"Initials" by "Florian Körner", licensed under "CC0 1.0". / Remix of the original. - Created with dicebear.comInitialsFlorian Körnerhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearPO
Jump
Even Bernie didn't vote third party when it counted.
  • Objection Objection 2h ago 100%

    In two weeks, no, it's not conceivable. But in the long term, there are only three possibilities: the democrats move left to meet us, or, people move to a new party, or, the system decays into fascism. The democrats will never move to meet us if we support them unconditionally, so the way I see it, voting third party works towards both of those aims at once.

    The country is in decline and has been for quite some time. The policies that I advocate for are necessary to stop that decline. As long as Democrats both paint themselves as defenders of the status quo and refuse to do what's necessary for the status quo to actually work for people, it's a losing proposition, and one that will only get worse over time. And that's a problem, because the biggest faction that positions itself as critical of the status quo, and is therefore posed to take advantage of deteriorating conditions, is a right-wing one. Therefore, to accept merely clinging to the status quo as the only option is the same as accepting defeat - it isn't a viable approach. Building a third party is unlikely to win this particular election, but at least it is part of a strategy that could theoretically work to stop fascism.

    In any case, I will not be moved from my position by any amount of words. Either the Dems can give the concessions necessary to move me, or the 80 million can join me over here, or they can win or lose without me. Am I being obstinate? Yes. But I am being obstinate for a reason, because my positions have to happen, or we'll all be fucked regardless.

    1
  • Lemmy's gaining popularity, so I thought new people should see this.
  • Objection Objection 2h ago 100%

    immiserated possibly a billion more

    Hmm, this graph must be upside-down or something, weird.

    2
  • Lemmy's gaining popularity, so I thought new people should see this.
  • Objection Objection 2h ago 100%

    Fascists paint themselves as being a third position that supercedes the left-right dichotomy, but that doesn't mean it's actually true. Everything about it is right-wing and it's not actually as incompatible with capitalism as fascists claim. Every fascist regime has partnered up with capitalists, who often support them into power in the first place.

    2
  • "Initials" by "Florian Körner", licensed under "CC0 1.0". / Remix of the original. - Created with dicebear.comInitialsFlorian Körnerhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearPO
    Jump
    Nevar Forget
  • Objection Objection 5h ago 100%

    How? By the same math as OP, the Libertarian Party splitting the vote cost Trump Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin in 2020. That's 37 EC votes which would've been enough to make the election an exact tie.

    2
  • "Initials" by "Florian Körner", licensed under "CC0 1.0". / Remix of the original. - Created with dicebear.comInitialsFlorian Körnerhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearPO
    Jump
    Even Bernie didn't vote third party when it counted.
  • Objection Objection 6h ago 50%

    Yes, that's correct. And that single issue is genocide, which is absolutely worth taking a stand against. But whether you agree with it or not, that's the situation. We are holding our votes ransom and if they want them then they'll have to give in to our demands. Their choice.

    0
  • "Initials" by "Florian Körner", licensed under "CC0 1.0". / Remix of the original. - Created with dicebear.comInitialsFlorian Körnerhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearPO
    Jump
    Even Bernie didn't vote third party when it counted.
  • Objection Objection 6h ago 50%

    Seems to me that the 48 blocks could also be moved to the 3 blocks, and that might be less convenient but then it wouldn't just be 4 more years of the same deteriorating status quo that produced Trump in the first place.

    0
  • "Initials" by "Florian Körner", licensed under "CC0 1.0". / Remix of the original. - Created with dicebear.comInitialsFlorian Körnerhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearPO
    Jump
    Nevar Forget
  • Objection Objection 6h ago 100%

    The Green party gets more attention in left-leaning circles because there are people sympathetic to it and there are people who want to blame them for the Democrats losing. It's not because they're actually more popular than the Libertarian party, which regularly gets like 3 times as many votes.

