this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
1521 points (96.6% liked)

Microblog Memes

9008 readers
1821 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Your analysis is just vibes, bud, it doesn't have any eye or consideration for any systems or material relations

If tomorrow we passed a law protecting trans and minority rights, the next election the reactionary forces will push back and make it harder - if not impossible - to run on protecting them again.

Why do you think it's so hard for Harris to run on Palestinian liberation, or immigration reform, or trans rights? Because she'd lose, because the American voter base is frothing at the mouth and becoming more reactionary every election cycle, and your 'analysis' doesn't even bother to see or acknowledge that trend, let alone address it.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah , it's almost as if you have to rally the troops and get out the vote in every single election.

FDR's New Deal held together for decades, until Ronald Reagan got in.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Lmao, it's literally all vibes

"people stop wanting progressive policies because we stop pushing for them" is a take that's completely divorced from physical reality. You have to be completely blind to how people's material and cultural reality relate to each other if you're to believe this.

FDR’s New Deal held together for decades, until Ronald Reagan got in.

If it wasn't Reagan, it would have been another reactionary politician. Looking at history as if individual men/women dictate our reality as if in a decontextualized vacuum is maddeningly idiotic. Reagan represented a popular movement of reactionary conservatism - he didn't invent it out of whole-cloth. There has never been a social-democratic government that hasn't eventually been privatized or been subject to increasing austerity measures, and that pattern can be studied and rationalized as a dialectic.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

“people stop wanting progressive policies because we stop pushing for them”

Nice made up quote that has nothing to do with what I wrote. We lost progressive policies because believed Reagan's lies, not because he ran as anti-labor.

Reagan sleazed in by sabotaging Carter with a backdoor deal Reagan made with Iran.

Reagan actually ran as a New Deal loving Union President.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a43368900/reagan-iran-hostages/

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure we are working from the same definition of reactionary.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There's you problem right there.

I just double checked and re-read everything I posted in this thread.

I didn't use the word 'reactionary' once.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oh, can you not see my comments? Weird, maybe that's the problem

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I’m not sure we are working from the same definition of reactionary.

That's you using a word.

A word I never used.

Obviously, you're confused and continuing would be a complete waste of time.

I mean, if I haven't seen your comments, what is the point?

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 10 months ago

Reagan represented a popular movement of reactionary conservatism

We lost progressive policies because believed Reagan’s lies, not because he ran as anti-labor.

Maybe i'm confused, it seems like you were responding to me calling Reagan reactionary by saying he wasn't 'anti-labor'.

Not sure how your response related to my comment otherwise, honestly. Either you were addressing my use of the word reactionary or you were talking to yourself.