Bipartisan spending bill.

Yes, unfortunately. Chuck Schumer handed the country over to fascists in exchange for nothing so his billionaire donors’ stock portfolios would go up. Schumer made the next small step and we are all closer to the death camps.

It had the support of Just Enough Democrats.

No, they only needed eight Democrats in the Senate. They got ten. It was overkill. They also got one house Democrat. This in excellent opportunity to educate people that Democrats serve the same billionaires as Republicans and the magnitude of the work that will need to be done to fix it. We need to overturn Citizens United and get money out of politics at the bare minimum.

The normalisation of words like ‘stupid’ does have real life consequences to people with learning disabilities.

Targeted meanness doesn’t normalize the specific words used so that is not a relevant concern. Again, no one but the targeted fascists were offended by the usage of weird. Usages of the word weird haven’t exploded against queer people. By being mean to intolerant people we are defending the people those intolerant people want to kill. By refusing to be mean we would be abandoning the targeted out-groups. It is trivial to differentiate between using a word as a rhetorical tool in specific situations and dismissing its use in general discourse. It is in fact insulting to marginalized groups to insinuate they would not understand this.

‘Weird’ is not an equivalent word because it doesn’t define a group of people in the same way. Walz’s usage of the word ‘weird’ wasn’t to insult transphobes.

It definitely insulted them. Trump and Vance did not know how to handle being called weird. Weird is most certainly equivalent to words like dumb and stupid in terms of meanness.

compared to the empty argument of saying that a transphobe person is of ‘low intelligence’, especially when that’s often not even the source of their transphobia.

The use case of insulting a fascists intelligence would be different than calling them weird. Any given word is not going to be effective in every hypothetical scenario. Weird was the correct choice in Tim Walz’s case during the election. Calling fascists stupid can be the correct choice in others.

Substantive arguments are always better than non substantive ‘mean’ arguments as you call them.

The fact this is wrong is self-evident. We could of course not fit this discussion effectively into character limited messages or sound bites in a debate. The way we even get people to read these arguments is to first win these rhetorical battles. And even then not everyone is going to have time read these kind of discussions. If we rely on these kind of long form arguments to the exclusion of all other forms of communication and rhetoric then we will lose to the fascists.

A bystander needs an actual reason to be convinced, not a few mean words.

This is exactly what any given bystander needs in the fast paced social media discourse we have today. A person having someone tell them a fascist is wrong in a few short words that have a negative connotation because they are mean is how people are socialized. We don’t have to like it, but we do have to acknowledge and act on reality if we want to continue to live in reality.

You claim a lot about antifascist strategy but your claims are not supported by historical evidence.

My argument’s claims are in fact based on historical evidence. Two of the examples in my argument were from real twitter discourse. Here’s the Vaush video, but it contains abelist language, so only watch it if learning how to defeat fascism is worth violating personal sensibilities. The other example being Tim Walz, which refers to the last election cycle that just happened.

The strongest antifascist factions have always been those that seek unity within oppressed groups.

Nothing about using rhetoric to defend people is divisive. The same way violence in self-defense is not divisive. Throwing minority groups under the bus for the sake of moral purity is peak divisiveness.

Tailism just leads to division.

I’m not arguing for your argument’s straw man so this isn’t an issue.

XD Thanks for the share!

The fascists will do what they want either way. They only use laws when it is convenient for them to do so.

What the fascists wanted was to be legitimized by bipartisan support of their bill. They wanted the Democrats to consent in advance. To take the next small step willingly.

Chuck Schumer has handed the country over to the fascists in exchange for nothing because he serves the same billionaires.

There wasn’t a sudden realization from Schumer that flipped his opposition on Wednesday to his support on Thursday. That was his obvious cover to try to hide the billionaires he serves. Don’t fall for it.

Whoever controls the messaging can blame the other party for the shutdown. Democrats don’t bother to even have a narrative let alone control one. They fight in a strictly performative way. So no matter what happens Republicans can always blame Democrats and without an alternative view point pushed people who aren’t politically engaged are more likely to believe Republicans.

The ten Democrat Senators who voted for the CR do not care about winning. They care about raising their donors’ stock portfolios.

Eight what?

Meanness is part of society and so is this false notion of general intellect, which we cannot measure. Falsely championing disabled people and pretending targeted meanness isn’t effective when we all saw how calling specific fascists weird was effective isn’t an honest argument. Neither is hiding behind theory used as a straw man.

