Joe Biden is “only” Genocide abroad, and probably less of it.
Therefore, a vote for Joe Biden is a Vote against genocide.
No, it doesn’t matter that he’s an active participant in the apparatus that’s creating the genocide, because if he’s in office there’s less genocide. Which is the important part, and pretending otherwise is sophistry. By abstaining from voting, you are increasing the likelihood of more genocide, if you discourage others from voting, you are an active participant in the overall social apparatus that is probabilistically increasing the ammount of genocide.
The utility calculation is dead simple: more votes for Biden in key states makes more genocide less likely, and discouraging people from voting for Biden makes more genocide more likely. Therefore, discouraging people from voting for Biden is a pro-genocide strategy and voting for Biden in battleground states is an anti-genocide strategy. I live in a solid blue state, so I reserve the right to vote third party, but I will also encourage other people to vote for Biden.
You should vote for Biden unless you live in a solid blue state, and even then it’s not a bad idea.
I’m pretty sure Ammonia and Clorox Bleach are both alkali, also they famously mix to produce chloride gases, which aren’t salt and definitely aren’t innert.
I’m autistic, asshole. It’s how I communicate because I have a disability.
I have no way to know you’re a woman, and you don’t even know if I’m a man. You’re assuming I’m straight you’re lying about my argument, and this shit is un-fucking-acceptable. You’re a bigot appropriating language. Fuck off.
I asked some friends what they thought, and one of them mentioned they were accused of being antisemitic for doing exactly that. So what is true about the lizard joke that’s definitely not true about the robot one that you think determines antisemitism?
I am not using woke as a pejorative, but as a descriptor; it’s good to be woke.
“Woke scolding” is what you are in the process of doing, and it damages the cause. You’re misrepresenting me in ways that don’t make sense given the context and you’re bringing up history of terms that don’t reflect their present meaning to evoke unwarranted feelings of shame. If we were in a more public forum while you were arguing this disingenuously using the language of we who are aware of and opposed to oppression it would risk turing away once potential allies and further radicalizing individuals who have only been shown clips of visually identifiable “leftists” screaming while a chud pretends to be a reasonable centrist instead of a fascist who was just distributing Qanon pamphlets. I urge you to be more conscientious with your rhetoric.
Yeah, things like calling me “sweetie” and implying that my mild criticism is me acting like you committed a high crime are not exactly going to change my mind. Telling other people what to do based on a misplaced notion of what’s harmful is exactly what I mean. It reminds me of that really creepy phase of internet discourse when a large ammount of people started insisting on saying “Latinx” as a gender-neutral inclusive version of “latino” or “latina”. The worst part about that was it was an exonym that was being forced on a minority community by a bunch of white liberals who had a notion of what was wrong with someone else’s culture and were actively trying to fix it. So instead of being slightly annoying and unhelpful they were being actively harmful in their ignorance. BTW, for anyone wondering: I’ve learned through speaking with people that the preferred term is “Latine”.
Now, obviously the same damage is not being done in this instance, but it illustrates why I’m saying this, and shows the dangers of bandwagoning as soon as you think something might be perpetuating oppression. No doubt that it’s good to be aware of how our behavior affects others and to adjust accordingly, but what I see here is people defending a billionaire against a term by saying that it’s antisemitic without being educated on it by the wider Jewish community beforehand, and so I find it largely unconvincing. If I see further discourse about it I’ll investigate, and if one of my friends starts talking to me about it I’ll heed their concerns. However, a small number of strangers on the internet saying something isn’t enough to change my mind, especially not without a good argument.
No, it isn’t; a dogwhistle is a message that isn’t detectable by someone unaware of it. Using lizard person like that isn’t an antisemitic dog whistle because people have been using it to disparagingly refer to the wealthy/politicians/etc. irrespective of their heritage for decades at the very least. Whether the term used to be used a specific way, or even how it originated isn’t actually relevant to the question.
Basically what I’m saying is you need to calm down and figure out the difference between being woke and being a wokescold. It’s hard to strike that ballance, but the first step is realizing you haven’t done it yet.
I disagree that a worker state is a thing that can exist at the scale envisioned by MLs. The defining feature of capitalism is the prevalence of the employer-employee relationship, which the USSR preserved; the state employed the workers who were alienated from their labor and had little say in the operations of their workplace. That’s not socialism.