motte-and-baileyed back around so that all of a sudden I’m an asshole who believes all these wild things and doesn’t care about genocide.
And here we are again, dealing with their choice to revere and defend the life’s work of a neonazi while we are still waiting for them to acknowledge the genocide they helped commit and which continues a year later.
Let’s try this. Who are some examples of who you are talking about here? Like who are 5 people who fit into this category who are revering Charlie Kirk and also won’t admit Gaza is a genocide? I am sure there are plenty of them (not sarcasm, I really do believe lots of those people exist, even some number of them on the American “left.”) Ideally out of government if you can, like I said I don’t think anyone in the US government is all that left (and if you’re only talking about congressional Democrats or something, then yes the meme makes sense.)
I can pretty much guarantee you that whoever those people are, they’re (a) a small subset of the people who the Lemmy consensus would describe as “a liberal” and (b) people I also despise pretty much as much as you do.
Right? Or do you believe that everyone the Lemmy consensus would describe as “liberal” also reveres Charlie Kirk, and also wants to silence any voices of Palestinian suffering?
True, but that first one is directly what the meme is referencing. You actually accused me specifically I think of trying to distract from the terrible tragedy.
No, and no. The meme is referencing liberals walking out of the Democratic National Convention last year literally plugging their ears to protestors who were kicked out for demanding democrats stop supporting Israel’s genocide against palestinians. Liberals then (and now) were refusing to address protestors demanding action against Israel’s genocidal campaign. They sometimes separately acknowledged it as a tragedy but refused to take action against Israel. “I think this is a tragedy, but unfortunately there’s nothing we can do until after the election”.
I haven’t actually accused you of anything, but it does kind of seem like i’m describing you. It’s not my fault you ascribe that label to yourself and hear that as a personal accusation.
Well, but I don’t act that way. Am I a liberal?
Don’t you? Could have fooled me. I could have sworn you were one of those people who place blame on voters for the 2024 election outcome, instead of recognizing the democrats torpedoing their own coalition by demonstrating complete contempt for their own base.
My issue with the meme was this wild strawman, lumping congressional Democrats and people on Lemmy into the same ideological category “liberal” and then making a bunch of sweeping statements I guess about both
They are talking about liberals, not a narrow group of congressional democrats
I don’t see any mention of lemmy in this meme.
I’d also point out that despite repeatedly agreeing that democrats are contributing to Israel’s genocide, you’ve also repeatedly taken offense at the suggestion that liberals are fascist collaborators.
the whole thing can be motte-and-baileyed back around so that all of a sudden I’m an asshole who believes all these wild things and doesn’t care about genocide
You can claim to care about genocide and also deny that democrats are defending and collaborating with the fascists committing it. The latter certainly casts doubt on the former.
Like who are 5 people who fit into this category who are revering Charlie Kirk and also won’t admit Gaza is a genocide?
There were 60 out of 212 democrats who voted against a resolution honoring Kirk and to my knowledge only 10 democrats have ever referred to it as a genocide. By my math that’s 193 democrats minimum who meet that description.
Or do you believe that everyone the Lemmy consensus would describe as “liberal” also reveres Charlie Kirk, and also wants to silence any voices of Palestinian suffering?
I believe those people would say something like, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”. Liberals are usually more upset that protestors may have killed momentum for their candidate than for their candidate openly collaborating in a genocide and giving protestors a reason to oppose them in the first place.
Yes, I was pointing to that contradiction. In your opinion, are liberal democrats fascist collaborators? I’m guessing that the question probably makes you feel a little uneasy. but that’s just a guess.
Am I a liberal?
Sure seems like the shoe fits, but if you want to make a case for yourself i’m happy to discuss it.
In your opinion, are liberal democrats fascist collaborators? I’m guessing that the question probably makes you feel a little uneasy. but that’s just a guess.
