Back when the internet was fun, there was a flash game where you could play as the different presidential nominees, and Howard Dean's special move was the "Dean Scream" where he would scream flipping back and forth from left to right, and all the enemies on screen would fall down. Top tier.
mozz
joined 2 years ago
This kind of stuff is actually pretty common in lawsuits. You just throw everything at the wall, because sometimes something sticks. It looks heinous in the light of normal human behavior (and you can say they’re awful for not just settling the lawsuit and making the guy go through this), but once they’ve decided to fight it, you can’t really blame the lawyers for doing their jobs finding what they can to fight it with.
Because our media is shit
Biden really was visibly too old. But they’re also pretty good at ginning up issues literally out of nothing when they want to.
If there’s one thing that’s connected with success in a management role, it is blind cockeyed optimism combined with ignorance of the issues involved and a preference for simple one-sentence solutions. Literally never seen it go wrong, in government or war or business or anything else.
Hey Jill Stein, why is completely pulling out of NATO part of your otherwise almost 100% sensible progressive platform
JILL STEIN COME BACK
ALSO WHY IS IT #2 ON CORNEL WEST’S WISHLIST, that’s super incongruous in relation to literally everything else about him, do you happen to know anything about that
COME BACK
ANSWER ME
Dude this is genius
I am interested to see how it plays out but the idea of the instance admin being able to pierce the veil and investigate things that seem suspect (and being responsible for their instance not housing a ton of spam accounts just as now) seems like a perfect balance at first reading
Edit: Hahaha now I know Rimu’s alter ego because he upvoted me. Gotcha!
Do you seriously think I am so retarded that I donated a Cybertruck to a Russian general?
FTFE
And the answer of course is yes
Honestly, 'actually leading to x' is effectively meaningless. Who the fuck knows if something "actually leads" to something?
This is totally weird to me. Why would you possibly advocate for any particular course of action, except in terms of what it’s likely to accomplish?
What else would lead you to what you’re deciding to do? Vibes? Allegiance to the group? I’m just lost. I mean of course it’s impossible to know for sure what the outcome will be, but you can at least make an educated guess.
Why else would you do a protest, unless you were aiming to impact the future? That is a serious question.
I don't think anyone here would defend sharing outright false information. But that isn't the only complaint you've had about Ozma; you've complained that they only post bad things about democrats, not just that some of them are incorrect
Hm. So, I just looked over a bunch of Ozma’s recent history and it honestly looks fine. Maybe it’s a little dishonest to characterize one of the main architects of the IRA and the Paris Agreement as “former alum of Blackrock” as if that’s the most relevant thing about him. But I mean basically it’s fine and that’s the only story I have much of any complaint about.
I think most of my complaint about ozma is historical at this point. Back in the day he would do stuff like say Biden betrayed his voters on marijuana policy because he said he would do X Y and Z and then he didn’t. When I pointed out he had done X and Y and tried to do Z but failed, ozma would ignore it and post more memes about how Biden betrayed his voters on marijuana. That to me seems like it implies you don’t give a shit about X Y or Z, or pushing Biden to better marijuana policy, but you do want to try to get Trump elected. That’s weird and counterproductive. To me.
If there are massive palestinian protests in the DNC this week that constantly interrupt the proceedings, is that an example of a good or bad protest?
No idea. I’m not even plugged in enough to that culture to know. Probably it’ll be a good thing; anything that’s directly putting pressure on the Democrats and bringing public awareness to the issue will probably be a good thing, because those are two excellent things.
Like I said, I don’t know if there are any people who are doing protests at the DNC who think the answer is to unconditionally blow up support for the Democrats, imply that they caused inflation and they love what Netanyahu’s doing and are cheering him on, and so vote instead for Cornel West. I know they exist on Lemmy, and if they’re in Chicago too, then I would classify those people as useful idiots.
Does that help answer the question?
I'll answer your question with another question:
Dude, I am not asking that as any kind of “gotcha” question or anything. I want to know where you are coming from.
would you agree that supporting any amount of genocide is beyond indefensible? Hint: the answer should be fairly obvious and the question should feel incredibly condescending.
If it’s a choice between blowing up the earth and destroying India or something, and those are the only two possible options, then I would choose destroying India. That’s sort of the type of choice you have to make in modern American politics. If there was a way to lean on the lever to make the blow-up-India explosion smaller, I would definitely support doing that.
If someone was saying, blowing up India is SO BAD that it is indefensible, and so I want to aim a whole bunch of criticism at the blowing up India option (and in a way that seems only in the vaguest of senses to connect with leaning on the lever to make the explosion smaller and in practice seems more likely just to make more likely the blowing-up-earth option), that would alarm the fuck out of me and I would disagree with that person.
