MaeBorowski [she/her]

You're not missing anything. I shouldn't have included the pic but I had just seen it minutes before reading the post and it felt like it fit. The one simple trick is what you said: eating the rich.

I do this exact thing. I want to see hexbear grow and will sometimes upvote a baby leftist with a bad take if they indicate a willingness to learn. Just like you said, I want to encourage them, and signal with a little hint that even if they're getting rightly excoriated for something, that their willingness to stick around and talk about it (without the typical liberal bad faith bullshit) and learn will be rewarded here. I realize it would be best for me to comment and express this exactly, but for one it's not always appropriate to do so given the context, and for another it's simply not always practical for me to type out a reply, depending on where I'm at and what I'm doing while browsing the site. I want these baby leftists who are steeped in inescapable propaganda to stick around and get dewormed, (rather than get turned off by a dog pile, even if it was justified, and go do the easier thing of hanging out on fucking .world where their brainworms will only multiply). I want this for their sake and for the sake of the site via community growth.

But now I feel like I could be punished for that, or even if not punished, that some mods will be looking at my upbears and thinking to themselves that I'm a shitty person. That I harbor reactionary beliefs that I don't actually believe because I upbeared a comment that contained a reactionary sentiment. Maybe that shouldn't matter to me, but it does. I'm extremely sensitive to that sort of disapproval. It's already why I don't comment a lot more to be honest. I can't not think about it, be effected by it, and it simply makes me not want to upbear which also sucks because that's mostly how I engage here.

There are also many times when I read a comment and I'm enthusiastically nodding along for 90% of it, but then run into something I strongly disagree with. But because the rest of it was good, I'll still give it an upbear especially if the user seems to be speaking in good faith (which I may or may not have accurately judged!) Once again, ideally I would respond and call out that one thing I disagreed with, but like I said, it's just not practical for me to respond most of the time. Now I'm going to have an internal debate every time that happens about whether I should upbear it or not, who will think ill of me if I do, and that will inevitably make me feel shitty and worry, even if needlessly so, and in turn, I will feel turned off to wanting to engage with the site.

Maybe I'm just too neurotic about this sort of thing and that's on no one but me. But I can't help it. This little episode has had (or will have) a profound chilling effect on how much I want to upbear which in turn has a chilling effect on how much I want to engage at all.

In addition to what MattsAlt said, the people in possession of those things still rely on you and me to meet all their wants and needs. So a crucial first step before they become edible is for us to stop meeting their wants and needs. Exactly who "possesses" what starts to become a little more ambiguous when that happens.

Beat inflation at the grocery store (and everywhere else) with this one simple trick. Capitalists hate it!

3 days ago

They have published some real bullshit before, but yeah, when I check in from time to time wsws.org is usually pretty good. Like surprisingly good for Trots.

I'd be curious to read your multiparagraph analysis of the Black Lodge too, once you're rested up enough to delve into it.

China is indeed moving in the right direction. That doesn't mean I think China is a force of good in the world.

Then what would? If the fact that China is doing good in the world is not enough for you to think "it a force for good in the world" then what does it need to do? Oh, I forgot, you think "all nation states are bad by definition" and unironically believe that the more people a government represents, the more evil it is. So in order for China to be "a force for good in the world" China simply has to cease to exist. Got it. Nope, that doesn't align with US interests at all.

It's a nation state and should be subject to criticism. And all I'm saying is that there are people who will religiously dogpile you if you try to do that, and I call those people tankies.

Literally no one on lemmy has ever said China is above criticism. I dare you to find a single instance of that ever happening.

lmao. I unironically believe this though.

The more you concentrate power, the harder it is to keep bad actors from abusing said power.

What makes you think the power over those billion+ people is all "concentrated"? Could it be (gasp!) that the power is largely distributed among those people who overwhelmingly support that government? This is just capitalist-realism-brained misunderstanding of how communist parties work.

Most Americans approve of capitalism. Does that make it good too?

No, but that's certainly not what makes it bad.

China is a government that rules over billions of people. That is, by definition, evil.