I don’t think most US Democratic politicians are liberals. They’re clearly center-right conservatives. I would definitely describe most US Democrats in congress as fascist collaborators, yes. But then the people on Lemmy who generally get accused of being “liberals,” I don’t think are fascist collaborators. Would you disagree with any of that?
This is part of the problem with reasoning by labels. You get into extended wrangling about which labels apply to which people or not, or how to define the labels, or other things that aren’t really connected to the reality of the situation. And also you can make weird little indirect constructions (“I know you’re a liberal because you believe X” -> “Therefore I know you believe Y, because I know you’re a liberal”) that can further distort the reality.
I don’t see how you could disagree with anything out of the first paragraph there, referencing directly the reality, although you’re welcome to if you want to. But then by introducing the label of “liberal” to the equation you can say something that to you probably sounds pretty sensible which is wildly at odds with it. Right? Or you don’t see it that way?
Am I a liberal?
Sure seems like the shoe fits, but if you want to make a case for yourself i’m happy to discuss it.
Okay, so you think I’m probably a liberal. Noted.
I have no idea how to “make a case” about it, since you’re using this label in a very particular way. So I can’t even really say anything about the application of the label being right or not. By some definitions, I am. By some definitions, I’m not. My argument is that the application of the label by a big contingent on Lemmy doesn’t even really have any factual definition, it’s more just a trigger word with a pretty fluid definition which changes around as needed to attack enemies or accuse them of things. Your reaction to me saying most Democrats in government are center-right conservatives for example is super telling to me, where if we were talking about some other topic I feel like it’s likely that you would instantly agree with that.
I don’t think most US Democratic politicians are liberals.
It might help a little if you were to provide your understanding of ‘liberal’, because to me it seems like it’s confused at-best. My working definition of liberal is this one, and my chief criticism against it is that it provides no framework or acknowledgement of power existing outside of ‘government’ nor way of preventing that power from superseding it. My definition fits congressional democrats just as well as internet forum users who write apologia for why liberation politics are unfeasible (at any given moment) because they lack support from capital or from ‘moderates’. Nothing you’ve said so far makes me think you’re not a liberal as I’ve described it, but I’ll wait for you to try defining it yourself before hitting you over the head with it too many times.
But then the people on Lemmy who generally get accused of being “liberals,” I don’t think are fascist collaborators.
I disagree, but not because they’re frothing at the mouth for genocide. Liberalism is a philosophical framework that functionally separates an individual’s objections to the realities of capitalist and imperial systems from the agency to actually address them. “I support you in the goal you seek, but I cannot support your methods of direct action”. You might actually think that democrats are committing genocide and that they should be removed from office - but it’s your liberalism that prevents you from taking action against them. Hell, even the sitting democratic congresspeople might actually believe they are complicit in genocide, but their belief in liberal systems is what forces them into collaborating instead of resisting. It’s the same logic that prevents workers from joining a union or conducting a worker strike - the system of capital traps them by tying their material well-being to the well-being of the capitalist that exploits them:
“I agree we should have safer working conditions, but acting against the company risks me losing my job so I can’t support a strike”.
“I agree that democrats are fascist collaborators, but acting against them risks letting the fascist take the place of the fascist collaborator, so I can’t support protesting them right now”.
Liberalism is a system that coerces objectors into being passengers to fascism instead of organizing against it. That’s what makes it the ‘moderate wing of fascism’ - not because liberals secretly harbor fascist opinions. Is being a passenger better than being the driver? Maybe…? but it also ensures that we arrive at fascism either way, and that’s what we’re trying to avoid. To me, there’s no need to delineate between liberals and conservatives because my working definition doesn’t make them mutually exclusive. You can be a liberal as a democrat just as easily as you can be a liberal as a conservative. Are there democrats who aren’t liberals? Sure, but I think you have the axis of your scale backwards.
