TotallynotJessica

Why do we need the Democrats? Outside of relevant politicians in our cities, the party is obsolete. Elections are toast, and keeping them around when we can get rid of the worst of them is prudent. The accelerationists got what they wanted, so we need to do what the larpers wanted to do better than they can.

The old game is over, and while the new one doesn't yet have a meta, leaving the establishment behind when possible will benefit us the most.

I'll talk to you if we live close :3

You misunderstand current Trump voters. They were who we needed to sway. The neolibs are a tiny block compared to the disengaged poor people Trump reached. Neolibs must be pushed aside. They weren't who we target for socialism. We must target the poor who lost faith in the system and leave the system behind. They'll be more open than neolibs once they feel things are worse under Trump.

No. Harris did almost everything right. The only mistake she made was not being more radical. She needed to offer answers, but Trump offered more. She needed to admit where Biden fucked up, but she didn't. She needed to be a populist reformer, but that would never have happened from her. She tried her best, but was set up to fail.

Biden needed to be a 1 term president after the midterms, but nothing helped him realize that. He needed to accept his limitations earlier. An open primary from the start was needed. I was wrong about that myself.

I'm a firm believer in providing answers to why we're here. The buck stops with power, and the rich had all the power. Neolibs did their bidding, and thus they deserve no kindness. I'm never listening to their arguments for business again. They need to be told to shut the fuck up. They have no goodwill from the public, so we don't need to pretend to like them.

They can be our allies because our interests might align, but we gain more by explaining why they failed than by letting them have respect. We need to build the left as an answer, and neolibs have no place with us.

As someone who disagreed with the poster originally, you're the one not thinking in terms of utility. We can accept help from neoliberals, but they are the people who brought us here. We needed left wing populism, but the Dems wouldn't give it to us. They played by the book that got us fascism in the first place. The rich are responsible, and their enablers need to stfu. It's time for bold action, not denial.

Harris was the candidate of liberal democracy. She was the status quo, which is not what we needed to beat fascism. We now know in hindsight that we needed an open primary from the start. By the time Biden decided to step down, it was too little too late.

Yes it is. Fuck them. They're the reason we have fascism.

Disagree. Liberals are bad, but fascists are explicitly not liberals. Fascism is socialism for dummies. It requires rejecting liberalism, socialism, or anything that has common rules to mediate power. It's a state of nature without the pretense of a social contract.

Liberalism eventually collapses into fascism or socialism(rarely successfully), but that doesn't make it fascism or socialism. Current China has been increasingly fascist recently, but they are still loosely bound by rules and norms that resemble liberalism at this point. Fascists like Trump use norms for brownie points while talking out of both sides of his mouth in the same breath. They are for nothing but spreading like a plague.

Tbf, that one is basically canon...

Sorry, liberals do that too! They've literally always done that, since like, the beginning. It's always been a part of liberalism.

Fascism isn't just about being evil, but a particular type of evil. Liberalism is plenty evil in its own right. Saying that liberals are fascists gives both groups too much credit.

Liberalism had a fucked up set of principles that were often ignored or bent, but kept at some level to allow cooperation. Fascism has no principles outside of whatever works for power. It's why many understandings of fascism just describe common traits. Machismo and nationalism are strategies that work well, but not an inherent part of it. There have been fascists inspired by the Nazis that valued racial mixing instead of racial purity. No logic, only winning. No rules and customs, only the will to power.

It's a critique apparent made by Nietzsche. The "I" or entity doing the thinking is supposed, in part because the norms of language. If an action is being done, it's assumed that something is doing that action.

In the quote's case, there being doubt proves that there is thinking, but it does not prove that anything is doing that thinking. Doubt occurs, therfore thinking occurs, therfore thinking occurs. Nothing in that logic proves that there is a self, or really anything doing the thinking. The verb is assumed to come from a noun, but that's not a proof. The most famous and fundamental principle can only say that thinking occurs, not that you exist.

This reality is actually indicated by scientific understandings of cognitive development. Initially, babies don't draw a distinction between themselves and other people. They don't understand object permanence, or that other people don't know the baby's thoughts because they have unique perspectives. The separation between self and not self is not innate, but constructed as the child matures.

There's also the fact that we can be wrong about what our own identity is, as I personally experienced. I thought I was a man, but that identity did not match up with who I could tolerate being. I literally had to rewrite my sense of I. Even though I had an identity for my mind, it was inaccurate to how my mind worked.

There are also meditative practices that allow you to temporarily suspend the sense of having a perspective in your own mind. By training yourself to observe yourself as an observer, you can cause it to disappear for a period of time. That leaves the thoughts without a point of view, until it reforms and you disperse yourself again. We think in terms of "I" because it's helpful, but "I" is just a useful tool for survival.