some scrawny FBI agent
Picturing the guy who busts Badger in Breaking Bad.
I said Jimmy Dore was bad months ago. I got downvoted and called a lib. smh my head
Dore is indeed dog shit, but he was right on FTV. Dore is angling for the Rogan of the left, he's casting a big dumb net to catch as many dumb guys as possible. He's all optics, rejecting irony poisoned (Chapo) and NPR-lite (Majority Report) with a kind of shock jock theatrics.
he was right on FTV
I've seen not one person say they're actually opposed to FTV. The parliamentarian tactic itself was never the issue, at least as far as I saw.
What does Dore have to do with this? Dore was right on FTV. He ain't too sharp, but he's better than the libs whose only instinct is to fall in line.
All this recent talk of Boogs and "working with the Right" was prompted by Dore interviewing a Boog non-confrontationally and suggesting that there's room for them to work with the Left.
Gotcha. Awful idea, but doesn't mean Dore was wrong earlier. E.g., Warren shaking hands with Netanyahu was worse. I'll reserve judgment of Dore until I see what comes of it.
lol you're still 'witholding judgment' after dude spent a year thirsting for prominent nazsuccdem tulsi gabbard, huh
thirsting for
'Cuz she's a girl, huh?
nazsuccdem tulsi gabbard
You're too loose with your Nazi labels. Even with the transphobic bill (which came long after Dore's support) she's not a Nazi.
She has a bunch of rightist flirtations, true, but so do, in their own way, all the establishment politicians that the regular soc dems (Bernie, AOC, etc.) cozy up to, none of whom challenge US foreign policy. Tulsi Gabbard had her usefulness: not to the right, but to the left. And she might again.
It's important to note everyone's limitations, but if you want to be involved with electoralism at all, then casting everyone imperfect into some hated category - and then denouncing everyone barely associated with them is absurd. There's barely anyone better to choose from -
why be such a caustic purist[EDIT] what justifies such an intense denunciation of Tulsi and anyone associated with her?I'm not talking about Tulsi - I'm talking about Dore. He stanned her before she sponsored a transphobic bill. Denouncing A because A liked B before B did something wrong makes no sense. It's the guilt by association that I have a problem with.
I might have completely misunderstood
Sorry I've been unclear. I was mainly talking about Dore and forgot I got into Tulsi - I've never been a fan of hers, but do think she should be viewed in context. (She apparently opposed the trans military ban, btw.)
Let me try to summarize my thoughts by way of analogy. Joe Biden supported segregation/wrote the Crime Bill/propagandized the Iraq War/eulogized Strom Thurmond/etc. By rights, he's a shit person - a war-mongering old-school racist. But in the field of electoral politics, at least in 2008, he had a pro-labor, populist image. You could see through it, but only if you researched deeply.
Would you completely write someone off just because they supported Biden's candidacy in 2008? /u/read_freire suggested as much. Question Dore's judgment, sure, but people shouldn't blame him for what Tulsi did after he supported her or imply he was a cryptofascist when lots of leftists made pro-Tulsi arguments at the time.
Tulsi had a sketchy history prior to the trans bill, that didn’t come out of nowhere. Stanning her was always weird [emphasis mine]
That's the same way Bernie or Corbyn or Ilhan get characterized by the establishment though. "They're bad, trust me, I got a gut feeling." I know you don't mean it that way, but the vagueness of the attacks is very common.
Tulsi did have very specific problems: she was anti-marriage-equality (before reversing position), supported Modi, expressed soft Islamophobia, and cloaked herself in the military. All bad things - but also true for half the establishment politicians! (Which explains why the attacks on her are often so vague.) Unlike them, she stood up for Bernie and leftist policies in 2016 and in 2019; she was one of the few to attack people like Kamala Harris - and she did so from the left. If Bernie had been as aggressive as Tulsi, he might have won.
Maybe she was insincerely riding Bernie's coattails all along. But why should the left reject such insincere allies when the center makes bedfellows out of much worse right-wingers all the time?
If a problematic ally is useful for a time (and we remember to be vigilant about them), why should we unilaterally disarm ourselves when our enemies won't?
Of course, some positions are too problematic to be forgiven. But is being anti-trans worse than being anti-Black or anti-Iraqi? Biden was also anti-gay marriage in 2008. Warren embraced genocidal Netanyahu.
