Objection
@Objection@lemmy.ml
- Comment on Hopefully, he will be 6 underground by that time. 2 days ago:
Biden only won because of Covid, and the economic conditions made it harder for Kamala. 2024 was always going to be an uphill battle because of inflation, I have no doubts Biden would’ve lost even without the cognitive decline.
- Comment on Hopefully, he will be 6 underground by that time. 2 days ago:
Yeah, I mean that approach worked so well in 2016 and 2024, why not give it another shot?
- Comment on Hopefully, he will be 6 underground by that time. 2 days ago:
There will ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS be conflict going on over the Middle-East with everyone there. It is NEVER-ENDING. We’ve wasted nearly 20 years dicking around with Afghanistan and Iraq. All for what? So the Taliban can take over territory in less than a week after all that effort? What a waste!
Sorry, I’m having a lot of trouble trying to connect the dots between the US waging decades long wars of aggression in the Middle East and accomplished nothing with the idea that it’s acceptable to keep sending weapons and fueling conflict through a proxy.
- Comment on Hopefully, he will be 6 underground by that time. 2 days ago:
The fact that they’ve been memeing about Trump having a third term tells you how excited they are about their actual prospects.
- Comment on Hopefully, he will be 6 underground by that time. 2 days ago:
Three female senators won in swing states Kamala lost (Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan), a Hispanic man won a fourth (Arizona), while white men lost in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Biden also was polling poorly when he dropped out.
I don’t know why I bother making that point because the response is invariably “Well people are just sexist/racist about the position of president” limiting the data set to one single point (two if you include Clinton, though probably not three because Obama doesn’t count). In this way, all conflicting evidence is shut out.
It’s just a way to avoid any actually useful critique of the Democrats’ platform, to shift blame to the voters rather than looking at what could actually be improved upon, because that might make somebody look bad. Which is ironic, because I seem to recall that one reason Harris refused to distance herself from Biden in any way (which contributed to her loss) was wanting to protect his “legacy.”
The truth is that Kamala Harris was a bad candidate with bad political instincts running a bad strategy. She never would’ve even been the nominee if there’d been a real primary. She went all in on Dick Cheney of all people who virtually no one, right or left, actually likes, while she completely alienated anyone who was pro-Palestine when it would’ve cost her nothing to pretend to care and the hardcore Zionists weren’t going to vote for her anyway. She doubled down on Biden’s economic policy and ran on more of the same despite the fact that people’s groceries had gotten more expensive. All of those things played a bigger role in her loss than her race or gender, and until we acknowledge that, we’re just gonna keep getting shitty candidates who do the same and lose.
- Comment on One of the most interesting things that happens when you are old 3 days ago:
The biggest one for me is when I see people glazing Bush, like either you’re a teenager or you weren’t paying attention.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
WHICH I REFUTED ALREADY, JUST LIKE I REFUTED YOUR 3D PRINTER BULLSHIT AND EVERY OTHER STUPID BULLSHIT POINT YOU RAISED, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE.
Blocked.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
Man, fuck off. Like you didn’t make shit up over an over, that whole “1776” line, get the fuck out. Just drop it. Reply again and I’ll block you.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
That’s stupid. If I went into sufficient depth to satisfy you (and only you, btw), nobody would read it because of the length.
I’ve addressed all your objections and each time you just invent some new bullshit to try to justify why you got all pissy in the first place. Just fuck off already.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
So I’m not allowed to tell anyone to do anything if that one thing doesn’t magically fix all the problems in the world?
- Comment on Tankie 2 weeks ago:
Blocked.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
“Buying a gun” is the tankie version of libs saying “go vote”. Solves nothing, they say it will fix everything.
Where did I say that it would “fix everything?” Weren’t you just complaining about “mischaracterizing arguments” (which I never did)?
- Comment on Tankie 2 weeks ago:
Honestly not even reading your comments anymore, don’t care.
- Comment on Tankie 2 weeks ago:
And if you engaged with my actual arguments and points, you’d understand why.
- Comment on Tankie 2 weeks ago:
Yes, only in common use.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
I clearly went too far because I was satirizing your mischaracterization of other people’s arguments
Who’s arguments did I mischaracterize in the initial comment I made? The National Guard’s? What a load of horseshit, you came out of the gate attacking me for no reason.
Buying “a” gun won’t do anything meaningful in and of itself. We need some people to buy a lot of guns and ammo.
What does it matter if one person buys 10 guns to give to 10 people, or if 10 people buy their own guns? The end result is the same. You’re just putting ideological hangups before pragmatism.
We need lots of people thinking about each other. We need people thinking about things like food, water, waste, etc.
None of which is precluded by buying a gun.