If Tim Walz had delivered a compelling argument about how fascism is self-destructive it wouldn’t have resonated with people the way weird did. People saw clips of JD Vance, they heard about the couch fucking, and weird resonated with them. Know who usually gets called weird and by who? Queer people by fascists. Did calling specific fascists weird bother queer people? No, because we’re weird and proud of it. Unlike the fascists who cling to a false sense of normalcy for the sake of their ego, queer people want to be themselves.

The reason this works is because it was targeted. Weird isn’t any more normalized against queer people than it was before Tim Walz used it. Calling specific fascists dumb isn’t going to normalize ableism even by using slurs. Which again using slurs may not even be the must useful rhetoric in any given scenario. But if a person finds themselves in a scenario where they can use slurs, even those that normally target queer people generally, to defend queer people effectively I would appreciate it if they did. The same way I would appreciate someone using violence to defend me effectively in a self-defense scenario.

Fascists aren’t going around telling us to be more mean. They would love for leftists to keep being nice no matter what and to cling to this obsession with moral purity because it renders us ineffective. Using a rhetorically effective word, phrase, or mannerism against a specific target isn’t any more reactionary than saying queer people should organize and arm themselves.

If leftists can’t get passed this obsession with moral purity it’s going to get us all killed. We aren’t going to be able to communicate effectively to our peers and other people in general in person or online. The fascists will mop the floor with us in their messaging. They’re willing to be mean to get what they want. Choosing an always share, rhetorically pacifist strategy is the same as choosing to be complicit in our own destruction.

The way leftists cling to moral purity is the same way that fascists cling to normalcy. It’s about leftists’ egos. Leftists don’t like the idea of being morally wrong. It’s why leftists couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Kamala Harris despite it being the useful strategy. And it’s why leftists can’t bring themselves to use slurs or abelist language or be mean against specific fascists who want to kill neurodivergent and queer people.

Killing people is wrong, but in some circumstances it is necessary. Being mean and using inappropriate language is wrong, but sometimes it is necessary. If everyone on one side of war is a pacifist, everyone they want to defend dies. If everyone on one side of a culture war is a rhetorical pacifist, everyone they want to defend dies. Refusing to say certain words in certain contexts isn’t protecting the neurdivergent or queer communities. It’s protecting leftists’ egos that depend on always being able to see a pair of clean hands.

If leftists actually care about marginalized groups then leftists should be willing to use the most effective strategies to defeat the fascists who want to kill those groups. Otherwise leftists should be honest with those marginalized groups and say they are only willing to give them token support because that’s what makes those leftists feel good about themselves. If leftists value their moral purity more than peoples lives then leftists should tell those communities that. That way those communities can find real allies who are willing to put people before their egos.

It’s targeted meanness. It’s a rhetorical tactic. It’s not for general use in conversations. It’s like calling fascists weird, making fun of a terf woman for looking ugly, or calling a transphobe a dumbass for demanding we respect his new pronouns because he put on a dress and makeup.

I’ll use tankies as an example. Tankies are evil demons because they want to use trans people for political purposes and kill us all for not being ideologically pure. If a tanky says they’re on the left call them a dumbass. And if anyone asks what a tanky is tell them that tankies are red fascists aka authoritarian communists.

To be clear, as a trans woman, I don’t want someone who uses ableism as a cudgel online defending me online or in real life. It’s not useful. It does nothing to forward the interests of neurodivergent people and it does nothing to push back on the people who want me dead. All it does is silence rhetorically effective critique of intolerant fascists and makes the person screaming ableism feel morally pure.

Again, it’s targeted. This does not mean we should being using ableist language for no reason or because we feel like it in casual conversation. It’s fine to call out meanness or ableism when it is being used in a way that serves no useful purpose.

Also, the goal isn’t really to use slurs but in theory they could be used. Whatever is useful in the particular social environment. The goal is to be mean to a specific target. This is about leveraging the way social media accumulates engagement and internet culture against intolerant people who we should not tolerate.

Refusing to use targeted meanness in a social war is like refusing to use guns in a physical war. It’s a great way to lose the war.

It is American Libertarian propaganda. The y-axis is clearly coded in a way that is biased in favor of Libertarians that is not useful to explaining political positions. The y-axis should be labeled as a measurement of centralization. edit: misclicks and clarification

Citizens United has allowed what was already happening to reach its logical conclusion. The reason more people are noticing is because it’s by far the worst it’s been since we’ve had monopoly and anti-trust laws. If people take the time to look they’ll see it.

This time it wasn’t just one guy or two guys. It was ten Senators and a House Rep. Schumer as the senate minority leader handed over the country to the fascists. It’s an unprecedented betrayal. And it shows how both parties serve the same billionaires. =(

Fuck me. The backstab is from the cheese guy. 🤯

Don’t rescue the organs! Harvest the cat.