It’s educate, AGITATE, organize
edit: putting this at the top so people understand the basis for this:
You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
“Cool, what form does your agitation come in?”
“Encouraging apathy, and demonization of the only non-fascist candidate with a chance to win without suggestion of realistic alternatives”
Most “agitators” on here can’t even vote.
Did you get an opportunity to suggest realistic alternatives? Or did the Democratic party steamroll your local primary and rob you of your voice?
I did. I suggested Bernie. Not enough people agreed with me, apparently.
Thats lucky, we were not given any choices in my state, we had no discussion, no primary debates, and no discussion as to the viability of running with Biden.
I love Bernie, but his real shot was 2016 and the Dems blocked his path so they would not have to have a real vote which would have embarrassed Hillary.
His real shot was 2020, and he got outpolitiked.
and now you have to work with the representative you ended up with, just like the rest of us.
Unlike you, however, I’m working to keep the fascist from being my next representative. Seems that having a fascist at the head of our government doesn’t bother you all that much. You might want to do some soul-searching as to why that is.
Just because someone does not want to vote for Biden does not mean they want Trump to win. That is a reductive argument and its the root of the issue with the system in the US. Picking the lesser evil is not a viable method for electing people to positions of power. What if the dems also nominated someone openly fascist, not just genocidal?
Would we pick the least fascist, fascist? The Democratic party needs reform, and unlike the Republican party they might actually listen because they at least say they will. Its either that or were already in a fascism and were being gas lit by the democratic party to think we have a voice.
If you choose not to decide, others shall choose for you. Others as in the Evangelical Nat-Cs, they always Vote.
But do please drone on about your purity and how sullied and corrupt all of us in the real world are.
Might not be what they want, but it’s more likely what they’ll get.
It is in fact what they are choosing to make more likely by promoting not participating. You go to effort for goals you wish to achieve regardless of what lie you tell and to whom about your intent.
Just because they don’t want to vote for Biden doesn’t mean they’re not voting for him anyway.
Yep, and its a real issue that I have to wrestle with in my own decisions. The good news is my state wont go for Biden because were gerrymandered to hell and back so I can vote however I want.
That hardly seems like “good news.”
False. I know because I asked OK about Abortion protections.
Oh, yes it fucking does. That’s what a FPTP system implies. That people failed High School Civics and seemingly still managed to get their degree isn’t a refutation of this.
It’s the only means; it’s just more naked under FPTP which effectively reduces the issue to two, instead of three or four.
It’s not the case, so suck it the fuck up and work against fascism.
If it was the case, the right decision would be revolt.
Being told that voting strategically for the ‘no’ vote in an election that is effectively a referendum on whether or not America should become a fascist state is the only real choice is not ‘fascism’, unless you define fascism as ‘reality’.
I find this situation unacceptable, I will not be held hostage to the democrats because they cant be bothered to enact real reform when they should have, nor when they bent over backwards to let the court be stacked by fascists.
Were here, because of them, the republicans have been crystal clear since basically Nixon that their goal is a white christian fascist state. I cannot and will not continue to reward a do nothing party when they manufactured this situation to force me to vote for them because the “other guy” is worse.
I also will keep fighting fascism, but I will NOT pick up the democrat’s flag and wave it as though I support them.
If not voting for Biden is a vote for Trump, then its the Democrats fault because they ran Biden, not mine. I will vote my conscience, and I will vote based on the best evidence in-front of me.
If the Democrats want me to vote for them, they know where I am, and they are more than welcome to reach out and talk to me and listen.
Liar. At no point could anything more like “real reform”, regardless of what you mean by the vague term, get passed. You are making excuses and sound far more like you are pushing a narrative than supporting a position.
But perhaps I am too harsh. Please do tell of this “real reform” so we can understand your issue. Be specific and include detailed explanation as to how this thing could have been done at any time in the past four decades.
More likely however, you’re agitprop project apathy third party is a fail.
Oh, cool, you will oh-so-bravely volunteer minorities to be killed because you won’t be ‘held hostage’ by the democrats.
“I don’t agree with the only group of people large enough to be viable in the election on their compromise coalition candidate; I should get to choose the coalition candidate!”
Apparently your conscience says “If I check the box that says ‘throw away my vote’, I’m not responsible for the millions of minorities that will be killed because of the candidate I allowed in by doing so”
Great conscience you got there.
