Asklemmy

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (8 children)

It is what pragmatists believe. Some pragmatists are liberals, other pragmatists have other ideals. The coincidence of pragmatic results is not indicative of a coincidence of pre-pragmatic ideals. Your framework is too simplistic to be interesting or useful.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[+] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -7 points 2 years ago (7 children)

Lol I'm sure pragmatcists(?) have a cohesive framework they all draw from, and I'm sure it is definitely different from the current Neo-liberal zeitgeist.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago* (6 children)

Some people believe that stringent adherence to idealism is paramount, despite the material suffering of others implementation of that ideal causes. Other people have empathy, and are willing to analyze the actual consequences of political action independent of idealism, prioritizing actions which do tangible good over performative platitudes. Pragmatists fall in to the second camp, you certainly appear to fall into the first. The first are boring and impotent everywhere but their own minds.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[+] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -6 points 2 years ago (5 children)

If you would rather support the illusion of democracy despite the material suffering it is currently causing, you just value the status-quo over all other concerns. People who value the status-quo over all other considerations have innately conservative and reactionary outlooks. Those people could also be described as polite fascists, i.e. liberals.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago* (4 children)

And if you would rather support the dissolution of the democratic process despite the material suffering it will certainly cause, you just value your ideals over all other concerns. People who value ideals over all other considerations have innately Ineffective outlooks. They are useful tools that allow fascists to accumulate power.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

You said it yourself, you want the illusion of democracy, you don't actually care that we do not live in a democracy. The Liberal must maintain the illusions or the cognitive dissonance makes them go mask off. Keep Calm and Carry on, and all that.

And that is why events like this happen. https://truthout.org/articles/schumer-slammed-for-speaking-at-pro-israel-rally-along-antisemite-john-hagee/

You aren't upset that Schumer and Jeffries are supporting genocide, you are upset that they aren't hiding it better, they aren't maintaining the illusion. Well your comfort is leading to fascism while you criticize anyone who dares point it out.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

Sure, but your alternative is blatant support of genocide. It's well and fine to say who ought to be in charge, but mathematically it's one of two people. I agree that the options suck, but I will use the powers that I have in their proper places. Vote for the lesser evil, and advocate against evil entirely elsewhere. You act like liberal is worse than fascist.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

In a way it is. If someone is an out and out fascist, it's easy to point at them and get people to stop supporting them, i.e. Trump. If someone is a polite fascist, i.e. liberal, then you will have thousands of people hand-wringing about lesser evils, and strategic voting, being a pragmatist, etc etc, meanwhile kids are still in cages. Guantanamo is still open, and torturing people. Unlimited funding for additional death and destruction around the world occurs, and all the polite liberal does is shrugs their shoulders. Because that stuff isn't happening to them.

The liberal is comfortable enough to attempt to stop that shit from happening to anyone, but they'd rather defend the status quo and criticize those who speak out.

Stop voting for genocide, it's literally the least you can do and it cost you nothing.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago

Agree to disagree. I'm not content to let the bodies pile up to revolution levels, those lives are more than just metrics to spur on dissidence. People are still voting for Trump, obviously that strategy doesn't even work even if it weren't ghoulish. The logistics of keeping the evil hush-hush results in fewer bodies than out and out ethnic cleaning. I'm on the side of fewer bodies.