GlacialTurtle @ GlacialTurtle @lemmy.ml Posts 34Comments 52Joined 6 mo. ago
OK, Chuck Schumer. Trump Just Crossed Your Red Line. Now What?
The Risk of Being a Communist: A Critique of the ‘Constitutional Revolution’ Thesis and the ‘Strategy of Patience’
A whistleblower's disclosure details how DOGE may have taken sensitive labor data
I don't need to put words in your mouth, it's fucking obvious. You literally did the same thing every other Democrat in denial is doing. Lashing out at people who oppose genocide as responsible for the genocide because you refuse to hold people in power to account. It's that simple.
It never occurs to you to suggest Democratic party leaders and operatives were the ones who decided defending genocide was a wholly necessary part of their election campaign. That every campaign repeatedly makes assumptions, estimations and judgements about what to support, what to defend, and what to ignore, criticise or back away from. They know all these things have trade offs with votes they may or may not get, and they decide accordingly. They decided genocide was not beyond them, was not important enough to drop, whilst campaigning with Liz Cheney was apparently vital to winning. They made that choice about how to speak to voters, and they got the voters for the campaign they ran in return. No one else made them do that, just like no one else made Chuck Schumer support a CR that gave away all of the Democrats leverage, nor made Newsom decide to pal around with fascists about how trans athletes are the most important problem in the country.
Show me where I defended genocide. If you’re going to come in here in bad faith and a shitty attitude, at minimum be correct.
What do you think you're doing when you deflect focus and blame from those committing genocide to instead redirect the focus on how random individuals opposed to genocide are the real problem?
Just like climate change denial has explicit (it doesn't exist) and implicit (it won't be that bad, we can solve it with "innovation", markets for carbon credits, we need to maintain fossil fuel production for "national security"), there are explicit (there is no genocide in Palestine) and implicit (Biden was working tirelessly for a ceasefire, Kamala was good actually, It's Hamas fault) denial or defence of genocide.
Telling people it's the fault of those who literally spent months telling democrats to stop funding genocide and that this was going to cost them electorally, and not the people actually implementing the policy, and insisting we need to accept genocide when it's "our team" doing it is functional defence and support of genocide for the purpose of something so absurd and asinine as refusing to hold people with actual power responsible for what they are doing.
It is, funnily enough, in line with the transferral of blame from European antisemites to Arab countries and Palestine to excuse genocide. We have to support Israel and it's war against Palestinians because of what Europeans did to Jewish people. Palestinians are unfortunate casualties we just have to accept, and opposing that makes you an anti-semite, or in this case, a "purity tester" who refuses to accept a little thing like genocide between friends during an election, so really it's your fault when bad things happen for opposing them.
I’m going to go ahead and add to this, if you are willing cast aside progress in the name of perfection, you will never make it to either one.
Why do we have to keep telling you dipshits this insane logic doesn't work?
If the democratic party is willing to cast aside progress (being against genocide) in the name of perfect (funding and supporting Israels genocide), you'll never make it to the presidency.
Why is the responsibility on random voters, vs people who are actually in power and have the means to change policy with the knowledge that the policy is negatively harming their electoral chances? Why is the "electability" argument not applicable to stopping genocide as a reason to criticise democrats, versus, say, insisting we can't have healthcare because people love insurance companies too much as a defence of why Democrats don't support medicare for all?
Why do we justify or criticise some policies by appealing to their perceived/assumed popularity, whilst appealing to the responsibility of voters to simply accept whatever is insisted upon them in others?
Maybe if people like you engaged your fucking brain on questions like this, you might come up with some answers that, however uncomfortable they are for you right now, might make you stop defending genocide as a means to divert responsibility from those in power to those who politicians are meant to be appealing to in order to win an election.
Right-wing media revive manufactured Olympic controversy in push to expand trans athlete bans, label intersex women as “males”
How ‘no daylight’ from Biden crippled the Harris presidential campaign
This isn’t Reddit, you don’t have to reach boiling point just because you disagree with someone online.
Your original comment was dismissive of the realities of what happens to people seeking asylum, and your followup is to be a condescending prick spouting nonsense about reddit because someone challenged you on your dumb fucking bullshit where you didn't consider for 2 fucking seconds the actual reality of what these policies do to people.
