this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2025
102 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

14078 readers
906 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I have never read a good Jacobin article, so I don't know what I expected. But this shit? Ezra in NYT is fucking crazy but at least we could already guess that these lanyard assholes identify more with Charlie than any of the journalists Israel has murdered. But a fucking Jacobin writer? Who the fuck do you think you are? Do you think these people think of you as on the same level as them?

If he was in charge, Charlie Kirk would have ordered these people killed. But here they come, condemning violence. Let me draw your attention to some shit:

Four years ago, one of us (Ben) did a debate with Kirk on “Democratic Socialism vs. Conservative Populism.” His politics have trended in an even worse direction over the years since, flirting with much uglier forms of nationalism and xenophobia, but even in 2021, the substance of Kirk’s side of the conversation was indefensible. While claiming the mantle of “populism,” he defended a series of positions that would have been at home on the Wall Street Journal editorial page. He was steadfastly opposed to even baby steps toward a more equal society like universal health care and building a stronger labor movement.

At the same time, he didn’t descend into personal attacks. He stuck to the substance of the arguments, largely steering clear of cheap gotchas and giving Ben the space to hammer home the contradiction between Kirk’s populist rhetoric and the ugly inegalitarian substance of his politics. In a country where substantial numbers of our fellow citizens unfortunately agree with Kirk’s perspective, discussions like that are absolutely necessary.

You see this shit? You see who they decide to side with? "Oh, I had a debate with him once, he was so polite." He got his necked popped open while trying to blame trans people for mass shootings. You identify with him because you see yourselves as equals on opposite sides of a fair fight. You accept the liberal framing that his brand of reaction is something everyone secretly clamors for, and not something that had to be funded by billionaires to shove down our throats. Suck my dick. And another thing!

Whether or not the shooter even turns out to be left-wing, there are good reasons to worry that the assassination could be used as a pretext for new crackdowns against dissenting speech from an administration that’s already shown itself willing to engage in a degree of authoritarianism we haven’t seen in recent American history.

WOW SOUNDS SERIOUS, WONDER HOW THIS TURNED OUT. I guessed within the fucking day this would be some dumb shit groyper shooter, because that's what it has been every time, and that nothing would fucking happen, because I have fucking eyes and can see that the regime needs no excuses and can't maintain attention for longer than a couple days. If someone shooting Donald fucking Trump couldn't start this much worried about crackdown on the left, what the fuck would?

And who the fuck are you even talking to? This whole article you're scolding the left for fucking what? You assumed it was one of us, it fucking wasn't, and even if he was some hardcore anti-fascist, the fuck was I supposed to do about it? I didn't tell him to do it! Why are you mad it me? And where's your call to organize as an alternative to adventurism, huh? It seems like a learned reflex from liberal media that anytime something you think is bad happens you need to turn around and discipline the left flank. You look fucking stupid. This post is two for flinching.

And think about what the fuck you're saying. What do you think is going to happen to the left? Are people going to be made illegal, disappeared, imprisoned en masse? We're already fucking doing that! It just doesn't affect you so even though you're theoretically a socialist who wants to take over the fucking economy, you're scared to death at the first shadow of opposition. Grow a fucking spine.

TL;DR matt-jokerfied

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Only two I can think of off the top of my head (and a lot of misses and navel gazing in-between). I had a subscription once and after reading the second or third one I stopped even bothering to remove them from the plastic wrapper.

1: Is this the future Liberals want? (2019)

Dated by the Sanders campaign, but it has a pretty long discussion of the class dis-alignment of the contemporary US political system. Also a really funny intro.

October 2040: an exhausted nation readies itself for the third and final presidential debate of a grueling campaign season. Across America’s living rooms, bars, basement shelters, and prisons, augmented reality devices light up with images of the two contenders.

First-term California governor Malia Obama, vaulted to the Democratic nomination after her heroic response to the devastating Central Valley flood of ’39, introduces her Green Forward agenda. This ambitious plan, developed in partnership with Harvard University and the Bezos Foundation, aims to relocate 20 million workers from environmental and economic “brownfields” to productive metropolitan cores, where they can apply for federal grants, providing the displaced with access to education and skills training, along with civic engagement and entrepreneurship programs.

The proposal brings a throaty sneer from Republican president Allen Jones, the retired professional wrestling star formerly known as A.J. Styles. “The elite wants to make you move to Portland, Oregon, and eat plastic hamburgers in a cubicle until you die,” he says, referring to the city’s recent ordinance banning the consumption of animal products. In contrast, Jones pledges to protect Judeo-Christian values by building the largest military drone fleet in world history, implanting microchips in illegal immigrants (“just stamp ‘em!”), creating a million new American jobs in ocean-floor mineral mining, and cutting taxes.

As the debate ends, pundits remark that the country is more polarized than ever. Earlier in the campaign, Jones’s son Ajay, a freshman congressman from Georgia, made headlines by performing his father’s signature move, the Styles Clash, on longtime Texas senator Beto O’Rourke; images of “bleeding Beto” have featured prominently in campaign ads on both sides. But it is not clear how many Americans are really paying attention. One hundred and thirty million people sat out the last election, including a record share of lower-income and working-class voters. Even as wealth and income inequality soar to new highs, experts predict that less than a quarter of Americans without college degrees will cast a ballot in 2040.

2: Burn the Constitution (2011)

Thus, brilliantly and subtly, the system they built rendered it virtually impossible for the electorate to obtain a concerted change in national policy by a collective act of political will. The Senate is an undemocratic monstrosity in which 84 percent of the population can be outvoted by the 16 percent living in the smallest states. The passage of legislation requires the simultaneous assent of three separate entities — the presidency, House, and Senate — that voters are purposely denied the opportunity to choose at one time, with two-thirds of the Senate membership left in place after each election. The illogical electoral college gears the whole combat of presidential elections around a few, almost randomly determined, swing states that happen to contain evenly balanced numbers of Democrats and Republicans. And the entire system is frozen in amber by an amendment process of almost comical complexity. Whereas France can change its constitution anytime with a three-fifths vote of its Congress and Britain could recently mandate a referendum on instant runoff voting by a simple parliamentary majority, an amendment to the US Constitution requires the consent of no less than thirty-nine different legislatures comprising roughly seventy-eight separately elected chambers.