To answer your question, no, I don’t believe everything a political party says.

I had to go back to the post from 22 days ago to figure out who you even were. I recommended you read that comment section again, because our conversation was not the most memorable comment chain there. I had a conversation with an openly racist troll. I figured it had to be that user again, but your username and user icon didn’t look right.

If the Uncommited Movement won’t endorse Harris then they are making a mistake. There’s still time for them to change their mind. What the Uncommitted Movement cited seemed to be ethical concerns. Moral reasoning cannot help us against fascism and genocide. We need to think in terms of utility. It is useful to endorse Harris because in a two party system either Harris or Trump will be elected. And Harris is the candidate that will do the least harm to the Palestinians. Where as Trump will allow Israel to complete its genocide.

Withholding votes and endorsements isn’t a meaningful way to create change in our democracy. We need to push the Overton window to the left. We do this by both voting for the most viable progressive and/or socialist option in elections and advocating for progressive and/or socialist causes between elections. Allowing fascists to takeover our democracy and kill us in death camps to avoid personal ethical quandaries does nothing to further a progressive and/or socialist agenda.

Also, to be clear, we need a socialist agenda, but a lot of progressives probably haven’t realized that yet. Regardless, a progressive majority would still be preferable over the current neoliberal majority. Any legitimate progressive movement is going to realize they will need to redistribute the owner class’ wealth. Every reform a progressive enacts will be undermined by the wealthy who are incentivized to overturn our democracy to enrich themselves.

I’m not a Democrat. I have no interest in going to bat for the Democrats. I was referencing an article that had an interview with the Uncommited Movement’s preferred speaker and speech. I’m going to advocate for strategies that I think are most the useful for achieving goals such as majority rule democracy, socialism, ending Israel’s genocide, etc. So while Biden was the nominee I advocated voting for him. Now that Kamala is the nominee I advocate voting for her.

edit: Also, to be even more clear, Kamala is a neoliberal, but she is the closest we can get to a progressive this election.

One is much more useful to the Capitalist and so it will ultimately prevail. The capitalist will devote all resources to crushing the leftist populism up to and including directly funding fascism.

Unless. We have to spread these ideas to as many people as possible. We can’t afford to call it early.

Not with that attitude. We know how to implement socialism while maintaining a market economy and how to improve our democracy to achieve majority rule. All of it is logistically doable and well understood. What we need is the political will to do it.

We don’t have any evidence to suggest it will get better.

We know how to make things better. We need to get off fossil fuels and capitalism. Hoping it will get worse won’t work. It will just get worse. People have made things better before. We are living in the success of optimistic activists who believed they could make the world a better place. We need to do the same.

I’m also not really sure what you mean by “more complete lives.”

How about making more money. Eating food and breathing air that doesn’t kill us. Working for ourselves and not billionaires. Having third spaces where people can be a part of a community, instead of being isolated.

I’m just against human life period.

This is literally the root of the flawed ideologies of our time. I implore you to reconsider. We are all in this together.

We have to hope things get better, because no matter how bad things get, they can always get worse. People will see things getting worse as evidence that it hasn’t gotten worse enough. The idea that there is some point where it can get bad enough to spur positive change is false. The positive change that has happened in society originates from people wanting things to get better.

We have to convince people to want things to get better, by showing them it can be better. Too many people are worried about losing the little they have. People have to see we can all be living more complete lives without harming the planet.

I understand. Kamala is going to president of the United States of America. And it’s going to be awesome.

Debates can energize the voter base which is what we need right now. And who knows, the debates might even convince some people.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/aug/01/were-tulsi-gabbards-attacks-kamala-harris-record-c/

Harris “put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.”

Notably, the figures dropped dramatically during Harris’ tenure, from 817 marijuana-related admissions in her first year in office to 137 in her last.

She laughed because it was funny and I’m tired of people telling me it’s not. 💥 🔫

She’s been a prosecutor, senator, and now VP. She has the experience. She can speak in complete sentences. She is a neo-liberal but that was a given. All Democratic candidates since Clinton have been neo-liberals. The idea that Kamala is anti-progressive is false.

She was on the ticket 4 years ago. She is VP. Now she’s on top. Kamala 2024!

Biden made the right decision for the country.

I didn’t want to believe it but they’re already in the comments. We need to be vocal. Kamala is a great candidate.

Biden wasn’t viable because he has cognitive decline. Kamala will mop the floor with Trump in debates.

Biden endorsed Kamala. =)

Last night I was reading an article where they quoted his family, “Don’t they know he’s Irish?”. And I was like shoot I guess he’s not dropping out. 🤯

I recommend touching grass. You’ll feel better.

Your argument is a 1:1 match to arguments made by red fascists, ie tankies, ie authoritarian communists. It was easy for me to spot because I have seen it before. Hopefully it will now be easy for you to spot as well.