Your reaction to me saying most Democrats in government are center-right conservatives for example is super telling to me, where if we were talking about some other topic I feel like it’s likely that you would instantly agree with that
I mean, sure, I guess an argument could be made to center an arbitrary scale on someone more like Sanders, which puts most democrats right of center. But my point is that using an arbitrary scale isn’t helpful in addressing the core issues of liberal democracy. The most it does is re-frames the field of actors so that some democrats are on the other ‘team’, but that’s only helpful for electoral politics, not liberation politics. You seem really keen on establishing an ‘us vs them’ dividing line but the the problem is more persistent than the individual actors we’re talking about.
Id also point out that many of us have been screaming about this genocide for far longer than 8 months, but were yelled down by liberals for bringing it up while democrats were trying to campaign. I’m not going to trudge through your history for evidence that you cared about it before trump was president elect, but it’s a little telling to me that 8 months ago is when you made that bold declaration.
but were yelled down by liberals for bringing it up while democrats were trying to campaign
You were not yelled down. The majority consensus on Lemmy was that Kamala Harris was responsible for the genocide, I got banned from a couple of places for trying to say any different.
You’re confusing “someone popped up and disagreed with me” for “I was yelled down.” I don’t think you’ll ever find me going into some comments section about Palestine and saying, “Ssh! Don’t talk about this before the election!” Definitely you won’t find me banning anyone for it. What you’ll find is me pushing back hard on people saying “Don’t vote for Democrats, they did genocide!” That there was plenty of, because I don’t think that strategy makes any sense, and because I care about the Palestinian people, I was pushing back on it hoping that the genocide that’s currently taken a massive acceleration would not do that.
If I thought the DNC consultants who make up their awful strategy read Lemmy, I probably honestly would have approached it very very differently than I did. However I do not. I do not think posting on Lemmy influences Democratic politicians. I do think it influences voters (in some pretty tiny way), and so my main input to it is going to be centered around “how can voters behave in a way which will minimize genocide.” Surely that makes sense?
Id also point out that many of us have been screaming about this genocide for far longer than 8 months
When were you screaming about it in a way that didn’t also lead to “don’t vote for Democrats”? Most of what I see here looks pretty electoral. That’s an honest question, I am genuinely asking.
Go and check the political memes comm from early to mid 2024. Check the mod logs of the politics comm from the same time period. There were several struggle sessions about specific users, complaining that ‘all they do is post about Gaza’ and being super paranoid that they were intentionally trying to throw the election. Several were accused of being paid operatives.
I do not think posting on Lemmy influences Democratic politicians. I do think it influences voters
I’m pointing to the statement that places you in the same category as the ‘white moderate’ that MLK castigates in LfB. I don’t even need to find you a list of users I was referencing, because the evidence for your liberal perspective is right there in the next quote.
Yeah, this is exactly what I was talking about. “I want to influence voters” -> “You’re a liberal” -> “You don’t meaningfully oppose genocide, and I know that because that’s liberals”
No, it isn’t “i want to influence voters”, it’s the fact that the way you talk about democrats (and when) is dependent on how doing so will impact their odds of losing to fascists, even when the topic of conversation is about how democrats are themselves collaborating with fascists.
I don’t care if that makes you a liberal by whatever definition you want to use for yourself - I care that you ignore your convictions and turn a blind eye to atrocity when it’s politically inconvenient, and I care that democrats do, too.
Whatever word you want to use for that is fine with me.
Feeling horror for the genocide isn’t mutually exclusive to attempting to drown out the sound of their suffering and your and your party’s complicity (which is what the liberals in the meme are doing, in case you’re unfamiliar). Acknowledging that the genocide is happening and incredibly sad 😔 isn’t very meaningful when you’re actively trying not to talk about it.
If youve complained about democrats being criticized for enabling Israel over the last year, then you’re in this picture.
You can ignore Phillip, he has repeatedly shown he is unwilling to learn and will lie and deflect any criticism of blue nationalism.
It should have been enough of an indication of the way that was going to go by the fact that he went out of his way to complain about liberal being used as a term of derision while also insisting that he definitely isnt one.