In sum, problematic politicians are problematic, but problem-free politicians are rare and thus certain problematic politicians may be useful at certain times. I have no quarrel with someone saying that certain problems are too much to overlook. But I don't like extending the guilt over one degree - if a third-party observer thinks that the pros of a politician are greater than their cons, that shouldn't automatically tar them with all the cons of the politician they chose to tactically support in a given field.
Thanks for listening! It's all just thinking out loud anyway. None of us are making the capital decisions.
I propose we stop talking about Jimmy Dore. He seems like a hack and doesn't really bring anything to the table other than a small following of divorced LA dads. I think we can go without it.
I usually don't pay him any attention, but it's hard when people like BJG and Cornel West insist we should be hearing his concerns.
For real, if they were worthwhile they wouldn't be Booger Boys
They know exactly what they want and it don't match up with what we want
what any of us want. which is a pretty fucking broad range of shit.
I mean, I'm not particularly in the mood to try and set up a strict Constitutional Monarchy in the Midwest
Or some sort of Corporate Teslaocracy in California
Or any of the weird right-wing pudding-brained diarrhea plans Boogers inevitably propose
A lot of boogaloo people want to establish what would be essentially a social democratic society.
The problem is, social democracies don’t usually emerge from societies ravaged by civil war
okay teslacracy is a cool name. ill give them that.
but that's not what they were gonna call it, is it?
ugh. no.
i mean I was never down with the ideas, but that's a painfully bad name.
Do you like sweaty neckbeard 4channers? You're gonna LOVE the booger bois
Synthesis: keep repeating that the Boogaloo people are not our friends
Absolutely absurd some people are even considering an alliance with them.
Why would you even bother? They're very small in number, have no real organization or theory of change beyond "Chaos lulz" and have no political power, financial power, or really anything else they could bring to an alliance.
Forget the question of whether we ought to ally with them, let's ask why we'd bother?
Also, let's ask, "who are we?" I'm not an organization with any of you. "We" cannot form an alliance with anyone.
I'd argue "we" are in fact an "organization," made up of posters with a resultant collective hivemind-like structure. While I have to stress that this is useless IRL, the Chapo.chat hivemind does exist and has dialectical opinions (broadly pro-trans, anti-racist, class conscious etc). Despite this website's uselessness outside memes and discussions, I'm happy to see my posting hivemind is coming out against Boogaloo shit.
That said, we should all be in IRL organizations like DSA, PSL or whatever Trotskyist group you might fancy - to whatever extent is possible for each individual. A goal of this website should be to encourage people on this.
JOIN UP
“Chaos lulz”
Hey now, utter chaos can be an excellent situation
Boogaloo is the most obvious honeypot ever and if you fall for it you're a fucking rube.
The boogaloos keep getting busted by the FBI, I wonder why?!?!111
:thonk:
I hate them so much. Hawaiian shirts ruined forever. What's a big, fat, party animal like myself supposed to wear now? 🙁
well you don't want to look like a weirdo, so just go with the muumuu
Just wear one with a ushanka. The ushanka is a more powerful dogwhistle
Boog boys are just school shooters stuck with online classes. Fuck every single one of them and fuck any socialist stupid enough to trust one.
Meme that referenced a movie that would typically be posted as [Enter Title Here]: Electric Boogaloo. Eventually on /k/ (4chan's weapons board) it evolved into Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo. It was ironic at first, but once the far-right really sunk its teeth into 4chan (esp after the creation of /pol/ - 4chan's politics board), it gradually became completely unironic and specifically about white nationalism. The rise of the Rhodesia meme happened around the same time too. Oh, and they've co-opted aloha shirts as well, but they can take muh colorful button-ups from my cold dead hands.
At this point, I'm starting to think every innocuous sounding meme or catchphrase is some cryptic, fascist message.
Neo Nazi to nazbol group that was born out of a 4chan gun board who want a civil war. Yes I'm 100% serious, that's who they are.
boogaloo. . . boogaloo bois. . . boog boys
please tell me this thread is just an elaborate bit
Hopefully not. And preventative measures like this thread can help keep it that way.
I don't understand these people, Boogaloo's and leftists have different goals ffs, boogaloos are full of fash, leftists want to demolish the capitalist system and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, guess what system are the fascists supporting at the end of the day? CAPITALISM.
There's no alliance, not even a temporary alliance, with these fucks. They want to throw all of us into extermination camps ffs.