    2020: 1,865,917 (LP); 405,034 (GP) 2016: 4,489,359; 1,457,216 2012: 1,275,923; 469,627 2008: 523,713; 161,797 2004: 397,265; 119,859

    So it's completely wrong to say that "there aren't any right-wing third parties making any kind of a meaningful run." It's just that your perception of how popular the Libertarian party is compared to the Greens is distorted.

    2
  • Honey
  • Objection Objection 7h ago 100%

    Of course, it has nothing to do with corporate money or higher prices for consumers, it's purely the people not participating in the system of abuse who are the problem. Very logical and definitely not just a defense mechanism.

    2
  • Honey
  • Objection Objection 11h ago 100%

    Oops, you forgot to answer my question again.

    Cut the crap. It's plain as day what's happening here - you want to discredit the people who are actually doing things in order to make yourself feel better about not doing anything. It's just a defense mechanism, and the person you're really trying to fool us yourself.

    4
  • Honey
  • Objection Objection 13h ago 100%

    Whomst amongus could've predicted that you couldn't answer?

    5
  • Honey
  • Objection Objection 14h ago 100%

    Oh, which candidate that supports those things you mentioned were you going to vote for but now aren't? Love to hear even a single name.

    Of course, you can't answer that, because that's not a realistic path in the short term. Let's say you were going to run for office on that platform. First, the major corporations that have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are are going to dump money into the opposition. Second, people will oppose it because it would increase the price of meat - they'll say you're an elitist who wants to make it so that only the rich can have access to it, and emphasize the effect it'll have on grocery bills. They'll also talk about the environmental impact your regulations would cause, since it would take more land to treat animals humanely. And they will also call you a hypocrite for refusing to give up meat while calling the production process unethical, to the point of being deserving of jail time.

    So explain to me how exactly you would've overcome those obstacles, if only us mean insidious vegans weren't so preoccupied with asking you to give up your treats.

    4
  • Honey
  • Objection Objection 17h ago 100%

    Thoughts and prayers? No. Fines. Potentially jailtime. Potentially forcing them to sell farms and factories.

    And how do you intend to implement those things? Thoughts and prayers.

    6
  • Honey
  • Objection Objection 18h ago 90%

    Sources that I’d prefer to regulate in terms of animal rights, but every time that comes up, you people divert the conversation to “if you’re not gonna be vegan you’re evil either way so it doesn’t matter” and everyone tunes out.

    Pack it up, vegans. This person was going to wish upon a star to regulate animal agriculture, which would've done it, but we just had to go and advocate for making material changes on a level we have control over, and that forced them to be explicitly fine with abuse. If only we had your thoughts and prayers, what a horrible miscalculation on our part.

    9
  • Obama On Trump's Recent Odd Behavior: 'Can You Imagine If I Did That?'
  • Objection Objection 2d ago 66%

    The democrats have been pushing that angle with Trump since 2015, and with republicans in general before that.

    "Reasonableness" is at the core of democratic messaging, and that's a problem because what that does is allow the right to set priorities and values uncontested. Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama didn't stop that, he just said he would conduct the war in a more "reasonable" way. The same thing with Biden's attempted immigration bill that would've expanded the executive's ability to crack down on immigrants, the idea that cracking down on immigrants is necessary is uncontested, it's just about doing it in a more "reasonable" way. And when someone's electoral pitch is being reasonable, it puts them in a weaker position because they're expected to be reasonable and willing to compromise even when the other side stonewalls them, which republicans always do.

    Apart from those things being bad, it's also not really an effective strategy. Many people are more concerned with whether a politician is on their side and representing their interests rather than whether they are being reasonable. On top of that, many Americans are straight-up anti-intellectual and so the reasonableness angle doesn't resonate with them. And there's a certain extent to which reasonableness is socially defined, and so if the current system isn't working for people and they want it to change, then they're probably not going to be concerned with existing norms of what is and isn't reasonable. Essentially, the reasonableness angle can at least potentially come across as elitist.

    The democrats squeaked out a win with that angle in 2020, in the middle of Trump's terrible mishandling of the pandemic, and it's possible that they'll squeak out another one now, but if reasonableness was such an effective angle then every election against Trump should've been an absolute blowout.

