Okay, so you don’t think there is anyone that would have been motivated to vote for Harris if she had adopted positions like universal healthcare that isn’t a ‘performative’ left-winger that would never be happy with her?
I think that choosing to let an open, clearly identified fascist win because one of the most progressive platforms in the past 40 years isn’t progressive enough is either a sign of being purely performative in your leftism, wherein what matters is a pseudoreligious devotion to marking up virtue points for the afterlife (rather than actually forestalling harm or establishing conditions for change in the real world), or a sign of being an utter moron.
Those who chose not to vote Harris can pick which they identify as, I won’t dispute whichever of the two labels they choose.
Okay, but it seemed like the point of the comment I initially replied to was that it was contradictory to assume that Harris could have had a better shot at winning by moving to the left, and that the number of people that decidedly don’t vote based on Harris not being progressive enough is insignificant. Do you really think that’s true?
The point of the comment was that it was contradictory to say that Harris lost because she didn’t move left, while simultaneously denying that certain groups of leftists choosing to let the fascist win are at fault for, well, choosing to let the fascist win.
Either the aforementioned leftists aren’t enough to matter, and moving left wouldn’t have saved us; or the aforementioned leftists are enough to matter, and thus are directly responsible, by their inaction, for letting fascism win.
It seems pretty wild to me to assume that there is a trivial number of people that would be motivated to vote based on something like universal healthcare, that isn’t a pseudo religious devotee of performative leftism.
It seems pretty wild to me to assume that there is a trivial number of people that would be motivated to vote based on something like universal healthcare, that isn’t a pseudo religious devotee of performative leftism.
Like I said, they absolutely could be morons instead.
If someone’s reaction to “The non-fascist candidate isn’t offering universal healthcare” is “Let the fascist candidate who wants to rollback all public healthcare initiatives win”, they’re either a performative leftist or a moron.
Okay, so you don’t think there is anyone that would have been motivated to vote for Harris if she had adopted positions like universal healthcare that isn’t a ‘performative’ left-winger that would never be happy with her?
I think that choosing to let an open, clearly identified fascist win because one of the most progressive platforms in the past 40 years isn’t progressive enough is either a sign of being purely performative in your leftism, wherein what matters is a pseudoreligious devotion to marking up virtue points for the afterlife (rather than actually forestalling harm or establishing conditions for change in the real world), or a sign of being an utter moron.
Those who chose not to vote Harris can pick which they identify as, I won’t dispute whichever of the two labels they choose.
Okay, but it seemed like the point of the comment I initially replied to was that it was contradictory to assume that Harris could have had a better shot at winning by moving to the left, and that the number of people that decidedly don’t vote based on Harris not being progressive enough is insignificant. Do you really think that’s true?
The point of the comment was that it was contradictory to say that Harris lost because she didn’t move left, while simultaneously denying that certain groups of leftists choosing to let the fascist win are at fault for, well, choosing to let the fascist win.
Either the aforementioned leftists aren’t enough to matter, and moving left wouldn’t have saved us; or the aforementioned leftists are enough to matter, and thus are directly responsible, by their inaction, for letting fascism win.
It seems pretty wild to me to assume that there is a trivial number of people that would be motivated to vote based on something like universal healthcare, that isn’t a pseudo religious devotee of performative leftism.
Like I said, they absolutely could be morons instead.
If someone’s reaction to “The non-fascist candidate isn’t offering universal healthcare” is “Let the fascist candidate who wants to rollback all public healthcare initiatives win”, they’re either a performative leftist or a moron.