Like the US government has never caved because somebody shot a bullet at them. They cave because airports get shutdown, because trash stops being collected.
Neither of these is correct. For example, the US government caved when the NVA shot a bunch of bullets at them. They also have the capability of suppressing strikes at gunpoint, if it comes to that. Just as they did the student demonstrators at Kent State. Strikes can be effective, but if you have no capability to fight back, then it’s not likely to be enough.
Like a bunch of military drones come through your door you won’t even have the opportunity to kill a single fascist. You’re just dead, killed by a guy essentially playing a video game. A missile is the same thing
Of course. I never disputed that. But they aren’t sending drones or launching missiles, they’re sending people.
There’s no heroic fantasy where just owning a gun lets people takedown a fascist.
That’s just obviously false. Are fascists impervious to bullets now? Is Charlie Kirk still alive, then?
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
where we all look at the guns on our mantles
Lmao! Too much of a clown for me to even satirize you.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
Yes, it’s exactly the same as telling people to buy ovaltine. Ovaltine will definitely help you kill fascists just as much as a gun will.
Your position is so fucking stupid, and every angle you tried to defend it from has fallen apart under the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
No, I didn’t. You just randomly decided to start attacking me based on a bunch of flimsy bullshit.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
I downvote your comments because they’re pointless nitpicking, not because you say “that’s not enough.” If you had said, “Also, train, join an org, and read theory” I wouldn’t be downvoting you. Instead you said, “lol buying a gun won’t fix anything” and dismissed the suggestion as “individualist consumerism.” That’s not “going further.”
I’m sorry that the pithy ending to a comment that was primarily about the history of Kent State was not a detailed outline of every possible tactic that could be effective at resisting.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
This comes down to ammo. if you have a bunch of guns they’re going to be useful until it runs out of ammo. If you are caching huge amounts of ammo and guns then yes that’s useful as long as you or your allies keep control of it. And caching ammo is harder and more expensive than just buying a gun.
Like if your “military” is providing .223 ammo that .308 rifle isn’t going to be too useful for very long.
Right, when I said “buy a gun” obviously there was no implication that you should also buy the appropriate ammunition to use said gun. I’m just telling people to buy unloaded guns to put on their mantles to look at.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
This line of “logic” is so fucking ridiculous I don’t even know how to reason with it.
Let’s say “the army” decides to start handing out guns to people. What if they don’t have enough guns to go around? Because it seems to me, that every gun a person already has is one less gun that “the army” has to procure somehow. It kinda seems like people who did the evil bad “individualist consumerism” of bringing their own guns to the revolution are actually bringing a greater contribution than they would have been able to otherwise, doesn’t it?
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
Nobody in any other revolution bought any guns.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
What a bunch of delusional nonsense. If enslaved people had the opportunity to buy guns, then obviously they would have, and obviously they would’ve been right to do so. Perhaps I should avoid reading and writing, since slaves were often not permitted to learn those things.
1776 was a bourgeois revolution, it is not “my model for proletarian revolution” and I don’t have the slightest idea where you pulled that from.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
Not what I asked.
I have respect actual pacifists, even if I disagree with them. I don’t have respect for hypocrites who adopt pacifistic stances when it comes to non-state, working class actors but are somehow fine with the state using it.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
“The last rope they sell us will be the one we hang them with.” I don’t like the idea of giving money to war profiteers any more than you do, but it is an unfortunate necessity.
The only way guns are going to matter in a realistic sense is if people are afraid to shoot you because they’ll get shot
Um… yes. That’s the point?
If there’s actually some kind of civil war you’ll get guns an ammo from the army.
From what army? What are you talking about?
Is your plan to rely on the US government to arm the proletariat?
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
There’s a chance he would have died in a hail of gunfire,
He did die in a hail of gunfire.
and probably gotten a lot of innocent bystanders killed as well,
Do you support complete disarmament of the police and military? Or is it only with non-state actors that this concern about missed shots outweighs everything else?
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
No? I am under no illusions that I can stop the fascists from killing me if they want to. If five armed men kick down my door, I’m not stopping them. But I might be able to take one of them down, if I get lucky. That is, you know, how guns work. It doesn’t take badassery to pull a trigger.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
Not everyone lives where you live. If I’m giving advice on the internet, where people live in many different locales, I think “buy a gun” is better advice than “3D print a gun.” Especially considering that 3D printed guns require more technical knowledge to put together and there’s potential for misfires or even injuries if you don’t know what you’re doing. Not to mention the cost of the 3D printer in the first place.
You want to go that route, by all means, knock yourself out. But it feels like you’re picking a pointless fight over this.
- Comment on Would the United States actually risk a Tiananmen Square incident? 2 weeks ago:
Personally, I would rather not walk around with an object that would land me in prison if it were discovered.