    1
  • Is American politics really as seemingly satirical of itself as it is portrayed?
  • Objection Objection 2d ago 80%

    Absolutely it's a clownshow.

    If you ask me, the whole point of it is to get everyone to sort themselves into one of two horrific camps, where they'll feel like any criticism of the people in power is an attack on them for voting for them - or, if they don't vote, then they generally disengage from politics entirely. It's probably the most effective system of propaganda ever designed, because you don't even need to tell people that horrible people are on their side, they'll happily convince themselves of it all on their own. It's basically a race to the bottom where one side being dogshit allows the other side to be dogshit because there's no alternative, and of course every politician wants to be as dogshit as they can get away with because that's how you win favor with the corporate donors, who have no practical limit on how much money they can spend to influence the outcome.

    There's also this level of spectacle in our elections that's above and beyond anywhere else in the world, we treat it like a reality show, and our debates are complete jokes where nothing substantive is ever discussed. We have absurdly long election cycles and entire industries around milking them for entertainment. It's unlikely that we will ever even begin moving in the right direction in the foreseeable future, because the brainworms run so deep.

    The worst part is when the spectacle becomes so eye-catching that people from other countries get drawn into it and start thinking in terms of our politics and what we define as normal or reasonable. Americans rarely learn from non-American perspectives and we have corporate influence constantly pushing in the direction of maximizing short term profits over all other priorities, and so our country is unable to understand or adapt to the changing conditions of the modern world, which is why we are in decline.

    Look at us only as a cautionary tale of what not to do.

    3
  • Trump: Biden is Too Tough on Netanyahu
  • Objection Objection 2d ago 100%

    Bush is up there but if Netanyahu hasn't already passed him, he definitely will as the genocide continues.

    2
  • "Initials" by "Florian Körner", licensed under "CC0 1.0". / Remix of the original. - Created with dicebear.comInitialsFlorian Körnerhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearPO
    Jump
    Far left intellectualism
  • Objection Objection 3d ago 25%

    And I've explained to both you and them many times that the point is irrelevant. And you are completely ignoring that and continue talking about the point of the comparison, which is again, completely irrelevant to my actual criticism.

    I wasn't aware that saying it's wrong to compare genocide to getting gently poked in the ribs was a bannable offense but I'll be happy to spread the word for you if that's the case. Do it or don't, your threats mean nothing to me, because I'm obviously in the right and any reasonable person would agree the comparison is distasteful.

    Imagine if you just lost your father, and I came up to you and said, "Hey, y'know, compared to the Holocaust, your dad dying is a walk in the park." Regardless of whether the point of that comparison is valid or not, it is still clearly minimizing your loss in a way that is extremely disrespectful and inappropriate. There are Palestinians who are losing their loved ones every day, and it's completely possible that some of them could be on Lemmy, seeing their loss getting compared to "getting gently poked in the ribs." It's bad enough that you think that comparison is acceptable, but to suggest that disagreeing with the appropriateness of that comparison is "trolling" and so unacceptable that it should be removed is completely beyond the pale.

    -2
  • "Initials" by "Florian Körner", licensed under "CC0 1.0". / Remix of the original. - Created with dicebear.comInitialsFlorian Körnerhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearPO
    Jump
    Far left intellectualism
  • Objection Objection 3d ago 25%

    The person I responded to directly made that comparison, and at no point has even denied that they have. I have not "purposefully missed the point" I have been very clear about the nature of my criticism from the start, including the fact that it has nothing to do with the point of the comparison, only the comparison itself.

    If you want to ban me for saying that an ongoing genocide shouldn't ever be compared to getting gently poked in the ribs, if you think that position is "trolling" then go right ahead. All you'll be doing is making an absolute mockery of yourself.