I absolutely have not been insisting that I’m not a liberal. You are fantasizing statements by me that I never said again. When did I say that I was not a liberal? This is probably the closest thing I said:
I just noticed also that a big chunk of my whole discussion with you is violating rule 7. I think it is a pretty stupid practice to mandate that only one side of certain ideological arguments is permitted (“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” -TJ), but sure, rule 7 I guess. I’ll probably make some response in some other community at some point down the road, if you want to continue this whole sprawling debate in a different location; I feel like there is maybe some useful common ground to be had.
Lmao, you are Schrodinger’s Liberal - both a liberal and not a liberal, until the moment you are observed
I don’t care if you are one or not. I care that your utilitarian perspective on ‘minimizing genocide’ heavily skews toward a desired electoral outcome irrespective of the actual platform. You can insist all you want that you believe genocide is a huge problem and that you agree that democrats are complicit, but if at the end of the day your interpretation of others’ behavior is being guided by the one action that quite literally can’t effect whether genocide happens or not, then to me you’re a liberal in the only way that really matters. You are standing in the way of liberation by gatekeeping acceptable forms of protest and criticism that fall outside or antagonize your preferred liberal institutions. God forbid someone be critical of democratic governance that falls short of the radical change that is required to avert catastrophe because they, themselves, have decided to preserve the liberal institutions that created the problems in the first place. You thought people were being uncharitable to Biden’s accomplishments because your judgement of him seems to reflect some arbitrary scale and you assume it’s what everyone else must be using.
The only other way of illuminating the problem with liberalism is to point out just how much the ‘liberal party’ resists changing their policy toward Israel, despite the majority of americans holding negative views on Israel, their war crimes in Gaza, and our continued blanket support for them. Even Sanders and AOC took more than a year and a half to recognize it as a genocide. The primary feature of liberalism that I’m concerned with is it’s prioritization of protecting liberal institutions over addressing the harm and exploitation those institutions are responsible for. Israel being our flagship ally for influence and control over the ME is why liberals (democrats, republicans, and even most progressives) are willing to overlook, ignore, justify, or outright defend the atrocities that happen in the name of preserving that geopolitical cornerstone. That includes people like yourself who care about it in abstract but limit your view on acceptable action to what does or does not work inside our electoral institutions. I don’t care about preserving Israel as an ally - my ideological framework prioritizes liberation politics, not the preservation of liberal institutions. If a liberal institution is responsible for supporting oppressive regimes and genocide, i think that institution should be dismantled, which means that how or if someone chooses to vote is less important to me in achieving that goal than what football team they follow. That is what informs my self image as a leftist. Complain all you want if you think that line of criticism is unfair or ignores what you think is more important, I don’t care.
The more you try justifying your perspective in utilitarian terms the clearer it becomes that any alignment you might think we have is paper thin.
I am not permitted by the community rules to respond to most of this.
All I will really say is this: I obviously know what I believe politically and why. This whole question “Is Philip a liberal to you or not?” hinges on how you define a liberal, so like I say I am asking you define the label by asking that. I am obviously not asking you to answer questions about my own politics for me. If you’re not sure about any element of my politics that you would need to know in order to answer, you are free to ask, but I think I’ve taken quite a bit of time to try to break it down for you.
You are the one introducing the Schrodinger element into it, and that was actually precisely the point that I was making by asking you to be specific. I actually think it’s pretty interesting that when talking with me, we were mostly going back and forth about facts even if I disagree with a lot of what you said (and you were sort of sensibly sticking with that you genuinely didn’t know if I am a liberal), but once you’re speaking to the echo chamber again you immediately revert to just backhandedly accusing me of being a “liberal” using it as a label meaning “enemy of the clique,” more or less. This intense discussion about whether or not you deem it appropriate to fix the label to me (presumably with the idea that it would be horribly damaging and you’re assuming I want to avoid it) is what I was talking about, too. It is how enemy labels like “communist” and “counterrevolutionary” have functioned in the past, and I don’t think you are realizing exactly how you’re using it when you do.