Funny how 95% of the Chinese population approves of and rates favorably this terrible "ruling over" they are being subjected to.

New theory just dropped, everyone: The more people a government represents, the more evil that government is.

Anyone who uses the term "tankie" unironically to disparage other leftists is a lib. Anyone who uses the term ironically to make fun of those who don't is a leftist. But you're right, conservatives don't know what it means, they also don't know that they are libs as well.

I maintain that the batshit conspiracy theories were cultivated and amplified by three letter agencies and the like for the express purpose of poisoning the well with regards to the actual real conspiracies that did and do happen. Now whenever you talk about these looney tunes cartoon villain shit crimes and events, it's easy as fuck for anyone to write you off as you yourself being looney with with "that's just a conspiracy theory" as if conspiracies don't happen. But look people, conspiracies do happen. All the fucking time. And it's open knowledge that cannot be denied, it's even admitted to. "That's a conspiracy theory" is not a remotely valid reason for thinking it didn't happen! Meanwhile the false batshit stuff gets pushed relentlessly at every opportunity, even into mainstream pop culture, and that's what ends up getting treated with a "hmmm, well maybe" by the same people who will scoff at you for trying to tell them of real things that can be verified. It's truly maddening.

Popular belief that all conspiracy theories are each just "a conspiracy theory" is itself a conspiracy.
(And like all conspiracies, when you try to explain this, you're disregarded for pedaling in conspiracy theories.)

It's not that I really disagree with this, I just think it's mostly moot. Overall, it's splitting hairs in a somewhat odd way, and especially considering the context of OP, where their friend is pressuring OP to vote Democrat, it just doesn't apply. It's almost obvious that what we are talking about here is not some secret schroedinger's voting booth vote that no one else knows about, but a vote that is announced and therefore is a form of, as you put it, public endorsement. If someone secretly votes Kamala without telling a soul, especially if they're doing real community work that benefits people in material ways, then sure, none are the wiser and the actual work that person is doing supercedes whatever asymptotically minuscule effect a single vote has. But then we're almost getting into "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" territory.

Though that's not really what we're talking about here. Going back to my analogy above about a friend supporting the murder of your family (and to be clear, I know you're not the same person I was responding to with that analogy). If you are completely and forever ignorant of your friend's support for that person murdering your family, and their support of that murderer doesn't actually change the ability of that murderer to do any more harm, then of course, you would have zero reason to think or feel negatively about your friend and no material difference is made. I would still contend that your friend is a shitty friend and a shitty person, but again, "if a tree falls in the forest..."

But that also does bring up another aspect of this. The person who voted blue (or in the analogy the friend who secretly gave their insignificant support to your family's murderer) still themselves know what they did. So it matters to them. And while it may make zero difference to the outside world in that very moment or by that specific act, it still "matters" in the broad sense depending on their reasoning. If a person votes blue, or red for that matter, so long as they're voting for fascists, is it because they do feel that the benefit to themselves outweighs the genocidal harm that candidate has done and will do? Is it because they laughingly did it in a cynical fit knowing that their vote doesn't mean shit, though they actually despise the person they voted for and recognize they won't benefit from that vote? If it's the former, then that person is still someone who can't be trusted to do the right thing, even if no one is aware of it. If it's the latter, then sure, but I think their jokerification is approaching worrisome levels even if no one else knows. To put it one last way, if someone is secretly a racist, but never expresses it and only does things that positively effect the people they hate, then "no harm, no foul" but I still think that in the real world, a person who is racist will always tend to behave in ways that have negative effects in the world. And so too with secret Harris voter. No one might hear that one tree, but there is a near certainty other trees are going to fall when people are around to hear it.

Edit to add:

In short, I'm with @frauddogg@hexbear.net on this one.

I'm not going to pick arguments over votes in the presidential election

I am. I want to know exactly who decided that in their personal calculus, that they could accept the genocide of another sovereign group of people if it meant the security of their own rights-- because when it's my turn on the sacrificial altar, it'll be those same coons, crackers, and assorted miscellaneous misleaders holding the knives.

