Neo-proudhonian mutualist with a dash of agorist praxis via non-violent counter-economic (r)evolution.

Changing the system by voting is not possible. The best we can do is pick the one closest aligned with our values, that will allow us to effectively organise (vs Trump turning the military on protestors/leftists), buy the Palestinians some time (vs literal cheering for ethnic clensing).

Faulting the people against the genocide for the scenario being our reality, and not the people who wouldn’t break with the idea that the genocide was something to support? You’re not an anarchist, you’re a bootlicker.

They're statists and authoritarians—I don’t expect them to listen to reason, and I can’t change that. My criticism is directed at those who actively pushed for a worsening of the genocide by enabling that screwball to take power, rather than supporting actual anti-genocide leftists who understand that, flawed as it is, liberalism is still preferable to outright fascism. You should know better. Instead, you keep shifting between shill gambit, baseless accusations and bad-faith comparisons.

Chomsky also acknowledged pragmatic short-term engagement with existing structures (e.g., voting for the lesser evil) while aiming for long-term abolition of oppressive institutions, FYI.

In the 2016 and 2020 U.S. elections, he argued that it was morally imperative to vote for the Democratic candidate because the alternative would be worse for marginalized communities, climate policy, and global stability.

https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting

Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.

Actually it's the most effective way.

I read a great biography of William Lloyd Garrison (the American abolitionist) a couple of years ago and it made it clear how he, and other radicals, dramatically changed the course of history through their constant focus and activism on how slavery was wrong. Their radicalism shifted the middle. That's what "extreme" views do, they make it easier for people in the middle to move towards embracing justice.

We (most of us) don't remember all the people who said "Yeah, slavery is wrong but we have to be practical," or "I would like to end slavery but we have to compensate owners," or "But what will we do with all the black people?" These were real positions within the anti-slavery movement. When Garrison began his career, they were the dominant positions and he spent much of his career being vilified by gradualists who thought he was too extreme.

They wanted to end slavery "someday." And they didn't want those who claimed to own other humans to be too uncomfortable. We don't remember gradualists today. We remember the men and women with the courage and ethical wisdom to look at slavery and say "This is wrong. It needs to stop." And their "extremism" is part of why it did stop, because the moral pressure they exerted made the South conclude it was inevitable that slavery would end unless they broke free of the Union.

I think we have to be careful in drawing parallels between veganism and past social justice movements, but there is a valuable lesson for us here. We can serve animals by not being in the middle because by being extreme, we can change what the middle even is. Today it is becoming mainstream to critique things like gestation crates or foie gras. We did that. We changed the middle. (This "we," obviously, is broad).

&

• Baby-steps are shown to undermine support for more effective measures

Most western cultures think that they've experienced moral progress over time. These aren't mere intuitions, however, as these observations often admit of some deep analysis. For example, some argue that our modern liberal intuitions (e.g. everyone is born free, etc.) are grounded in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes was responding to earlier moral philosophy and was responded to himself in turn. Kant distilled these intuitions into a rigorous metaphysics of moral philosophy, which was still used quite actively well into the 70s.

Now, philosophers don't think that 'views have changed, therefore there is no truth.' Instead, they realize that good analysis of these earlier arguments reveals that they're close to right but skate around some important moral issues that can be unpacked with analysis. There's truth that can be found. It appears to all the relevant experts that moral thought is developing in a way that's strongly analogous to mathematical or natural scientific thought.

These are some of the reasons that subjectivism and relativism are extremely unpopular among experts.

Although we can observe and say that although there are people who have different moral systems than us, such as psychopaths and Spartans; we can actually scientifically evaluate the merits of the competing moral systems and their objective performance in the long run and historically. Historically, evolution has shown that altruistic humans are indeed "fitter" and objectively, game theory has shown that cooperative strategies are objectively better than selfish strategies in the long run.

You don't need examples or have to worry about cherry-picking. They're not ours to use. You can't humanely take a life of something that doesn't want to die.

Consider that neither the wish to be free from suffering nor the wish to continue existing is unique to our species; these interests are shared by all sentient animals, and indeed can be seen as fundamental biological drives. And if my interest in not being harmed or killed makes it wrong to harm or kill me when harming or killing me can be avoided, then an animal’s interest in not being harmed or killed makes it likewise wrong for us to harm or kill animals when doing so can be avoided.

Yeah Trump and co have been speaking about it for months that's what we were saying.

Maybe when someone tells you who they are, listen.

Auth-Left -> Co-opted by the Right

Lib-Right -> Co-opted by the authoritarians

Auth-Right -> Proud fascists

Lib-Left -> There's like 10 of us

Less Palestinians are dying, less bombs are being dropped, people are returning to Northern Gaza

What planet are you on, have you read the OP?

The well being of the Palestinians hinged on the unhingedness of bad orange man.

Now tell me - keeping that state of mind and empathy - what fucking difference does it make that Kamala “vocally supported an end to the war”?

Because it means we haven't been completely been written off yet, public pressure could improve things. So you'd want the person who controls your fate to at least pretend to have empathy, not the maniac who used 'Palestinian' as a slur.

Can you tell me right now - concretely and materialistically, no vague bullshit - how things were/would be better for Palestinians under the Dems? I’ve asked this question so many times and have never gotten an answer that wasn’t just vague abstract BS like “but Trump said”.

There was still a Palestine. Now there won't be. It's really not that complex. There is a clear difference.

Well, I knew this. A pragmatic anarchist who advocates for the better option. I’m anti-fascist before I’m an anti-statist. Give me liberalism any day of the week vs what’s coming. (Thx again eejit)

Jesus fuck you really think it was MSM libs that opposed you here.

Anarchist, know more than you, and it was completely evident this would happen which is objectively worse. Stop the cope.