Fuck off you disgusting cunt.
I have a German passport but my parents were “legal” immigrants from a non developed country. My wife is a “legal” immigrant (I’m not even mentioning skin colors because I think it’s a stupid way of trivializing one’s whole identity and life experience). They respected the conditions of moving to this country and they abided by them. But you call me a nazi because I don’t agree with your idea of who should be conditionally allowed in our country or not.
"I got mine so fuck you" classic children of immigrants who see nothing wrong with pulling the ladder up behind them because survivorship bias means clearly the system is good and my family is deserving and yours isn't.
Fuck off you disgusting cunt.
And the conservatives scaremongering about this are definitely good faith actors who aren't just scaremongering and harassing a tiny minority of trans athletes who do not in fact represent some massive social problem that requires national level obsession with targeting and identifying trans people to harass, with Gavin Newsom hanging around with a fascist saying "yassss besty" as he literally directly refers to a specific trans athlete to target and harass them.
Another example of misplaced blame would be concerns that trans women have too much testosterone or that trans men are gaining an unfairly advantage by taking testosterone (8, 11, 56, 127). Herein lies the myth that cis men, not on gender affirming hormone therapy, will claim to be a trans women to win at female sporting events. However, trans individuals use gender affirming hormone therapy to better match their gender identity, not to gain unfair sporting advantages (132). While it is true that certain morphological changes that occur during puberty may be irreversible, trans individuals on gender affirming hormone therapy clearly do not retain the same physiologic parameters as their pre-transition counterparts (12, 15, 16, 54–56, 129). It is unclear to what extent, or for how long, any hormone mediated advantages may persist once a trans individual begins regular gender affirming hormone therapy (12, 15, 53, 56, 129). It has been shown that parameters affecting aerobic performance transition more quickly than those affecting strength performance (16, 127, 129). However, excluding trans individuals does not prevent cases of athletes having hormonal advantages. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) found 93 of the 4,422 athletes tested (2.1%) to have “adverse analytical finding” for steroid use (105). WADA does not report how many of those athletes were cis or trans, however, as transgender individuals are underrepresented in athletics, it is likely that these are cis athletes (60). Besides use of exogenous hormones, cisgender individuals naturally vary in their hormonal profiles (40, 59, 66, 133). Thus, restricting trans individuals is unlikely to prevent issues of ergogenic hormonal advantages in sports.
Finally, it is well known that within sports and athletics, competitive advantage is in large part influenced by genetic predisposition (121, 134, 135). It is accepted that some individuals are born with natural advantages, however, the suggestion that trans individuals may enjoy some advantage in certain cases is regarded as unacceptable. Yet there does not seem to be a domination of sports by trans athletes if their advantage is so great. When examining issues that allegedly arise by trans athletes' participation in sports and athletics, the solutions are more driven by a political/cultural divide rather than an honest attempt to actually mitigate inequities or risk of injuries that are occurring (1, 136).
[...]
Individuals should not have to make a choice between being their authentic selves or being athletes (138). While trans athletes competing in various sports and athletic events raises interesting considerations of how certain morphologic and physiologic factors affect performance, these questions are not exclusive to trans individuals. There are wide variations within cisgender populations, even when excluding individuals with differences in sexual development (121, 139). It is expected that about 2.3% of a normally distributed population is likely to fall above two standard deviations from a population mean. These exceptional individuals may be those who are gifted and excel at some sport or athletic performance (121, 135, 140). In contrast only 0.5%–0.6% of the population identify as trans (60). There is no concern for restricting individuals who are exceptionally large or small, those who are genetically gifted, or those with differing hormone concentrations or muscle mass, so long as their gender and biologic sex align (120, 121). The disproportionate focus on the relatively small portion of the population who are trans seems based on the belief that cis men, who cannot succeed in sports among other cis men, would choose to misidentify as trans women to gain an advantage in sports against cis women. However, there are no legitimate cases of this occurring. An individual's sex does not determine their success or failure at any athletic event despite the high level of competition. This can be demonstrated when looking at not average outcomes, but the level of overlap among outcomes. The exclusion of trans individuals also insults the skill and athleticism of both cis and trans athletes. While sex differences do develop following puberty, many of the sex differences are reduced, if not erased, over time by gender affirming hormone therapy. Finally, if it is found that trans individuals have advantages in certain athletic events or sports; in those cases, there will still be a question of whether this should be considered unfair, or accepted as another instance of naturally occurring variability seen in athletes already participating in these events.