How very egotistical of you. If we lose the election, I hope you’re prepared to smile at every one of us in the camps and say “Sorry, but the Dems just didn’t reach out to me; what was I supposed to do? Support a coalition candidate against fascism?”
It bothers me, but it also bothers me that my own representative is supporting fascism himself.
It clearly doesn’t bother you enough to stop you from working to see the fascist elected so the representative supporting longstanding-but-dogshite-foreign-policy can ‘learn his lesson’.
I don’t think he ought to lose because of this issue, I think he’ll lose because of this issue all on his own.
You’re free to disagree with the method of agitation but it comforts me (barely) that you would at least still support him if he were to change his position on this. It’s my bet most people on the fence would, too.
No, you don’t think he ‘ought’ to, you’re just Doing Your Part to make sure he does. Like drilling holes in a boat to protest the captain bailing water instead of filling the holes.
Those words do not mean what you think they mean.
I am open to education, so what do they mean?
Discourage apathy by putting your fingers in your ears and shout about how impossible making any positive change is instead!
“Changing 50 years of foreign policy on an issue most American voters don’t regard as important (however horrific that is) isn’t going to happen because the left-wing is threatening to let a fascist take power; that’s literally the opposite of the scenario that should be happening for improvement”
This is quite literally the thing we’re trying to change.
Reasonably speaking - how do you propose to do that? How do you propose to switch the primary issues of concern for the American electorate from domestic security (including the safety of LGBT folks, immigrants, and democracy itself) and economics (at a time when many are pressed hard by the current economic situation) to foreign policy?
Treating this as an honest question - by raising the issue so that it can’t easily be ignored.
Just gonna put this here, because MLK says it better than I can:
Letter from Birmingham - MLK
That presumes that the issues you’re raising are going to raise tension above the tension of the aforementioned issues, which is extremely unlikely in the current circumstances.
My point isn’t “STOP RAISING AWARENESS”, my point is “This is not the winning issue you think it can be; and threatening to hand power over to fascists if you don’t get your way is just going to hand over power to fascists”
This is a contradictory statement.
Fucking what
I’ll try to clear it up a little.
Here’s a recent poll showing that support for ending the invasion into Gaza isn’t widely supported
There’s a lot of risk to Biden’s election chances if he withdraws his support for Israel, probably more risk than if he maintains his current actions. So withdrawing his support for Israel isn’t the clear cut winning decision that you seem to think it is.
Your threat of withholding your vote for Joe Biden unless he changes policy to match what you want will most likely result in Joe Biden losing the election. If he changes course and withdraws support as you want then he’ll probably lose more voters than he gains, costing him he election. If he stays the course and you don’t vote for Joe Biden he’s likely to lose the election.
Yes and you’ve decided that rather than try and change their minds you’ll just write off Palestine and sit around waiting for another five months. Or sorry not even that, you’ve decided that you’re going to scream at the people who are going to try and call them Trump supporters.
Yeah, sorry that my issue of first concern is stopping a genocide here, in the US, which is very likely to happen in case of a very-probable Trump presidency, instead of [checks notes] completely reversing the entire US establishment and Democratic Party (with their razor-thin majority in the Senate and literal minority in the House) in the next 5 months over an issue most voters are simply not that concerned with to remove all aid from Israel, which will [checks notes again] not actually stop Israel’s policy of continued genocide.
Different guy, different perspective.
Never once have I ever said we should stop all support of Israel, I think we should give them all the iron dome missiles they want, but that is it.
Let them have their best self defense weapon, god knows it will save some kids from a whackadoo with a rocket launcher.
Hell, if we have anything to do with arrow, or whatever the other one is, I want to say David’s sling, but that is probably wrong, give them all they want of those as well.
Whoever makes those missiles deserves the money for them.
You seem to be trying to take this to an extreme when there a ton of us that just want a more moderate solution.
Fucking set up real places for these people, an actual safe place with shelter, food, water, and medical, including therapy, especially for those kids.
Surround the motherfucker with a wall and a deadline, but use someone smart enough to know not to kill a kid that wanders in there.
Put livestream cameras on every inch that isn’t private.
People can only do so much in a tent city under tight surveillance.
Vet the people as they come in with both a terrorist list and tsa body scanners.
Whoever builds that is the fucking hero, safety, food, and starting to tear down all of the psychological issues that would save them so many problems later on.
Also put that motherfucker under iron dome protection, that way no one can bomb it, accidentally or otherwise, without it being obvious.