You’re also misrepresenting tons of stuff that I believe or have said. I won’t list the other examples even though there are a bunch and I spent (for whatever reason) a ton of time digging up old comments of mine to illustrate that you were wrong. Most are debatable in some way or another. All I will say is that it’s instantly objectively verifiable that I never repeatedly claimed I wasn’t a liberal, and now you said I did. You are lying so that you will get approval from your echo chamber. I have no doubt that it will work, probably you and the echo chamber will see it as a win and feel happy about the interaction. Like I said at the very beginning to other people, I would really highly recommend that you take time and reflect on why that is and what function that part of it is serving. In the meantime all the best and take care.
I love this ‘i never said those words’ game we’ve been playing, but i wasn’t quoting you as making that claim, only that you were insisting that my definition of liberal definitely doesn’t apply to you. The deeper I went into explaining the specific part of liberalism you were dancing around that I took issue with, the greater effort you went to either misunderstand my description to paint yourself out of the picture, or quote yourself talking about a specific issue you held that was undermined in all of your other comment history. I tried telling you repeatedly that it isn’t about a specific policy position or opinion, it’s the way in which liberals abandon those positions when forced to choose between them or their institutions.
Right, like you’ve been misrepresenting things i’ve never said? Like:
‘liberals oppose strikes’
‘it seems like your whole concept of it is as a limiting factor on progressive movements’
‘you’re defining liberalism as “allegiance to the government and rejection of methods of change outside of the formal government structure,” and kind of nothing else beyond that’
I’m not ascribing things you say to you, I’m interpreting your behavior through a liberal lens in an effort to give you examples for how you might fall into that category. Do liberals oppose protests? Decidedly not. Do they abandon their support for protest when those protests materially threaten the institutions they’re protecting? Resoundingly, yes. You’re ‘fine’ with the undecided movement, but make big time noise about people choosing not to vote as a result of those protests, even though that protest and every other always has the same implicit threat. It isn’t the fault of protestors or online agitators for souring the enthusiasm for democratic candidates, and it isn’t even the non-voter’s fault for seeing the lack of response to those protests and deciding that democrats aren’t worth the trouble. Democrats had an opportunity to address those concerns for more than a year before 2024, and they turned their back on their base at every turn. You might think non-voters are responsible for that loss, but it’s still the democrats’ fault for abandoning them.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter what you think. You’re right - I am absolutely in good company here.
“You’re using the word liberal wrong. But I’m not a liberal, I just defend liberals, and the parties of liberals, like they personally care about me when they would eradicate me if it meant good polling.”
Here’s me trying to drown out the sound of their suffering:
Here’s me complaining about Democrats being criticized for enabling Israel:
That was 8 months ago. I have nothing to add to it. It’s mostly come true now, and if you actively pushed in any way for people not to keep Trump out of power, you helped make it happen. Even if you don’t believe there is any difference between “sending weapons” and “sending even more weapons plus turning vague diplomatic complaining into excited diplomatic approval plus putting Americans on the ground to help make it happen,” you still helped usher in the situation where Palestinian protest leaders in the US are getting deported instead of being out there protesting. Good job.
I’m aware that you’re trying hard to reframe me saying “Trump is worse” as if it meant I was making excuses for Biden, or that I’m saying it for any reason other than concern for the Palestinians and all the other people Trump is current fucking up. I am not. Biden was very very bad on this issue, and Trump is worse. That’s what’s up. You can insult me or mischaracterize that any number of types of ways, but that’s what’s up. Tell me I’m wrong.
This is precisely what I’m talking about in my comment. You’re taking a point of view that you might or might not agree with, either of which is fine, and deciding to pretend that it is a horrifying caricature (that I’m so in love with Joe Biden of all the fucking people in the world that I am willing to overlook or downplay a genocide just to have a chance to distract people from talking about a bad thing he did). Because it’s easier than grappling with what’s really going on, you simply pretend that there’s a whole class of people out there running around who are just constantly stupid and wrong, and you comfortably assure one another that’s the explanation for why they sometimes come along and expose you to a critical viewpoint that isn’t what you want to hear.