It calls for the preservation of an in-group by the extermination of an out-group.

=

Fascists deserve fascism, but they deserve to be the victims of it.

It’s not self-defense if the fascists haven’t done anything violent or destructive. Unfortunately the fascists in the US have been doing violent and destructive things and are close to completing their takeover of our democracy. As an exmaple, there were January 6th rioters and organizers who were arrested and imprisoned. However, there are plenty of people who would meet criteria that would make them varying degrees of fascists, but haven’t done anything yet.

There are overt fascists who espouse fascist ideology and talking points, but haven’t performed acts of domestic terrorism like January 6th. There are people who want their prejudices validated and want to return to an imaged past. There are people who have bought into the lie that minorities are the cause of their problems instead of systemic issues. There are people in the Republican Party who are neo-cons who want to work with the fascists. There are people who shout both sides further to the left of the neo-cons. There are neo-liberals who want to keep things the same despite our downward spiral into fascism.

A christo-fascist regime is being built primarily thanks to the actions and inactions of people using our system without directly hurting anyone or destroying any infrastructure. The fascist movement is spreading ideas, violating democratic norms, upending the guard rails in our democracy, filling the government with like minded individuals, and in the case of Trump, violating the law and stalling out the court system. The Supreme Court ended the rule of law on July 1st, 2024, not by shooting people, but with the stoke of a pen.

The fascists build the system to target groups for elimination in a way that doesn’t directly harm anyone until the system is in place. Your argument calls for the elimination of people based on political ideology.

they tend to target the least dangerous people first.

The enemies of fascists are at the same time both too strong and too weak. They claim the out-groups they target are both inferior to and a threat to the in-group. According to the fascists the out-groups must be eliminated to preserve the in-group. And the in-group is justified in eliminating the out-groups because of the in-group’s superiority. This is a contradiction, because a superior group should have nothing to fear from an inferior group.

The fascists divide the population into in-groups and out-groups as a mechanism of control, usually based on physical characteristics. As part of their crusade against out-groups they actually have to destroy the out-groups. But the fascists need an out-group to exist in order to stay in power. If there is no threat to the in-group, then there is no use in having a fascist strongman.

To solve this problem, fascists have to repeat the process of dividing the population into in-groups and out-groups. The Nazis divided people into a extensive racial hierarchy from the get-go. This process repeats itself until no one is left. It is not a slippery slope, but rather the nature of fascism as a self-destructive ideology. Inevitably the fascists are defeated military or destroy the entire population. In the end, no one meets the ideal qualifications of a superior human that the fascists imagine.

Your argument does the same thing with ideology. It calls for the preservation of an in-group by the extermination of an out-group. The out-group is both a threat to the in-group and yet inferior. Rather than striving for purity of the body your argument seeks purity of thought. It is the same outcome sold with a different scam. Once everyone considered to be too fascist to be allowed to live has been killed the next out-group will be on the chopping block.

There’s a popular adage that says, scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds. The neo-liberals will be deemed to dangerous to keep alive because they obstruct systemic change and their ideology leads to fascism. The progressives will be deemed well meaning, but under closer examination they aren’t left enough. Their policies don’t allow workers to seize the means of production.

The social democrats, while socialists, believe in democracy. And what is democracy to the far left but an incubation chamber for fascism. The democratic socialists are also open to a political socialist revolution, ie democracy, and cannot be trusted by the far left. What are socialists but people who believe in an ideology that is only a stepping stone to communism. Communists who want a stateless society are simply deluding themselves according to the authoritarian communists. The authoritarian communists believe only an authoritarian dictatorship can preserve the worker’s revolution.

We move so far left we end up wrapping around back to the far-right in the form of authoritarian communism. The most substantial difference between the red fascism your argument is proposing and the fascism we are seeing in the US today is that they divide people on different metrics. These ideologies are all self-destructive because there is no stopping point. No one is good enough by any metric, and so what these ideologies are really saying is that we are all better off dead. No one deserves fascism because life is worth living no matter our flaws.

We should defend ourselves from fascists who break the social contract of tolerance. However, if we preemptively target individuals based on ideology we end up with the same problem as the fascists.

Organizing people into a hierarchy based on political ideology has the same issues as a hierarchy based on any other metric. Each time the least desirable group is removed from the population the next group in the hierarchy is at the bottom. By the logic that the most far-right group deserves extermination, we eventually remove every group of people. Even the furthest-left group eventually becomes the furthest-right group by process of elimination.

At the core of self-destructive ideologies like fascism is the idea that we are all better off dead. By asserting that anyone can deserve fascism we are agreeing with that idea and we are conceding the idea that life is worth living.

I believe people are going to do the right thing this November. We need to be vocal and vote. But no matter what happens, no one deserves fascism. We’re all still people.