    -2
  • "Initials" by "Florian Körner", licensed under "CC0 1.0". / Remix of the original. - Created with dicebear.comInitialsFlorian Körnerhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearPO
    Jump
    Far left intellectualism
  • Objection Objection 3d ago 25%

    I have no confusion on the issue at all. I have understood that that was the point of the comparison from the start, but what I've been very clear on is that I'm not talking about the point of the comparison, I am talking about the appropriateness of comparing mass slaughter to getting "gently poked in the ribs" for any reason to make any point. Talking about the point of the comparison is the derailment.

    Why don't you try listening to what I'm saying instead of making assumptions about my criticism that have nothing to do with anything I said, and then condescending to me about how I'm "confused" and "failing to understand?" I have absolutely no confusion about the point, which again I understood from the beginning, but regardless of the point, comparing genocide to getting gently poked in the ribs is minimizing genocide. I don't see how anyone could possibly disagree with that.

    -2
  • "Initials" by "Florian Körner", licensed under "CC0 1.0". / Remix of the original. - Created with dicebear.comInitialsFlorian Körnerhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearMI
    Jump
    Presidential Crimes Commission
  • Objection Objection 3d ago 100%

    That's like saying that you can't hold Hitler responsible for war crimes or you're just absolving Goebbels. Bush, Cheney, and all the rest of them are all war criminals who deserve the most severe legal punishment there is.

    3
  • The comment was in response to the mod who then banned me lmao

    148
    29

    Being a lib is so easy, you can just say anything and if it's wrong, just bring up "Tianmen" square. [I hate these people so much.](https://lemmy.ml/post/20037082/13556596)

    117
    30

    cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/19534199 > Before I begin, I have a confession: until recently (until today, in fact), I was a tankie. But this morning I just woke up and realized everything I believed and everything I'd been saying was wrong, and my critics were right about everything. And so, I have decided to completely and totally adopt their way of thinking. > > The above image is an example to illustrate how my thinking has changed. You may be familiar with "Russell's Teapot," a thought experiment from Bertrand Russell where he imagines that someone says that there is a tiny, invisible teapot, floating out in space. He argues that while such a claim cannot strictly be disproved, it can be dismissed without evidence because there is no evidence to support it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. He goes on to explain that while he could not disprove the existence of God, he still considered himself an atheist, because he did not see sufficient evidence for the claim of God's existence to be credible. > > In my previous (tankie) way of thinking, I would have agreed with this idea, that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But I now understand that this made me a Bad Person. Suppose that, as in the beautiful diagram I drew in MS Paint, the claim is not only that the teapot exists, but that inside of the teapot, there are a bunch of tiny invisible people who are geopolitical enemies of the United States and they are committing genocide against innocent people. Again, before, I would have said that that only makes the claim more implausible and would require extraordinary proof. Now, I realize how wrong I was, and I can only say that I deeply regret and apologize for my statements. The existence of the teapot can be *proven* incontrovertibly, by the following logic: > > 1. If you claim that the teapot does not exist, you are denying that the genocide inside it is happening. > > 2. If you deny the genocide is happening, you are a genocide denier and therefore a fascist. > > 3. Fascism is wrong. > > 4. Therefore, it is impossible to correctly deny the teapot's existence. > > As a brief aside, I should mention that in addition to my political conversion, I have also experienced a drastic change in my religious beliefs, as it is now trivially easy to prove that God exists. According to the Torah, God flooded the world, wiping out virtually all of humanity, including countless ethnic groups. To deny the existence of God makes you a genocide denier and a fascist. However, it should be added that to worship God is genocide apologia, which is also fascist. The only non-fascist belief, which is necessarily correct, is that God exists and is evil. Moving on. > > Before, I believed that it was ridiculous for the US to spend as much on the military as the next 9 countries combined. I wanted to slash the military budget to fund domestic spending, schools, hospitals, making sure bridges don't collapse, helping the poor, etc. I see now how wrong I was. The Genocide Teapot exists, somewhere out there in space, in fact, there could be countless numbers of them out there. Therefore, the real progressive thing to do is to further cut domestic spending and have everyone tighten our belts so that we can produce as many missiles as possible, to be fired out into space indiscriminately, in hopes of hitting a Genocide Teapot. > > However, we must also consider the possibility that these teapots could be located here on Earth too. Teapots are a form of **china,** which is a very suspicious connection. Clearly, the US must be permitted to inspect every square inch of China in search of these invisible teapots, and refusal to comply should be considered an admission of guilt. But we should not, of course, limit ourselves to China. Perhaps there are Genocide Teapots in Russia, or Brazil, or Germany, or Canada, who knows? I do, because to deny that Genocide Teapots exist in all of those places is genocide denial, which is fascist and wrong. > > In conclusion, we should bomb every country in the world simultaneously, including ourselves, and anyone who disagrees with me is a war-loving fascist. > > Thank you.

    15
    0

    cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/19534199 > Before I begin, I have a confession: until recently (until today, in fact), I was a tankie. But this morning I just woke up and realized everything I believed and everything I'd been saying was wrong, and my critics were right about everything. And so, I have decided to completely and totally adopt their way of thinking. > > The above image is an example to illustrate how my thinking has changed. You may be familiar with "Russell's Teapot," a thought experiment from Bertrand Russell where he imagines that someone says that there is a tiny, invisible teapot, floating out in space. He argues that while such a claim cannot strictly be disproved, it can be dismissed without evidence because there is no evidence to support it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. He goes on to explain that while he could not disprove the existence of God, he still considered himself an atheist, because he did not see sufficient evidence for the claim of God's existence to be credible. > > In my previous (tankie) way of thinking, I would have agreed with this idea, that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But I now understand that this made me a Bad Person. Suppose that, as in the beautiful diagram I drew in MS Paint, the claim is not only that the teapot exists, but that inside of the teapot, there are a bunch of tiny invisible people who are geopolitical enemies of the United States and they are committing genocide against innocent people. Again, before, I would have said that that only makes the claim more implausible and would require extraordinary proof. Now, I realize how wrong I was, and I can only say that I deeply regret and apologize for my statements. The existence of the teapot can be *proven* incontrovertibly, by the following logic: > > 1. If you claim that the teapot does not exist, you are denying that the genocide inside it is happening. > > 2. If you deny the genocide is happening, you are a genocide denier and therefore a fascist. > > 3. Fascism is wrong. > > 4. Therefore, it is impossible to correctly deny the teapot's existence. > > As a brief aside, I should mention that in addition to my political conversion, I have also experienced a drastic change in my religious beliefs, as it is now trivially easy to prove that God exists. According to the Torah, God flooded the world, wiping out virtually all of humanity, including countless ethnic groups. To deny the existence of God makes you a genocide denier and a fascist. However, it should be added that to worship God is genocide apologia, which is also fascist. The only non-fascist belief, which is necessarily correct, is that God exists and is evil. Moving on. > > Before, I believed that it was ridiculous for the US to spend as much on the military as the next 9 countries combined. I wanted to slash the military budget to fund domestic spending, schools, hospitals, making sure bridges don't collapse, helping the poor, etc. I see now how wrong I was. The Genocide Teapot exists, somewhere out there in space, in fact, there could be countless numbers of them out there. Therefore, the real progressive thing to do is to further cut domestic spending and have everyone tighten our belts so that we can produce as many missiles as possible, to be fired out into space indiscriminately, in hopes of hitting a Genocide Teapot. > > However, we must also consider the possibility that these teapots could be located here on Earth too. Teapots are a form of **china,** which is a very suspicious connection. Clearly, the US must be permitted to inspect every square inch of China in search of these invisible teapots, and refusal to comply should be considered an admission of guilt. But we should not, of course, limit ourselves to China. Perhaps there are Genocide Teapots in Russia, or Brazil, or Germany, or Canada, who knows? I do, because to deny that Genocide Teapots exist in all of those places is genocide denial, which is fascist and wrong. > > In conclusion, we should bomb every country in the world simultaneously, including ourselves, and anyone who disagrees with me is a war-loving fascist. > > Thank you.