Go on, continue with it, if you want.
Stop skirting around what the meme is talking about
“Look at this terrible tragedy” is not the same as “if we do not end our complicity in this active genocide, we risk losing everything”
Liberals act as if their only option is to vote or not vote, but that’s simply not the case. If your party is plugging their ears to the tragedy they are helping commit, your job isn’t to make sure everyone knows how bad the other candidate is, it’s to confront your party about why they’re complicating what should otherwise be an easy choice by doing something objectively evil.
2024 was nobody’s fault but the democrats’, for exactly the reason depicted in the meme. Instead of addressing the cries for acknowledgment in their base, they fucked us all.
And here we are again, dealing with their choice to revere and defend the life’s work of a neonazi while we are still waiting for them to acknowledge the genocide they helped commit and which continues a year later. I can’t blow smoke for a party that continuously runs cover for fascists while plugging their ears to their own base.
True, but that first one is directly what the meme is referencing. You actually accused me specifically I think of trying to distract from the terrible tragedy.
Well, but I don’t act that way. Am I a liberal? According to lots and lots of people on Lemmy, I am. Here’s a comment I made earlier tonight:
You’d agree with that, right?
Or no?
This is what I’m talking about. Actually some of what you’re saying in this latest message, I agree with. But it has not a lot to do with the meme. My issue with the meme was this wild strawman, lumping congressional Democrats and people on Lemmy into the same ideological category “liberal” and then making a bunch of sweeping statements I guess about both, by which the whole thing can be motte-and-baileyed back around so that all of a sudden I’m an asshole who believes all these wild things and doesn’t care about genocide.
Let’s try this. Who are some examples of who you are talking about here? Like who are 5 people who fit into this category who are revering Charlie Kirk and also won’t admit Gaza is a genocide? I am sure there are plenty of them (not sarcasm, I really do believe lots of those people exist, even some number of them on the American “left.”) Ideally out of government if you can, like I said I don’t think anyone in the US government is all that left (and if you’re only talking about congressional Democrats or something, then yes the meme makes sense.)
I can pretty much guarantee you that whoever those people are, they’re (a) a small subset of the people who the Lemmy consensus would describe as “a liberal” and (b) people I also despise pretty much as much as you do.
Right? Or do you believe that everyone the Lemmy consensus would describe as “liberal” also reveres Charlie Kirk, and also wants to silence any voices of Palestinian suffering?
No, and no. The meme is referencing liberals walking out of the Democratic National Convention last year literally plugging their ears to protestors who were kicked out for demanding democrats stop supporting Israel’s genocide against palestinians. Liberals then (and now) were refusing to address protestors demanding action against Israel’s genocidal campaign. They sometimes separately acknowledged it as a tragedy but refused to take action against Israel. “I think this is a tragedy, but unfortunately there’s nothing we can do until after the election”.
I haven’t actually accused you of anything, but it does kind of seem like i’m describing you. It’s not my fault you ascribe that label to yourself and hear that as a personal accusation.
Don’t you? Could have fooled me. I could have sworn you were one of those people who place blame on voters for the 2024 election outcome, instead of recognizing the democrats torpedoing their own coalition by demonstrating complete contempt for their own base.
They are talking about liberals, not a narrow group of congressional democrats
I don’t see any mention of lemmy in this meme.
I’d also point out that despite repeatedly agreeing that democrats are contributing to Israel’s genocide, you’ve also repeatedly taken offense at the suggestion that liberals are fascist collaborators.
You can claim to care about genocide and also deny that democrats are defending and collaborating with the fascists committing it. The latter certainly casts doubt on the former.
There were 60 out of 212 democrats who voted against a resolution honoring Kirk and to my knowledge only 10 democrats have ever referred to it as a genocide. By my math that’s 193 democrats minimum who meet that description.
