808
Liberal Death Cult (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 1 week ago

Guys guys, lets work for the slow death instead of the fast death

i mean... yes?

[-] Chookitypok@piefed.social 34 points 1 week ago

What about working for the no death ?

The fbi will murder you.

[-] Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

Well that's called necromancy and is generally frowned upon (ofc i get what you mean, avoiding death is the goal)

Not always! If you add the rocket equation it's called cosmism.

[-] apotheotic@beehaw.org 8 points 1 week ago

Interesting argument, planet destroying weapon of mass destruction

[-] Chookitypok@piefed.social 4 points 1 week ago

What can I say, my Gary is called anarchism 😛

we all are working for it but clearly aren't there yet, to draw a parallel, we don't have a cure for cancer YET but you can bet your ass i'm gonna do chemo if i end up with it

[-] FundMECFSResearch 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

But how is liberalism [the slow death cult] going to get us there. Liberalism has been the dominant system for the past 70 years. And I’d say we’re worse off economically then we were in the 60s.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 8 points 1 week ago

Liberalism is what USA is founded on

[-] FundMECFSResearch 5 points 1 week ago

We could squabble about specifics for a long time. But using a broad definition. Yes, you are absolutely 100% correct. I was thinking with a narrow 20th century defintion.

Liberalism has been the dominant system for the past 70 years

8/14 presidents were republican. that's the majority, for those of you that can't do math

And I’d say we’re worse off economically then we were in the 60s.

doesnt take much for a billionaire-backed asshole to undo decades of progress cough trump

[-] FundMECFSResearch 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Republicans have been broadly economically liberal until Trump’s second term.

[-] Chookitypok@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago

To reuse the analogy, I'm not saying that everyone becoming immortal will happen in a finger snap, I'm saying that "just dying from cancer Vs. chemo for a few wealthy" is a bullshit choice. The first wee basic step we should strive for is to make the treatment available to all those suffering from cancer.

[-] isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The wee basic step we should strive for is to make the treatment available to all those suffering from cancer.

right. so the slow death. the one you were previously criticizing.

In politics, the first wee basic step we should strive for is not a complete revolution without the support of the masses, but to put in power someone who, if not better, doesn't ruin more the already tragic and delicate system we have, to give us time to organize better.

And uhh yeah we kinda failed at that

without the support of the masses

Good thing clinton and harris had all that support of the masses, love how they managed to get all that support from the masses. Im glad me not voting for them didn't matter, because 'the masses' supported them so much!

[-] Chookitypok@piefed.social 9 points 1 week ago

Said it already, the slow death is accepting that the treatment should go to those who can afford it. That's the unacceptable compromise for leftists...

Offer arrives from global council of oligarchs tomorrow:

Kill all landlords, landback by the end of the month, cops are allowed only two pieces of kit¹, but we keep gig apps cops and for-profit healthcare for at least another decade. No struggle no tear gas no death.

I'd take that deal.

¹pants bullets radio and a car each count for one.

the slow death is accepting that the treatment should go to those who can afford it.

and how does that relate to politics, especially seeing as you are actively sabotaging the party that wants medicare/medicaid

[-] Corn@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

The party doesn't want medicare4all, hence why they didnt pass it when they had the power to, or use some of the executive's powers to get as much non-means tested heathcare to the people as possible.

[-] isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

since you all seem to get your one-liner responses from the same text file, i'm gonna follow your example and repost another comment from this post

Democrats haven't had 60 senators since 1979. They had 58 in 2010 for exactly 72 days and tried to pass public option healthcare but only 1 independent voted with them so they settled for the lesser medicaid expansion that the current Republicans are gutting in the budget. For the record, that medicaid expansion passed with supermajority as every singe Republican voted nay.

[-] Corn@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 days ago

You only need a simple majority to remove the filibuster. We elected them to use their power, not to let their hands be tied by rules that never seem to stop them or the republicans from doing bad things.

what's that to do with medicare?

[-] Corn@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago

Dems could have simply gotten rid of the filibuster and passed free healthcare with 50 votes, and shown an entire generation of voters that politics is a viable means of achieving positive social change. But they genuinely do not want this because the donor class does not want this, so they let the rules stop them.

For the dems, a generation of energized, politically active 20-30 year olds is a problem to overcome.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

No. If there is any hope of actual survival, that comes before all else. Accepting the slow death of "voting blue no matter who" means that there is no possibility of averting fascism whatsoever. It is an inevitability that if the only side representing "the left" is associating itself with a declining status quo while refusing to do any of the things necessary to keep that status quo functional, them people will abandon it, and if the only ones offering an alternative are the far-right, then they are the ones who will win. There is no hope of survival whatsoever.

There are, however, two possibilities that do offer some slim hope of surviving. One is that the Democratic party can be pressured into doing the basic, minimal tasks of governance necessary to avert fascism - tasks that they will never simply choose to do of their own volition. The second is that the left can establish a credible alternative outside of the organization of the Democratic party, whether electorally or otherwise. Both of those objectives are furthered by voting third party when the Democrats are offering someone insultingly unacceptable, while "voting blue no matter who" flies directly contrary to both goals.

You're thinking of it as doing chemo when there's no cure. That's not what this is. This is deciding to just take a nice little nap in the comfy snow because your legs are so tired and you'll totally get up again in just a few minutes, rather than choosing to get up and push forward through the darkness in the hope, however slim, of finding an actual shelter.

This "buying time to organize" line is constantly thrown around, I don't buy it as sincere at all, for starters. But regardless, time is not on our side, buying time only means allowing conditions to deteriorate further, it's just procrastinating and kicking the can down the line. And how do you effectively organize an alternative to the status quo and present yourself as separate from it while simultaneously trying to rally around it and supporting it unconditionally? It's nonsense.

[-] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 4 points 6 days ago

This “buying time to organize” line is constantly thrown around, I don’t buy it as sincere at all, for starters.

I've heard that line for close to 30 years. So, when is that organizing supposed to start? When things get so uncomfortable that we have no choice? Not sure how that's materially different than the accelerationist position, except that it means fighting the proverbial 800lb. silverback gorilla instead of an adolescent.

Okay but have ypu considered that suggesting i shouldn't want to die is ageist and attacking my culture? Whos the real imperialist, huh, boomer?

this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2025
808 points (100.0% liked)

Flippanarchy

1237 readers
520 users here now

Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.

Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.

This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.

Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Rules


  1. If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text

  2. If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.

  3. Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.

  4. Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.

  5. No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.

  6. This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.

  7. No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.


Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS