- No Discrimination, this includes usage of slurs or other language intended to promote bigotry
- No defending oppressive systems or organizations
- No uncivil or rude comments to other users
- Discussion, not debate. This community is exclusively for genuine logical debate, any comments using whataboutism or similar will be removed.
- No genocide denial or support for genocidal entities. Anyone that supports the mass murder of civilians will be banned.
These guidelines are meant to allow open discussion and ensure leftists and post-leftists can have a voice. If you are here to learn, then welcome! Just remember that if you're not a part of the left (Liberals don't count) then you are a visitor, please do not speak over our members.
Alt text: a screenshot of a microblog post with the text "you walking down an alleyway with a gram of weed in your pocket, who would you rather catch you?" Below are two pictures side by side. One of Kamala Harris and the other of Batman.
Honestly don't think either one would give 2 shits about a gram of weed.
Also batman's a billionaire. That's worse than being a cop.
Edit: LOL are you just banning anyone that finds your meme shitty? Fragile.
I've banned people for violating multiple of our community guidelines, not for disliking or criticizing my post.
Kamala*
And depends on which Batman. There have been iterations that absolutely would’ve assaulted/hogtied people for weed.
I wonder how long ago I spelled Kamala wrong to get my autocorrect thinking it's correct with an "e" lol. Thanks
All good. And pro tip: unlike Reddit and other sites, you can edit title of your post
Oh, nooo, a democratic politician is not gonna bring on a literal liberalsocialist utopia?! That's basically just like letting a literal faschist win! No difference at aaall!
Ow!
Why am I-ow!
Please, Mr. Mod, sto-ow!
Stop beating me with the anarcho-cop dild-ow!
Why am I being ban-ow?
is driven away in anarcho-mod-ist partolling vehicle
Notice yours and the other comments critical of me still up? I'm not banning anyone or even removing comments for being critical of me or this post.
I'm removing comments supportive of the US so-called justice system or being uncivil and rude in a way not condusive to nuanced political discussion.
I've temp-banned three accounts for calling me a Russian bot. That action my be too harsh for a first offence, and I'm open to discussion about that. However, that type of rhetoric has absolutely no place here.
Discussion about the moderation of this community is absolutely allowed, and as long as it doesn't degrade to throwing insults, it will all remain up.
I've really thought about whether I even want to engage with this. Mostly because I see your comment as dishonest, misinformed or maybe just tone deaf; to voice the kindest interpretation I can muster, from what I have seen.
Here's the deal: The US is currently at a point where its already fragile and lackluster democracy could become completely meaningless within a matter of months.
There's a time to push for more. But not now. You banned people and deleted their comment for "electioneering"; for advocating for the best path forward currently available. You may not like the system or the dems, but there just isn't any momentum for anything else. That has to be built up first.
If you want to bitch and moan, feel free to do so after the immediate threat has been dealt with. Anything else is practically accelerationism and will lead to a terrible outcome and disenfranchise who knows how many people.
Bargain with what you have and don't overextend.
EDIT: I'll not engage with anything that doesn't also offer a practical, actionable solution. Striving for the best is great, but look around you. Abolishing the police is not on the table, and not voting because of a single issue is shooting at ones own foot.
EDIT #2: Words.
What you're proposing is a failed strategy. Remember Hillary? People said exactly what you said, and she lost.
Trying to pretend the justice system is actually just, that's not going to gain her any votes. You could tackle the issue head on, and that might get her some votes. And voters are remarkably smart in many ways. Dishonesty alienates many of them. They don't expect that things are perfect now, but they do have hopes for the future, and they're on the lookout for obfuscation and denial.
Finally, the strategy you're proposing is something that MLK specifically warned against in Letter from Birmingham Jail.
a practical, actionable solution
I'm starting to believe that there is a contingent on Lemmy who wants this solution to be violent revolution, but they don't want to say that out loud. They don't want you to vote Kamala, they don't want you to vote Trump, they don't want you to vote third-party--they want you to make some molotovs and buy a Guy Fawkes mask.
But maybe I'm just reading into things.
Eh, I have the same hunch. They wanna be violent and be heroes, but vigilantes are mostly fantasy. In the meantime, they pat themselves on the back for playing pretend
Modern anarchist praxis largely involves building up parallel systems of power with horizontal (rather than hierarchical) structures to counter the existing capitalist systems from within. The revolution that we want to see is not a bloody one fought with guns in the streets, but a cultural one fought by communities of people meeting their own needs without the interference of the state. This is usually called "mutual aid" and is intended to meet the needs of the people who have been failed by capitalist society while also building solidarity and a community informed about the root causes of their problems - namely capitalism and hierarchical power structures.
Anyone pushing for violent revolution is more likely a vanguardist than an anarchist, and anarchists have a very long history of being absolutely fucked over by vanguardist parties throughout the history of anticapitalist struggle.
To suggest that the only alternative to voting is violent revolution is to deny the existence of well over a century of anarchic theory.
By all means, vote for the lesser evil. I won't stop you nor could I. But when we point out why the lesser evil chosen for us by our masters is still in fact evil, don't say that we haven't offered up a viable alternative. The alternative we propose has in fact been in progress by passionate people meeting the needs of thier communities to the largest extent possible for decades. It's just outside of the confines of what capitalism has pushed as the only method of affecting change, as it must be.
It's so weird how critizing the lesser evil ticks people off!
Be critical of all authority, especially when they still stand by genocidal maniacs 😮💨
Me: Kamala may be a democrat but they are still a conservative candidate
Lemmy: [ Sound of a kindergarten class after someone loudly farts ]
Batman.
I would just casually mention how his dead parents are dead and then steal his utility belt as he cries on the floor.
Also one of the tools in the belt has got to be an unlimited corporate credit card - just to flex on the guy I would lower the crime rate in Gotham by using the card to buy things for the homeless, pay for education & medical bills for everyone in Gotham, etc.
Batman does that already. Hes runs the largest charity on earth:
The Wayne Foundation is the holding company for the Thomas Wayne Foundation and the Martha Wayne Foundation; it is the largest transparently operated private foundation within the DC Universe. The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, the arts and humanities: to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology, and to fund scientific research and help altruistic people with research by providing facilities and training.
The foundation has its own building, called the Wayne Foundation Building, which includes a penthouse where Bruce Wayne lived for a period of time. It also has a secret elevator that leads to a matching Batcave in a secret sub-basement under the building.
Through the Wayne Foundation and the affiliated organizations underneath, Bruce Wayne addresses social-economic problems encouraging crime, assists victims of crimes, and maintains connections to the streets through the soup kitchens and social services groups; all of which augments his crime fighting efforts in a way that his Batman persona cannot. This arrangement also provides a large network of connections in the world of charities. He finds out about the newest trends, sciences and the arts.
Thomas Wayne Foundation
The Thomas Wayne Foundation is a foundation for medicine and medical help. This foundation gives annual awards for medical breakthroughs and lifelong commitment, similar to the Nobel Foundation. The Thomas Wayne Foundation is also responsible for funding the Thomas Wayne Memorial Clinic in Park Row, Gotham's infamous Crime Alley. The foundation funds and runs dozens of clinics in Gotham. Bruce Wayne's surrogate mother, Dr. Leslie Thompkins, runs the Memorial Clinic in Crime Alley and governed the other clinics until she left Gotham.
Martha Wayne Foundation
The Martha Wayne Foundation is a patron and supporter of arts, families, education, and tolerance. The foundation supports and helps to run a number of orphanages and free schools, and provides teachers for those who have learning difficulties. Artists can apply for grants from the foundation to help support them in furthering the arts. The foundation sponsors companies like Family Finders. Family Finders is an organization directed at finding lost people and uniting families. The Martha Wayne Foundation also sponsors and runs dozens of soup kitchens within the city.
Yes, I knew this reply was inevitable, but I was mostly making a joke.
Mostly, bcs sure various authors added (contemporary) bits and pieces about how Billionaireman helps too, but that also doesn't fit in with what Gotham is. Can't have both. Or just have him be middle class with still money for toys.
What Im saying for example is he could easily buy whole neighbourhoods & rent them for free, this is something with permanent effect that would start a movement. Adding schools, stores, one of his banks, etc would make the henchman market pretty tight. Actually there are a lot of comedic opportunities in that narrative.
Anyway, for my headcanon I kinda decided that all regular violent crime in Gotham is just the immediate doing of some masked and themed villain. So there arent any (constant) street muggings etc. So Batcostumeman doesn't 'patrol the streets' bcs there isn't such crime to patrol for.
There is an in canon reason Gotham is terrible: its cursed. It doesn't matter what anyone does, Gotham will always be Gotham.
Its lame as shit, but the writers clearly don't want to try to resolve their setting, so they hand waved it all away.
Batman literally cannot, in any sense, "fix" Gotham, with any effort or amount of money.
He's fucking bad at it, but that's the problem with comic universes with alien technology and super genuises running around, poverty should be eliminated but that just leaves all the mortal superheroes with nothing to do.
I actually quite like the Patterson Batman's take on the Wayne Family philanthropy. Yes, they gave billions to charity, but lost most of it to corruption when his parents were killed and it was in trust...
Or was that his father's real goal all along?
I guess there are just some problems that cartoonish wealth disparity can't solve, in DC or in RL.
.world libs mad at the cognitive dissonance they feel knowing the "lesser evil" chosen for them has ruined lives for minor drug offenses.
I'm from Oakland, she also gave people the opportunity to not face jail time with the Back on Track program, instead allowing for education.
Here's the thing, Back on Track had people accept a felony charge. If they complete the program (which gives them no jail time but resources) then the felony is expunged.
Her truancy laws put in place as Attorney General were clearly pointed at my community, yes. But it also was done because before my graduating class (the year before it was put in place) was below 50%. My class was brought up to 78%, and the year after was about 68%. The reason this law was even considered was because there were a significant portion of children working with gangs to sell drugs instead of getting their education.
Give her all the shit you want for her problems, I 100% agree. However it's only fair to also highlight the actual policy she put into place and the opportunity for change that she created. I do not think it was the best way of moving forward, as it encourages people to be arrested and it encourages them to take the felony charge for something undeserving. At the same time, it's clearly better than just allowing children to participate in gang life and giving people only 1 option, imprisonment. No one ever seems to want to talk about that, though.
She fought against the Death Penalty when everyone was pushing for it for a cop killer. Not only did she save his life, she did so against Diane Feinnstein who then said she would not have supported Kamala had she known this.
She has been one of the few people who is willing to stick to her convictions when other party members told her to stay in line. She's also extremely anti-fracking, something that seems important considering the amount of sway oil companies have with L.E. and the military.
Finally, regarding your comment - I remember throughout 2016 and the following years the amount of assaults that Trump supporters felt completely safe committing hate crimes against black and asian communities. Is it really people choosing the lesser evil? The police can get reform, in fact we have a whole bill that AOC is pushing for right now regarding this.
Hate crime promoted by the president does not.
Thanks for the well written and thoughtful response. I appreciate your insights and personal experience.
I will say that this is not a space that's friendly to defending liberalism (even so called progressive liberals like Harris or AOC) or the use of state violence to solve any of society's problems.
With your comment in mind, and not out of any respect for electoral politics, I'll try to be more thoughtful with my criticisms in the future.
I appreciate the consideration! Like I said, there are plenty of valid criticisms to have against her, but a lot of what has been circulated I would say is either not entirely accurate or is critical of the wrong things. Especially these days, it's important to be fully aware of the intent and actual execution of policies.
With regards to this space - I completely understand. I am coming at it from the perspective of these are our options, and that leaves us with a serial sexual assaulter promoting hate speech with every word, and a candidate who has a (significant) number of shortcomings but also promotes the type of policy the U.S. has desperately been lacking. So to me, I'd much rather have the chance at imperfect progress with a candidate who at least holds a portion of the same beliefs I do (namely education & environment, mostly everything else I'm honestly not big on. And FWIW, I don't even think the Back on Track policy is good, it's just been talked about inaccurately which is the important part to me.) -- over the person who has actively called for the death of us, our friends and family, and the wider political system as a whole. As flawed as it currently is, I do think a dictator like him would be worse, with no opportunity for course correction.
Which is just another reason that it's important that we be honest in our criticisms, as we do want to hold the people we elect accountable, and the only way to do that is to be properly informed. Because it's absolutely true that this progress was lost in a gambit for the Dems to maintain voter sway. We lost Roe because of it, and education policy before that.
Anyway thank you for your time and response! Let it be known that I would have definitely much preferred a better candidate, but I also realize that we must work with what we've got. We can't let perfect be the enemy of progress because the last time we did that we lost 20+ years of progressive policy, more damage was done singlehandedly in 1 year by the appointment of Betsy DeVoss than the entire Republican effort of the last 25, and that is just education among the litany of other departments. To me, this election is more about paving the way for candidates that you and I would actually go out of our way to vote for, something I'm not as certain about given that under Trump's presidency queer politicians stepped down in local elections due to threats and fear of their lives, and numerous other every day Americans were attacked because of his rhetoric.
Best to you and I hope you have a lovely day
Good discourse on a somewhat touchy subject. Glad to see it here.
Locking this post because it's been plagued with liberal apologia from the start. This community does not exist to debate the merits of liberalism. Quite the opposite, it's intended to be a safe space from liberals constantly making us defend our views.
I'm afraid I've failed to achieve that in this thread, and have left up and engaged with too much liberal apologia already.
There has been some good discussion here even through all the muck. I apologize if I've cut off any good faith discussion.
To all the libs salty about having comments removed - you can debate the merits of your oppressors elsewhere. It won't be tolerated here.