There is no legitimate debate. It's scaremongering.
But sure, "complicated issues" requires paling around with a fascist like Charlie Kirk and talking about how he's correct, backing down immediately when challenged on using "weaponize" to accurately describe conservative attacks on trans people and being asked to target and harass specific trans athletes based on nothing.
Just like "complicated issues" requires reaffirming conservative framing of immigration and adopting language about how immigrants are stealing welfare money and smuggling gangs requires further militarisation of borders and out of country processing of immigrants.
You're the useful idiot that the thin end of the wedge is for.
Gavin Newsom breaks with Democrats on trans athletes in sports | The Democratic California governor made the stunning remarks in his debut podcast with conservative guest Charlie Kirk.
In a leaked recording, State Senator Elena Parent (D-42) said she’d vote for Republican transgender healthcare bans because trans rights are too “unpopular."
The 3 sample bullets are vapid and meaningless at best. "Not being ashamed of your country" = stop talking about and stop doing anything about racism and sexism and bigotry. "own the failures of Democratic governance in large cities" has no detail, but it's Third Way so that will be "immigrants are bad and we need more homeless sweeps and subsidies and tax cuts for businesses".
See e.g.
Advocate for middle-class tax cuts, support public education, and propose spending cuts where needed.
Tax and budget cuts but somehow support public education.
Democrats need to stop demonizing wealth and corporations broadly.
Literally some of the most broadly popular rhetoric and language but this is the one they feel the need to not do.
Engage with small businesses, business podcasts, podcasts like “Earn Your Leisure” that reach the aspiring class, and entrepreneurs to discuss economic policies
Hand over even more of democratic policy to the rich and upper classes while claiming to stand up for working people somehow.
- Be Pro-Aspiration & Pro-Capitalism in a Smart Way
- Recognize that working-class voters value upward mobility and economic success.
- Have a prosperity gospel aimed at the working class.
- Call out corporate abuses individually instead of attacking “corporations” as a whole.
Meaningless drivel that is largely what Democrats are already doing.
Use messengers that working-class voters trust—business leaders, skilled laborers, and community figures.
lmao business leaders.
But they'll do it all with a big hat and a folksy accent hootin' and hollerin' at a gun show this time.
EU Condems Hamas for not immediately accepting Israel trying to force an extension to the first phase of the ceasefire, as Israel refuses negotiations for the second phase
Centrist Dem group rails against leftist identity politics and purity tests | Centrist Democrats produced a five-page document of takeaways at a retreat organized by Third Way.
In a perfect world, people would stop feeling the need to redirect every criticism of Democrats into pointing out how someone else must be worse, and maybe realise Democrats as they exist and as the party is structured is an almost useless vehicle for any meaningful change or opposition.
In a perfect world, liberals would stop idealising Democrats in the way they did in the post I was responding to, where they implied the Democratic alternative would save lives, after that party literally full throatedly endorsed genocide right up until they lost the election (and still do).
The thread is talking about how it ought to be acceptable to criticise the Democratic party, and the reality of what you're doing is needlessly deflecting back to Republicans in a context in which it's irrelevant.
Brooklyn Rail, mainly an arts magazine but they have a great politics section, Field Notes, from which books like Hinterland by Phil A. Neel have been published.
Current Affairs - Useful for keeping up with Doctor Who and his amazing adventures.
The Plot to Destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
On the Coincidence of Logic with Dialectics and the Theory of Knowledge of Materialism - Evald Ilyenkov
Ex-White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre Says Biden Forced Out of Race by Democratic ‘Firing Squad’
In botched DEI purge, OSHA trashes workplace safety guidelines
Multiple Labour MP's and Councillors suspended over WhatsApp group messages
I've changed it, but Nitter sites have often been incredibly unreliable in my experience. Not much use in a url if it breaks randomly, so I also put the original link in the main post just in case.