I want to know who I can't trust turning my back to.

Why do you care about how they vote? It literally doesn't matter.

I agree that voting doesn't matter in terms of making a material difference in the social hierarchy because the US is not a democracy. However, who a person votes for (or whether they vote) is an indication of their values, which are in turn an indication of their future behavior, and anyone who votes for the regime that is currently conducting a fucking genocide demonstrates either their ignorance (which it seems OP's friend cannot claim as a so-called socialist) or a fundamental lack of solidarity with those who are being dehumanized, tortured, and murdered, the victims of that genocide. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of solidarity with all oppressed peoples of the world. Just because voting doesn't matter with respect to who wins the election, it sure as hell matters on an interpersonal level.

Find it pretty funny how electoralist brainworms have infected even socialist Americans to the point that they'd think convincing someone not to vote is a useful course of action.

It has next to nothing to do with electoralism as it is only tangentially related to the election itself. Again, it is about a person's position relative to class struggle. If a member of the ruling class were murdering your family and your friend decided to throw in their support to that murderer with the rationalization that that murderer might benefit your friend more than some other murderer, it doesn't matter how inconsequential their support is - it still tells you a great deal about your friend's priorities and interests which don't actually include your dying family or other oppressed people, only themselves.

Or go vote to better maintain a friendship. Or lie about it. Again it simply doesn't matter.

Everything else aside, this is still terrible advice. Lie to your friend about your principles regarding genocide to "better maintain a friendship"? Gross.

Again it simply doesn't matter.

Socialism is not nihilism.

Yes. This is the thing here. Trump's handling of covid was inexcusable and he absolutely has many people's blood (speckled with bits of their lungs and other organs) on his hands, but it was a relatively unexpected and unknown thing, albeit resulting in an utterly botched response. Still, some response was at least attempted during the Trump years, even if he doesn't deserve credit for the positive aspects of that attempt. The Biden admin however, they knew full well what it was, how it killed, and how it could be prevented, and even made it into office in part because of their promise that they would better handle it. Instead they pretended it didn't exist anymore, actively dismantling the attempt at a response, and now we don't know how many people died because of that, which was largely the point of their sweeping everything under the rug (that and making sure the proles get back to work, know their place, and make line go up).

It's not that Trump doesn't have gallons of lung-blood on his hands, he surely does, it's that there's no reason to think that Biden doesn't have even more, and a strong argument to be made that Biden is even more responsible for the blood that drips from his own ghoulish claws.

Weird, that's a big part of the reasoning I have for wanting the Democrats to lose. (It shouldn't need saying, but just in case: I don't want either of the two fascist parties to "win," and it probably wouldn't be wise to say what I do want to happen to both the candidates , but since one of them unfortunately will be winning the election...) I think a Trump win will make it harder for these people to pretend they care, because they actually have to, you know, pretend. Which is the hard part. They can't just go back to brunch again (as they did when Biden won), simply ignoring everything the profess to care about (like children in cages) and saying that all is right in the country, or at least on the right path, since one of their good guys is in office. Their brains are in dire need of breaking imo, and that won't happen if Trump loses.

Nowhere near as bad as your mom as far as the level of obsession, but as I see it, my dad fell much further from having relatively good politics (for a lib boomer) to a flat, simplistic "Trump bad" position without much concern beyond it and with a seeming sudden lack of curiosity (let alone understanding) about world events and geopolitics that he used to follow.

When I was a kid in the 90's he would tell me about US imperialism (though I don't think he used that word with me) in South America, how terrible it was, and how much the US lied about all of it. He fucking hated Reagan and Bush 1 (for all the right reasons) and strongly opposed both Iraq wars, attending protests against them, even the second one when most of America was deep in the throes of Islamophobic 9/11 derangement. He got really into learning about the life of Che Guevara for a while, reading several biographies on him, though to my disappointment now, I don't think he ever actually understood the politics, just recognized Che as someone who was genuinely fighting for the oppressed people of the world and respected him for that. I hate to say it, but I'm sure there was also just some glamorization of the revolutionary aesthetic in there too, which is fine so long as you also have an understanding from a materialist perspective and engage with the theory, which is where I suspect he fell short.