I mean doesn’t that make sense? If the alternative is no genocide, then supporting genocide is indefensible. If the alternative is a bigger genocide, then supporting genocide can be an “acceptable” (if you want to call it that) lesser evil. Putting pressure on to reduce the magnitude of the lesser genocide, while also advocating for it to be the lesser and not the greater genocide, sounds perfectly defensible. It sounds right to me.
Does mozz's behavior lead to better or worse policy from democrats? Does making excuses for their lack or response improve their policy on Gaza? No? Well fuck, looks like he's just another useful idiot, then.
I doubt anyone from the DNC is on Lemmy. I think the impact of anything I am saying, if any, will be on the voters.
That’s what makes it not make sense to me why shitting on Democrats on Lemmy is supposed to help any Palestinians. It seems more likely to get Trump elected, which will hurt them.
Yeah what the fuck
I actually came here (without reading the article! It is NYT it's not my fault) to say hey it would have been nice for you to have noticed this in like 1995 but I'll take it, it is still an unusual POV in Washington and that is absolutely fueling a certain level of rebellion against the entire system as a whole
But if NYT is just trying to hijack populism to drive some new kind of bad faith conservative bullshit and say that Sanders and Warren need to get with this guy then as always fuck 'em
I think he was allocated to pop out and greet invading armies, at which he briefly excelled.
You're fine with hurting democratic chances as long as, what, the alternative candidate is better than or equal-to the democrats when it comes to saving Palestinian lives? Doesn't this mean that you aren't fine with it in our current reality where our only options are Kamala and Trump? Or are you suggesting you'd be ok with it if there was a third-party candidate with a better policy?
I am fine with hurting Democratic chances as a side effect as part of a campaign which will produce better behavior from the Democrats. Sorry, I should have made that clear. I think there’s been a slight (pitifully slight) shift in the Democratic line on Gaza this year, and I think a lot of that is because of how much pro-Palestinian activism was creating real credible threats to them electorally. To me that is fine, that’s a good thing.
It would be great if our system supported a third option, but it doesn’t 😢. Not in this election. I think advocating for reform of the system in the future, and pushing for more humanity from the Democrats, is the best we can do for now.
Anything which actually goes as far as leading to Trump getting elected for real will be an unmitigated catastrophe for the Palestinians (even relative to their existing level of catastrophe which is already hell on earth). I think they might literally all be dead or pushed into Egypt by the end of a Trump term. (They might be at the end of a Harris term, too, but it’s at least less likely).
When a protest gets big enough to present a genuine threat to the Democratic electoral machine, suddenly it's the protestors fault for, what, successfully raising the issue and pressuring the democrats?
No. I don’t know how many times I need to keep explaining that this is not what I am saying, or why you keep not listening to me when I do. Do it one more time and I will report you for strawmanning and see if the mods feel that that represents approaching the conversation in bad faith, and either way just end my side of the conversation.
If a substantial portion of the electorate is turned off by their stance on an issue being protested, it's not fault of the protestors, it is the thing being protested that's doing the damage.
It is highly relevant whether the thing being protested is actually happening.
So e.g. when the uncommitted voters punish the Democrats for their support of Israel, I’m in favor of that. When ozma makes something up about the Democrats that isn’t accurate, which only hurts their chances but doesn’t do anything productive for anyone except Trump, I’m against that.
Why do I keep having to explain this? This is such a weird conversation.
The Palestinian genocide and the US's complicity in it is happening in real-life objective terms. Protestors are simply pointing out the US's continued roll in it and asking the democrats to put an end to it (quite peacefully i might add). Fuck, even simply making a definitive statement or commitment to it would be great, but they continue walking on egg-shells because they still value Israel as an ally more than they care about Israel committing war crimes.
100% agree
Your "calculus" is simply 'democrats have moved as much as they are willing, and any more protest will hurt their electoral odds, so let's top now'.
I feel like just typing again the same thing I have been typing will not be productive here
Let me try just pure pattern recognition
Is that what I am saying?
- Yes
- No
Pick one
don't compare those who disagree with you as 'abusers' (i keep giving you opportunity to amend your language here, but you don't seem like you want to)
No, I do not. I can take another stab at explaining it, but first let me ask something: Would you agree that Trump would be an even worse catastrophe for Palestinians (as well as many many other vulnerable people) than a second term of the existing Democratic status quo?
105
Let me try a different tactic: I'll just ask it as a question. Am I supportive of people protesting at the DNC, trying to get the Democrats to improve their policy on Israel by vocally demanding change, and withholding support unless they do?
I've given you the answer as to what my feeling on this is, several times.