I've changed it and added original link in the post in case nitter instance fails/people want original url.
Literally in the post you're responding on:
I also remind dipshit Democrat defenders to hold Democrats to account. They ran a failed election campaign. They decided adhering to genocide was more important than winning. This is how they respond to their base expecting literally anything of them, is to resent them and tell them to shut the fuck up and plead there isn’t anything they can do so they just have to roll over.
What is it with you fucking morons who incessantly turn every criticism of the Demcoratic party into some insane notion that purely by virtue of existing they are owed votes? That's not how politics works. That's not how election campaigns work. Also, do do you think the organisations doing this didn't campaign for Democrats? Do you have any reading comprehension?
You did nothing. Now, this is what you get.
Liberals and wishing harm on others when they fail.
"You did nothing" Did you phonebank? Did you go canvassing at all? Did you deliver or distribute campaign material? Did you incessantly post online enough about how it's your duty to vote Democrat, the most significant and important contribution to every election campaign?
No? Oh, you're just still whining months after the fact that because you saw liberal orgs that actually did campaign for Democrats are not satisfied with how Democrats are responding to Republicans and the excuses they keep making?
Well, this is what you get. Clearly you just didn't want it enough.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries announces Rapid Response Task Force co-chaired by 81 year old congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, congressmen Gerry Connolly (74) and Jamie Raskin (62)
Liberals turning into "fake news!!" idiots when faced with direct quotes of Democrats literally telling their base to fuck off and stop expecting anything of them.
The article directly cites at least 2 liberal orgs directing people to call Democratic politicians to do as much as they can to oppose Republicans, and directly quotes multiple Democrats directly relating to this and trying to insist there's nothing they can do. I don't know what more you want.
Scoop: Dems "pissed" at liberal groups MoveOn, Indivisible
They won't because they're the ones making money from it. The only reason they care about this is likely because they don't get money from ads as they don't have any related advertising business like Google and Apple does.
It's the same as when they kicked EA off of steam. EA allowed buying DLC without going through Steam. If they're not getting a cut, but you are being hosted/distributed by them, they don't want it.
Hakeem Jeffries met privately with Silicon Valley donors in bid to ‘mend fences.’ | The meeting comes as the tech world has lurched rightward in the second Donald Trump era.
No no no
No no no
There was absolutely zero chance that any politician with a chance of winning was going to side will Palestine. Full stop. The Harris campaign was the best option anyone had for any semblance of a peaceful resolution to this.
So there it is. You just get to declare genocide as inevitable to suggest other people shouldn't or can't care. It's always the same fucking bullshit - you're the noble Palestinian defender with their best interests at heart, whilst declaring them an acceptable target we should just not have to really care about or show any interest in. The typical Democrat approach of "I care about minorities only as far as I can throw them".
Trump wants to speed run the genocide so he can build a resort.
And according to yourself, Democrats were going to genocide them anyway. So what's with the faux concern? It was inevitable regardless. Anybody who cared just needed to suck it up and accept mass murder and expulsion of a people. Actually the Democrats lost because you cared too much.
As always, there's a scapegoat to show the Democrats can never fail. They can only be failed. It was Bernie bros in 2016 that singularly caused the Democrats to lose. Now in 2024 it's anybody who cared about Palestinians.
If Palestine was your single issue that caused you not to vote against fascism, you’re a moron and are complicit in the upcoming genocide in the US. Full stop.
Again, wild that dipshits like yourself don't hold Democrats in power to account. Are the Democrats not morons for refusing to budge on genociding Palestinians? Are Democrats not complicit in their actions and their campaigning? Democrats signed on to the Laken Riley act. Fetterman spent months taunting people who cared about Palestinians and calling everyone who criticised Israel terrorist supporters and Hamas. Democrats ran ads saying they're against trans people whilst also claiming to be defending and speaking for them. They ran anti-immigrant ads talking about immigrants stealing welfare. Kamala when asked about anti-trans laws answered "they should follow the law".
Because look what happened. Did sticking it to the Harris campaign change anything for the better at all?
Did Democratic leadership sticking it to their base and their voters change anything for the better at all? Look what happened. They still lost even after caping for genocide!