I believe those people would say something like, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”. Liberals are usually more upset that protestors may have killed momentum for their candidate than for their candidate openly collaborating in a genocide and giving protestors a reason to oppose them in the first place.
Well, that sure makes sense.
Am I a liberal?
Yes, I was pointing to that contradiction. In your opinion, are liberal democrats fascist collaborators? I’m guessing that the question probably makes you feel a little uneasy. but that’s just a guess.
Sure seems like the shoe fits, but if you want to make a case for yourself i’m happy to discuss it.
I don’t think most US Democratic politicians are liberals. They’re clearly center-right conservatives. I would definitely describe most US Democrats in congress as fascist collaborators, yes. But then the people on Lemmy who generally get accused of being “liberals,” I don’t think are fascist collaborators. Would you disagree with any of that?
This is part of the problem with reasoning by labels. You get into extended wrangling about which labels apply to which people or not, or how to define the labels, or other things that aren’t really connected to the reality of the situation. And also you can make weird little indirect constructions (“I know you’re a liberal because you believe X” -> “Therefore I know you believe Y, because I know you’re a liberal”) that can further distort the reality.
I don’t see how you could disagree with anything out of the first paragraph there, referencing directly the reality, although you’re welcome to if you want to. But then by introducing the label of “liberal” to the equation you can say something that to you probably sounds pretty sensible which is wildly at odds with it. Right? Or you don’t see it that way?
Okay, so you think I’m probably a liberal. Noted.
I have no idea how to “make a case” about it, since you’re using this label in a very particular way. So I can’t even really say anything about the application of the label being right or not. By some definitions, I am. By some definitions, I’m not. My argument is that the application of the label by a big contingent on Lemmy doesn’t even really have any factual definition, it’s more just a trigger word with a pretty fluid definition which changes around as needed to attack enemies or accuse them of things. Your reaction to me saying most Democrats in government are center-right conservatives for example is super telling to me, where if we were talking about some other topic I feel like it’s likely that you would instantly agree with that.
It might help a little if you were to provide your understanding of ‘liberal’, because to me it seems like it’s confused at-best. My working definition of liberal is this one, and my chief criticism against it is that it provides no framework or acknowledgement of power existing outside of ‘government’ nor way of preventing that power from superseding it. My definition fits congressional democrats just as well as internet forum users who write apologia for why liberation politics are unfeasible (at any given moment) because they lack support from capital or from ‘moderates’. Nothing you’ve said so far makes me think you’re not a liberal as I’ve described it, but I’ll wait for you to try defining it yourself before hitting you over the head with it too many times.
I disagree, but not because they’re frothing at the mouth for genocide. Liberalism is a philosophical framework that functionally separates an individual’s objections to the realities of capitalist and imperial systems from the agency to actually address them. “I support you in the goal you seek, but I cannot support your methods of direct action”. You might actually think that democrats are committing genocide and that they should be removed from office - but it’s your liberalism that prevents you from taking action against them. Hell, even the sitting democratic congresspeople might actually believe they are complicit in genocide, but their belief in liberal systems is what forces them into collaborating instead of resisting. It’s the same logic that prevents workers from joining a union or conducting a worker strike - the system of capital traps them by tying their material well-being to the well-being of the capitalist that exploits them:
“I agree we should have safer working conditions, but acting against the company risks me losing my job so I can’t support a strike”.
“I agree that democrats are fascist collaborators, but acting against them risks letting the fascist take the place of the fascist collaborator, so I can’t support protesting them right now”.
Liberalism is a system that coerces objectors into being passengers to fascism instead of organizing against it. That’s what makes it the ‘moderate wing of fascism’ - not because liberals secretly harbor fascist opinions. Is being a passenger better than being the driver? Maybe…? but it also ensures that we arrive at fascism either way, and that’s what we’re trying to avoid. To me, there’s no need to delineate between liberals and conservatives because my working definition doesn’t make them mutually exclusive. You can be a liberal as a democrat just as easily as you can be a liberal as a conservative. Are there democrats who aren’t liberals? Sure, but I think you have the axis of your scale backwards.
