Blowback Season 3 helps a lot too

Seems pretty straightforward. There were other ppl in the movement, there’s no need to hang on to this dude AFAIK.

However, the replacement should also be from the movement, people like Huerta or others. Ideally ones that didn’t hate the undocumented.

Jury nullification folks

National elections in the US are fundamentally scuffed. However, like you note - local referendums and protests are still valuable for actual harm reduction (versus Kamala vs. Trump style choices).

I think that most electoralism as change dies right now at the national level (i.e. house of rep/senate elections). Until either a proletarian party emerges or the dems do purges, no amount of left candidates can actually achieve anything since they’ll just be rotating villain’d.

However, I do think that a succdem prez could potentially be interesting if they were willing to wield authority to punish ICE, etc. Doubtful, but who knows, maybe dems will put up a candidate worth voting for just for revenge against fascists.

So Vodka tops then, because her ornament is on her right there?

The red variant is cool too, maybe :scully-commie:

Submitted a screencap from the actual file (versus my shit phone) to the emoji comm. If I find some other good moments, I’ll try to grab 'em. Definitely need a :spooky: for Mulder and maybe a :skinner: and :cigarette-man:. :deep-throat: also, he’s a classic (though I’d have to go back to S1 to see if there’s a good clippable image of him). Also, if there’s a good shot of The Lone Gunmen I’ll try to find one.

Here’s a better crop maybe

Maybe :scully-lockedin: ?

I checked the dates when I saw it, it’s a year before Eva, so Ritsuko might be aping her!

We know it’s the right approach because it’s animated.

I also think, to maybe be more charitable to Hasan than he deserves, there’s something to “some arguments should be had in left-only spaces.” I love the struggle sessions here (I’m a ), but part of why they’re good is they happen in our space with (minimal) interaction from outsiders. He’s mentioned the thing about how PSL is superior to DSA because they don’t air their grievances publicly before, and in some ways there’s a similar vibe. He’s in a public space, so airing some esoteric left critique is counter-productive.

BTW - if Hasan ever crosses red lines on genocide, M4A, war, etc. then I think it’s open season. There’s some things we shouldn’t ever compromise on. However, to my knowledge, he’s been remarkably consistent in his anti-imperialist bona fides.

Are you an accelerationist? If so that’s fine but I really don’t see what the “left” is at a statewide or national level in America. Should we all vote PSL even when they’re polling at 1%? I’m not going to say that there’s not a time and place to do this (there is), but if you’re an electoralist or interested in something other than accelerationism then sometimes voting for a dem (who as a candidate refuses to support genocide or war and supports m4a) can ever so slightly remove the boot of fascism from ppl to help with organizing.

I think it’s interesting you ignore the real material gains of zohran (I mentioned this in a diff post, sorry I didn’t mention it here earlier). Would a mayor that didn’t bother to get their constituent freed from gestapo custody be better for “the left”? Seriously interested in what you think about this.

Has Hasan ever supported “vote blue no matter who”? Generally he has supported DSA-aligned candidates like Zohran who in some capacity are trying to push democrats towards a proletarian party. It’s also about pushing the entire left in America so the bare minimum is no genocide, anti-war, pro M4A. And he’s uncompromising on these things! It’s not like he’s supporting freaks who support “medicare for all who want it.”

I’m listening to him now, and he’s literally arguing “more than half of the Democrats in the caucus are also on board with this initiative [to attack Iran]”. How is this supporting “Democrats” in the abstract? Specific candidates with left policies within the party are worth supporting, but that’s the extent of his support! He didn’t even support Kamala as some sort of squishy harm reduction shit because he’s uncompromising on the things that matter!

If that’s all they will do (vote democrat), it’s still better than them being chuds. If they, however, use the fact that he namedrops Lenin to go further, that’s also a good thing. Also, I don’t think his readings are “lies” they’re just readings! It’s like saying you are Martin Luther and have the correct interpretation of scripture. Lenin’s works are a text, and while there’s doctrinaire readings, perhaps he’s flexing the truth to get people to approach the works.

I don’t buy that they were “heading left” necessarily either - what’s that even mean? Is it abstaining because accelerationism is the best principle? Unless “heading left” is joining a union, building the organization, and creating strike power, I literally don’t know what you’re talking about here (and that’s not mutually exclusive with voting for democrats). is obviously a very minor thing, and he’s doing work to platform progressive candidates, but if “heading left” is just voting for the most communist candidate - most people who he gets in would have never done that anyway! Meanwhile, when he emphasizes unions, organizing, and building actual power, he’s actually moving people left.

Open arms no, but if they’re willing to kill fascists then I’m open to some sort of reeducation/service to prove loyalty.

Like seriously, if someone’s willing to kill for left principles after changing, I would be open to allying, but with the caveat they’re on a short fucking leash. Put the Battle Royale collar on them until the dictatorship of the proletariat is established.

I should say I’m only half-jokint about the BR collar. Some form of discipline/surveillance must be done with former centrists/liberals in the coalition who might turn reactionary so that they don’t go and hijack the movement.

They can join as junior (controlled) partners. What this looks like in an electoralist context I honestly don’t know unless you have union power substantially higher than it is.

I’ll go one further. Zohran also was able to get a constituent out of ICE custody with a phone call - if this sort of power becomes more common it’s fundamentally good for organizing (until he proves otherwise).

Obviously we can still critique these figures, but having a mayor who fights for his constituents rather than one that lets hogs run crazy is a good thing overall.

Maybe he is, like me, a sophist (ironic since Plato hated them, per your meme), who doesn’t let beliefs get in the way of getting the job done. He’s many times noted how with some hogs, certain arguments that might not be the best (e.g. we shouldn’t bomb Iran because it is in the service of Israel might be more effective than we shouldn’t be doing imperialism full stop). That ability to shapeshift is valuable as long as it’s broadly done in the service of left principles without compromising on things like genocide.

The most policing he does is on leftists who are so detached they’ve lost the ability to communicate/pipeline liberals. Which, in a space like his, is acceptable. Once you’re on hexbear, go fucking ham with the esoteric left critiques and struggle sessions, but when trying to pipeline liberals in your org a softer and more contingent touch is required.

Of course. What I’m saying is a clear arbitrary line is more important than the specific morality. After all, in some cultures 16 might be more free of the power dynamics that make it disgusting. Meanwhile, some 19 year olds might be so precarious in their material conditions that their consent to an older partner while “legal” isn’t moral at all.

This is why setting a standard is important. The actual morality of any consent/sexual dynamic is bound up in so much contingency (age, class, culture) that its important to just set an arbitrary line, and people who try to skirt it need to be punished. We can’t (legally) account for all of this so it isn’t about morality it’s about positive law.

Yeah that’s why unfortunately it’s ultimately fairly arbitrary. All but the biggest sickos probably see somewhere between 16-20 as the “right” age for sexual consent. However, as you note, lumping people who are "too old’ under minority is also an issue. I do think consolidating things (versus different ages for sex drugs and rock and roll) would have a bit of a useful effect though.