    33
    1
    "Initials" by "Florian Körner", licensed under "CC0 1.0". / Remix of the original. - Created with dicebear.comInitialsFlorian Körnerhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearUS
    Genocide in a Teapot

    Before I begin, I have a confession: until recently (until today, in fact), I was a tankie. But this morning I just woke up and realized everything I believed and everything I'd been saying was wrong, and my critics were right about everything. And so, I have decided to completely and totally adopt their way of thinking. The above image is an example to illustrate how my thinking has changed. You may be familiar with "Russell's Teapot," a thought experiment from Bertrand Russell where he imagines that someone says that there is a tiny, invisible teapot, floating out in space. He argues that while such a claim cannot strictly be disproved, it can be dismissed without evidence because there is no evidence to support it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. He goes on to explain that while he could not disprove the existence of God, he still considered himself an atheist, because he did not see sufficient evidence for the claim of God's existence to be credible. In my previous (tankie) way of thinking, I would have agreed with this idea, that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But I now understand that this made me a Bad Person. Suppose that, as in the beautiful diagram I drew in MS Paint, the claim is not only that the teapot exists, but that inside of the teapot, there are a bunch of tiny invisible people who are geopolitical enemies of the United States and they are committing genocide against innocent people. Again, before, I would have said that that only makes the claim more implausible and would require extraordinary proof. Now, I realize how wrong I was, and I can only say that I deeply regret and apologize for my statements. The existence of the teapot can be *proven* incontrovertibly, by the following logic: 1. If you claim that the teapot does not exist, you are denying that the genocide inside it is happening. 2. If you deny the genocide is happening, you are a genocide denier and therefore a fascist. 3. Fascism is wrong. 4. Therefore, it is impossible to correctly deny the teapot's existence. As a brief aside, I should mention that in addition to my political conversion, I have also experienced a drastic change in my religious beliefs, as it is now trivially easy to prove that God exists. According to the Torah, God flooded the world, wiping out virtually all of humanity, including countless ethnic groups. To deny the existence of God makes you a genocide denier and a fascist. However, it should be added that to worship God is genocide apologia, which is also fascist. The only non-fascist belief, which is necessarily correct, is that God exists and is evil. Moving on. Before, I believed that it was ridiculous for the US to spend as much on the military as the next 9 countries combined. I wanted to slash the military budget to fund domestic spending, schools, hospitals, making sure bridges don't collapse, helping the poor, etc. I see now how wrong I was. The Genocide Teapot exists, somewhere out there in space, in fact, there could be countless numbers of them out there. Therefore, the real progressive thing to do is to further cut domestic spending and have everyone tighten our belts so that we can produce as many missiles as possible, to be fired out into space indiscriminately, in hopes of hitting a Genocide Teapot. However, we must also consider the possibility that these teapots could be located here on Earth too. Teapots are a form of **china,** which is a very suspicious connection. Clearly, the US must be permitted to inspect every square inch of China in search of these invisible teapots, and refusal to comply should be considered an admission of guilt. But we should not, of course, limit ourselves to China. Perhaps there are Genocide Teapots in Russia, or Brazil, or Germany, or Canada, who knows? I do, because to deny that Genocide Teapots exist in all of those places is genocide denial, which is fascist and wrong. In conclusion, we should bomb every country in the world simultaneously, including ourselves, and anyone who disagrees with me is a war-loving fascist. Thank you.

    -3
    0
    "Initials" by "Florian Körner", licensed under "CC0 1.0". / Remix of the original. - Created with dicebear.comInitialsFlorian Körnerhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearUS
    Trump's foreign policy doublespeak