He's old enough now that I think actual age-related cognitive decline is playing at least some role in this, but the much bigger factor is that since he has no energy, he just lays around watching CNN and MSNBC all the time, and it is really sad to see. He thinks he's not being affected by the propaganda and still considers himself "on the left" because he also watches and likes the far left radical Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! (I know). I was shocked back in 2022 how easily and fully he bought into the narrative for how terrible it was that the big evil Russia invaded poor, innocent little Ukraine just out of the blue. I'm not surprised by it anymore, but now with election season, his politics are centered entirely around Trump. And it's an odd, almost gossipy kind of talk about Trump's latest shenanigans that I know is inspired by CNN talking points. It's not odd in itself, it's actually very typical, it's just odd for him, as he was never like that. He often now refers to the news anchors by first name as if he knows them sometimes, which is so uncharacteristic of the way he used to be that I couldn't have imagined it 15 years ago, or even 5. A few weeks back he was telling me about how he is now boycotting the brand of wine he used to enjoy because the owner of the company is a Trump supporter and how he just couldn't in good conscience keep giving business to a Trumper. I think he was hoping this would impress me. I asked him if he really thought that any of the other multi-millionaire or even billionaire winery owners were any better, and started to ask if he was fine buying from Biden supporters, seeing as Biden was (is) the one currently committing genocide. But I didn't say that because we were getting along well and I didn't feel like it would do any good at this point.

But yeah, it has been sad to see not just someone I care about but someone who was even formative for me on my own path to leftism become so hooked in to the same kind of thing he used to be critical of, and with so little awareness of it.

Well of course. This was all laid out clearly and accurately in the factual documentary film Enemy at the Gates. Instead of using their rifles and machine guns to fight the Nazis who they were at war with, the Soviets used almost all their weaponry for the purpose of shooting their own retreating soldiers. These soldiers mostly didn't get weapons when advancing an attack, but had to share one rifle for every 10 soldiers who could only use that rifle after at least 3 of the comrades who had it first had been killed. Also, communism means that you're supposed to share everything, but they didn't realize that could never work because some guys will always be jealous when their love interest likes someone else instead.

Maybe. But we also have plenty of nostalgia posts here about "remember that struggle session?" Literally one just yesterday about the BRICS girls struggle. Again. There's even that hexbear lore iceberg meme image that floats around sometimes. All it takes is skimming a single nostalgia thread to get that level of hexbear specific knowledge.

Their "the newsmega was the worst" part is what makes me think they probably were here for just a little while, though. Probably someone who couldn't let go of their imperialist brainworms and were flabbergasted at how we weren't all backing the poor smol bean wholesome Ukrainians and got their ass handed to them by people who actually have some understanding of geopolitics and history. The "treating it like football" is bizarre because the situation was the exact opposite, with the newsmega regulars often pointing out that that is exactly how the blue-and-yellow flag emoji people treat it, and ridiculing that kind of simplistic non-analysis. It's the typical accusation that's actually a confession.

My guess is that it was some lib who fancied themselves a leftie, who hung out here once or twice before the Ukraine conflict kicked off (when the newsmega was created, basically), said something cringe about it after it did and got schooled as a result. Rather than learn, they ragequit, unable to fathom how people who clearly knew much more than they did didn't support the typical US State Dept. narratives, which they still hold dear to their heart. Now they have constructed some bullshit scenario about it for the .world hexbear-hatred thread that also made them feel better about themselves.

It's been said around here before (just a little while ago in one of the similar threads. edit: here) that the democrats aren't seeking moderate or republican voters, they are seeking republican donors. Their strategy suddenly makes much more sense when seen through that lens. Even setting that aside though, they would absolutely prefer to lose to Republicans than concede to the left. It's basically the same idea as class solidarity in that they will always be on the side of those who actually share their interests, even if they are in competition with them, rather than side with those who oppose their interests, even when doing so could give them a competitive advantage over their supposed adversaries in an election.