169
"Chat, be normal." πŸ—£ (thelemmy.club)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/memes@hexbear.net
86 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 3 months ago (11 children)

Voting is 100% harm reduction and a defense against encroaching fascism.

Just friendly reminder this is a thread about a Nazi tattoo haver who was bodyguard at the fucking Abu-Ghraib and doesn't even pretend to be repentant about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    There is no evil too great for Democrats to claim is the 'lesser evil'. There is no bottom, there is no floor. The dead-end Liberal "harm reduction" shit always results in this race to the bottom of depravity, it's a fundamentally bad political analysis that keeps being endlessly entertained by the western left.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    If you are anti-electoralist, how is that argument coherent? Can you explain what the harm is in voting for the lesser evil (even if they're still bad) if you're not treating it as your only level of political involvement?

    Senators can literally just serve on committees and vote for bills. Are you worried he will not vote the way he says he will? Or is this about not electing someone with a bad past/values? Or is the concern he is not actually on the left (broadly, he's obviously not a socialist)?

    Because if you're an anti-electoralist:

    • worrying about him having legislative power is a bit odd, you don't believe in the electoral process.

    • worrying about his past & values is either just about not liking the guy (fine, I don't either I think he's sus) or a concern about the way he'd vote - which again, doesn't make sense

    • worrying about himnnot actually being on the left (fetterman 2.0) is competely valid, but... again... this is a concern about how he'd vote and the issues he'd support.

    I do not like Platner. I think he's a very sketchy dude. If I were in Maine, voting for him would feel bad. What I am concerned about is the left purity testing itself so hard it purity tests shitty liberal senators from small states who say they want to make some small stand against fascist policies, war, and the capitalist class. I think it is counterproductove and a waste of time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (6 children)

    Don't get me wrong, that is despicable. But I stand by what I said: I would rather someone with an extremely fucked up past be in that office if they will enact progressive legislation that will reduce harm in the present/future.

    I am very skeptical given his past. But 1) can he do significantly more harm as senator than Collins? I doubt it. 2) are his stated policy goals of taxes on the wealthy, single payer health care, opposing war in Iran, abolishing ICE, etc. good? Yes. It is good to have someone in that office who will vote for those things (IF he actually will). Those things would be good for marginalized groups and bad for the fascists. That is all I care about as far as electoralism goes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    The worst case scenario is he’s exactly as bad as his opponents openly claim they will be

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    The opposition from the left is a moral one based on the sketchy shit about him. He's running for senate. He can serve on committees and write bills. That's the extent of it. What are folks worried he'd actually do?

    Opposition from the right is that he'll vote for the progressive things he says he will.

    Left is concerned about who he is (purity testing), the right is concerned about what he'd do (because it'd be bad for them).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    But comrade, don't you care at all about moral integrity? fedposting

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Not with regard to electoralism. Electoralism is a game with a very particular purpose for leftists, in my view, and holding to ideological purity/morals will make us lose.

    When it comes to actually organizing, someone like Platner would obviously not be a good idea to include. Not without some serious vetting. He could have genuinely changed, but I wouldn't take that risk in an organization.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    bodyguard at the fucking Abu-Ghraib

    No he wasn't, his unit did a one-time patrol in the vicinity of the prison when it was attacked in 2005 (still a horrendous act defending that death camp) but he wasn't stationed there, nor was he one of the torturers; it was simply notable because it was his first combat experience.

    He was a bodyguard who worked for a successor subsidiary of Blackwater for an ambassador in the embassy in Kabul, and that six-month experience supposedly radicalized him

    doesn't even pretend to be repentant about it.

    Except he routinely does pretend to be repentant about it, this right here is the disconnect, you ultras wants us to join the great anti-Platner crusade, as if he's the greatest threat to the left in this country, but you can't even get basic facts about this asshole correct, and the rest of us are just supposed to pretend like you all don't have egg on your face.

    Like, why do I have more accurate information about this cracker when you're the ones so up in arms? Sorry, but your unseriousness is showing

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •