(this is a sarcastic post meant to highlight the absurdity of some of the “greater good” rhetoric we’ve been hearing, especially around leaving vulnerable populations like disabled people behind in case of revolution, basically accelerationism)
(this is a sarcastic post meant to highlight the absurdity of some of the “greater good” rhetoric we’ve been hearing, especially around leaving vulnerable populations like disabled people behind in case of revolution, basically accelerationism)
it feels hypocritical to post about infighting while inciting arguments and heated discussion, and not offer any solutions.
The solution is to stop letting perfect be the enemy of good.
You have a strange definition of perfection.
And and even stranger definition of “the good” tbh.
And what would that be?
Seems like you’re characterizing the dems as “good”. Aren’t they the “lesser evil”?
I don’t consider Democrats as leftist, and I thought the subject was leftist infighting
I’ve misunderstood you then. Can you explain who is perfect and who is good in your analogy?
semantics - and thus we fight. point proven. Orange Hitler didn’t win against left. left couldn’t agree if they save democracy or defend democracy so they did neither
You say semantics, but I find that liberals genuinely can’t seem to decide if their political leaders are “super good people, actually”, or “admittedly terrible war criminals, but not as bad as the other guy”.
because it doesn’t matter. in a two-party system, there are only worse and better to choose from. the flavor can be discussed if better is chosen.
i’m not a fan of democrats either. but who cares? we don’t need to discuss if americans voted good or bad, because they voted worst.
who cares if the turd tastes like vanilla ice cream or if the vanilla ice cream tastes like shit when enough people agreed on a plain pile of shit.
thanks OP!