    >President Trump kept America out of new wars and brought thousands of brave troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and many other countries. Joe Biden has undermined our military readiness and surrendered our strength to the Taliban. When Trump pulls troops out of Afghanistan, it's "bringing thousands of brave troops home," but when Biden does the same, it's, "surrendering our strength to the Taliban." He brags about "keeping America out of foreign wars" while at the same time bragging about assassinating "the world's number one terrorist," Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, which was an extreme act of provocation. This is taken from the [issues page](https://www.donaldjtrump.com/issues) of Trump's campaign website, and there are several more statements relating to foreign policy, frequently and boldly contradicting each other. It's a perfect example of the ["If By Whiskey"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noah_S._Sweat&diffonly=true#The_%22whiskey_speech%22) tactic. So what's actually going on here? Well, to understand the reasons for this equivocation, we need to analyze the foreign policy positions of Americans. :::spoiler Broadly speaking, people fall into one of four camps: Idealist Hawk (liberals), Idealist Dove (libertarians), Realist Hawk (nationalists), and Realist Dove (socialists). **Idealist Hawks** believe that US foreign policy is driven by benevolence and spreading freedom, and the fact that it repeatedly fails to do so (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc) is explainable by a variety of excuses. Generally, they are more interested in current events and easily persuaded to support intervention based on seeing a bad thing happening, without a broader analysis or explanation of the situation or how things have played out historically. **Idealist Doves** also believe that US foreign policy is driven by benevolence, but they see that as a bad thing. They are generally right libertarians or hold libertarian values, they see war as another example of wasteful government spending as it tries and fails to improve people's lives, which they generally don't see as a valid goal in the first place. Being idealists, they are still rather easily duped into supporting war and militarism, often, they will support a "night watchman state," with police and the military being the only legitimate functions. **Realist Hawks** are nationalists who believe that states pursue their own material interests and are right to do so. They are incapable of distinguishing between the state's interest and their own. Some few are rich enough to actually receive benefits from US foreign policy, but most just root for America in the same way that they might root for a football team. **Realist Doves,** which I am a part of, do not believe that US foreign policy is not grounded in benevolence and does not benefit the people it claims to be helping, but also (generally) that it doesn't benefit the majority of people at home. We see it as being driven by and for class interests, and are opposed to the class it benefits. ::: Trump's foreign policy equivocation, and his "America First" slogan allows him to appeal to both the Idealist Doves (libertarians) and the Realist Hawks (nationalists). He can't consistently take any line on any specific thing. If by Afghanistan, you mean a disastrous nation-building exercise, wasteful government spending, and endangering our troops for the sake of helping foreigners, then of course Trump opposes it. But if by Afghanistan, you mean exerting American strength, intimidating Russia and China, and weakening terrorists to keep America safe, then of course Trump supports it. In reality, to the extent that Trump has coherent beliefs at all, he is a Realist Hawk, a nationalist, and his record reflects that. But part of the reason he was able to get anywhere was because he was able to triangulate and equivocate well enough to dupe anti-war libertarians. Unfortunately, in American politics, the conflict is generally between Idealist Hawks and everyone else. This is part of what allows the nationalists and libertarians to put aside their differences (the other part being that libertarians are easily duped). Realist Doves are not represented anywhere, the Idealist Interventionists consider us Russian bots along with everyone else who disagrees with them on foreign policy (regardless of how or why), the Idealist Doves are extremely unreliable, and the Realist Hawks may see the world in a similar way but have diametrically opposed priorities. tl;dr: Trump's halfhearted antiwar posturing is an obvious ruse that only an idiot would fall for, but painting everyone skeptical of US foreign policy with the same brush helps him to sell it and to paint over ideological rifts that could otherwise be potentially exploited.

    23
    6

    What is Soulism? [Soulism, also known as anarcho-antirealism, is a school of anarchist thought which views reality and natural laws as unjust hierarchies.](http://soulism.net/) Some people might laugh at the idea and say it's not a serious ideology, but this is no laughing matter. If these people are successful, then consensus reality would be destroyed and we would return to what the world was like before the Enlightenment. What did that world look like? Well, you had: - Ultra-powerful wizards hoarding knowledge in high towers, reshaping reality to their whims, with no regard for the common people - Bloodthirsty, aristocratic vampires operating openly, and on a much larger scale than they do today - Viscous, rage-driven werewolves terrorizing the populace, massacring entire villages with reckless abandon - Fey beings abducting children and replacing them with their own - Demons and angels waging massive wars against each other with humans caught in the crossfire Fortunately, out of this age of chaos and insecurity emerged a group of scientists dedicated to protecting and advancing humanity by establishing a consensus reality and putting a stop to these out-of-control reality deviants. Before, if you got sick or injured, you'd have to travel across the land through dangerous enchanted forests seeking a skilled faith healer or magical healing potion. But with consensus reality, easily accessible and consistent medical practices were instilled with the same magical healing properties. Once, if you wanted to transmute grain into bread, you had to convince a wizard to come out of their tower and do it, and they were just as likely to turn you into a newt for disturbing their studies. But thanks to consensus reality, anyone could build their own magical tower (a "mill") and harness the mana present in elemental air to animate their own "millstones" to do it! These things were only made possible by consensus reality. Now, I'm not saying that this approach doesn't have it's drawbacks and failures, and I'm not going to say that the reality defenders have never done anything wrong. But these "Soulists" want to destroy everything that's been accomplished and bring us back to the times when these supernatural reality deviants were more powerful than reason or humanity, and constantly preyed upon us. So do not fall for their propaganda, and if you see something, says something. Anyone altering reality through belief and willpower, or any other reality deviants such as vampires or werewolves, should be reported immediately to the [Technocratic Union](https://whitewolf.fandom.com/wiki/Technocratic_Union) for your safety, the safety of those around you, and, indeed, the safety of reality itself. Thank you for your cooperation.

    21
    2
    "Initials" by "Florian Körner", licensed under "CC0 1.0". / Remix of the original. - Created with dicebear.comInitialsFlorian Körnerhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearSH
    shitposting Objection 4mo ago 70%
    "Soulism" is a dangerous, existential threat to humanity that must be stopped

    What is Soulism? [Soulism, also known as anarcho-antirealism, is a school of anarchist thought which views reality and natural laws as unjust hierarchies.](http://soulism.net/) Some people might laugh at the idea and say it's not a serious ideology, but this is no laughing matter. If these people are successful, then consensus reality would be destroyed and we would return to what the world was like before the Enlightenment. What did that world look like? Well, you had: - Ultra-powerful wizards hoarding knowledge in high towers, reshaping reality to their whims, with no regard for the common people - Bloodthirsty, aristocratic vampires operating openly, and on a much larger scale than they do today - Viscous, rage-driven werewolves terrorizing the populace, massacring entire villages with reckless abandon - Fey beings abducting children and replacing them with their own - Demons and angels waging massive wars against each other with humans caught in the crossfire Fortunately, out of this age of chaos and insecurity emerged a group of scientists dedicated to protecting and advancing humanity by establishing a consensus reality and putting a stop to these out-of-control reality deviants. Before, if you got sick or injured, you'd have to travel across the land through dangerous enchanted forests seeking a skilled faith healer or magical healing potion. But with consensus reality, easily accessible and consistent medical practices were instilled with the same magical healing properties. Once, if you wanted to transmute grain into bread, you had to convince a wizard to come out of their tower and do it, and they were just as likely to turn you into a newt for disturbing their studies. But thanks to consensus reality, anyone could build their own magical tower (a "mill") and harness the mana present in elemental air to animate their own "millstones" to do it! These things were only made possible by consensus reality. Now, I'm not saying that this approach doesn't have it's drawbacks and failures, and I'm not going to say that the reality defenders have never done anything wrong. But these "Soulists" want to destroy everything that's been accomplished and bring us back to the times when these supernatural reality deviants were more powerful than reason or humanity, and constantly preyed upon us. So do not fall for their propaganda, and if you see something, says something. Anyone altering reality through belief and willpower, or any other reality deviants such as vampires or werewolves, should be reported immediately to the [Technocratic Union](https://whitewolf.fandom.com/wiki/Technocratic_Union) for your safety, the safety of those around you, and, indeed, the safety of reality itself. Thank you for your cooperation.

    7
    13