I mean, sure, I guess an argument could be made to center an arbitrary scale on someone more like Sanders, which puts most democrats right of center. But my point is that using an arbitrary scale isn’t helpful in addressing the core issues of liberal democracy. The most it does is re-frames the field of actors so that some democrats are on the other ‘team’, but that’s only helpful for electoral politics, not liberation politics. You seem really keen on establishing an ‘us vs them’ dividing line but the the problem is more persistent than the individual actors we’re talking about.
Id also point out that many of us have been screaming about this genocide for far longer than 8 months, but were yelled down by liberals for bringing it up while democrats were trying to campaign. I’m not going to trudge through your history for evidence that you cared about it before trump was president elect, but it’s a little telling to me that 8 months ago is when you made that bold declaration.
You were not yelled down. The majority consensus on Lemmy was that Kamala Harris was responsible for the genocide, I got banned from a couple of places for trying to say any different.
You’re confusing “someone popped up and disagreed with me” for “I was yelled down.” I don’t think you’ll ever find me going into some comments section about Palestine and saying, “Ssh! Don’t talk about this before the election!” Definitely you won’t find me banning anyone for it. What you’ll find is me pushing back hard on people saying “Don’t vote for Democrats, they did genocide!” That there was plenty of, because I don’t think that strategy makes any sense, and because I care about the Palestinian people, I was pushing back on it hoping that the genocide that’s currently taken a massive acceleration would not do that.
If I thought the DNC consultants who make up their awful strategy read Lemmy, I probably honestly would have approached it very very differently than I did. However I do not. I do not think posting on Lemmy influences Democratic politicians. I do think it influences voters (in some pretty tiny way), and so my main input to it is going to be centered around “how can voters behave in a way which will minimize genocide.” Surely that makes sense?
https://lemmy.world/search?q=palestine&type=Comments&listingType=All&creatorId=13369510&page=1&sort=Old
https://lemmy.world/search?q=gaza&type=Comments&listingType=All&creatorId=13369510&page=1&sort=Old
https://lemmy.world/search?q=genocide&type=Comments&listingType=All&creatorId=13369510&page=1&sort=Old
When were you screaming about it in a way that didn’t also lead to “don’t vote for Democrats”? Most of what I see here looks pretty electoral. That’s an honest question, I am genuinely asking.
Go and check the political memes comm from early to mid 2024. Check the mod logs of the politics comm from the same time period. There were several struggle sessions about specific users, complaining that ‘all they do is post about Gaza’ and being super paranoid that they were intentionally trying to throw the election. Several were accused of being paid operatives.
Whoomp, there it is.
Go take it up with MLK.
You’d have to go look at my previous accounts. I rotate accounts regularly and keep them as separated as possible.
Which users?
Which part of this were you disagreeing with?
Or do you think me saying these two true things is a gotcha about something else? Tell me.
I’m pointing to the statement that places you in the same category as the ‘white moderate’ that MLK castigates in LfB. I don’t even need to find you a list of users I was referencing, because the evidence for your liberal perspective is right there in the next quote.
You’re in the picture, buddy.
Yeah, this is exactly what I was talking about. “I want to influence voters” -> “You’re a liberal” -> “You don’t meaningfully oppose genocide, and I know that because that’s liberals”
Logical fallacy speedrun IOW
No, it isn’t “i want to influence voters”, it’s the fact that the way you talk about democrats (and when) is dependent on how doing so will impact their odds of losing to fascists, even when the topic of conversation is about how democrats are themselves collaborating with fascists.
I don’t care if that makes you a liberal by whatever definition you want to use for yourself - I care that you ignore your convictions and turn a blind eye to atrocity when it’s politically inconvenient, and I care that democrats do, too.
Whatever word you want to use for that is fine with me.