The us military is the most effective logistical team on earth.
I doubt you could find someone more effective at setting up ad-how shelter in a desert environment, while also keeping it safe.
Man, I’VE said we should do so. It’s not a question of how extreme I want the US’s response to Israel to be.
The difference in extremes is in what I think is reasonable to push that view; I’m very aware that it’s not something that is just ‘demanded’ six months before an election, and that playing chicken with my vote, or trying to convince other people to play chicken with their’s, is a great way to get hit by a freight train of fascism in this election.
Putting your fingers in your ears to drown out the sound of the Overton window screeching to the right is a much better alternative.
If I were encouraging apathy, I’d be trying to get people to ignore an important issue by arguing ‘change simply isn’t realistic so it’s better to just shut your eyes to it’
Sorry, but what are you encouraging then? Like, what’s the ask?
OP’s only ask is “feel bad enough about Biden and the Democrats to stay home in November.” That’s it. That’s the whole thing.
I just noticed the username, and I’ve argued with this guy before. You’re spot on, he does not have a sincere argument.
See my response to themeatbridge.
The goal is to stop democrats from continuing to support a genocide (min) and a genocidal project (max)
The route is through moderates, who would really like to not talk about this issue, because while it is something they agree with, pointing to something bad that they are contributing to threatens to weaken their voting base. Any political agitation necessarily implicitly makes that threat, and it’s intentional, because otherwise the moderate would have no reason to push for it.
Ok, but that’s an aspiration, not an action plan. What are you asking people to do? Who should they vote for? Where should they make political donations? Imagine you have convinced someone you’re right. What’s their next step?
stop pushing this issue to the side and make it a priority
join in pushing your representatives to change their policy
The second point requires you do the bare minimum of raising the issue. The more you raise the issue the less your representative can ignore it.
People should vote for the least bad option according to their own priorities. But if all you’re doing is voting than you haven’t done anything to address the issue being raised, and you are still a part of the problem. If, in response to this issue being raised, is simply ‘but the other guy is worse’, you’ve done nothing but obstructed progress and you’ll be called out on it by the few of us who are doing the work of agitation.
In my opinion: to any organization that supports the end to the genocide. I recommend any of these progressives currently under threat by the AIPAC
Use whatever platform they have available to spread the message that democrats must end their support to Israel’s war crimes. Make it clear that they risk losing their re-election if they continue dodging the issue.
“If I don’t get the policy change I want, fascism is an acceptable alternative” - People Who Are DEFINITELY Not Fascists™
It would be better if everyone who agreed with the policy change being pushed would also raise the issue, so that representatives would have a better idea of how many within their base actually supported it.
So your aim is only to cast aspersions on Democrats, got it.
Surely you’re aware of the two-party system of politics in the United States, one where if Democrats lose, Republicans win, and those Republicans will do the genocide you claim to hate so much even harder, not to mention royally fucking things up for huge swaths of people domestically, handing Ukraine over to Russia (which extends to directly threatening the rest of Europe/NATO), and walking away from Taiwan, for starters.
You don’t want to “end genocide,” you want to get Republicans elected.
Hey now let’s not forget, abandoning Ukraine and Taiwan means that Russia and China get to do some genocide as well.
That was implied.
Because they are the ones who claim to agree, but apparently lack sufficient motivation to stop obstructing progress.
“Yeah, a fascist victory will motivate those fuckers! Take that, moderates! Maybe next election you’ll-”
If agitating this issue is enough to make that threat real then it’s enough for them to address it. It’s that simple.
Address it… how? By swapping their position and losing even more votes from those with a pro-Israel position?
So what you’re saying is that you’re a single-issue voter.
I’m saying i’ll vote in november for whoever best serves my interests, just like everyone else here.
But i’ll make sure my voice is heard all the way up until november what I think of Biden’s shit Israel policy.
Uh huh. So what do you think of Trump’s Israel policy?
It’s dogshit, too.
But Trump has no illusions about my likelihood of voting for him (or anyone in this demographic) no matter what he does. If I thought agitating him from where I am had any possibility of ending our support for genocide, i’d be doing that too. But I think it’s much more likely that Biden would change his position if there was a loud enough group in his base screaming at him to end support
All they hear is agitate, none of them see anything else to what you say.
I feel you, you’re getting dogpiled, but I fucking feel you
Single issue voters exist and Biden must take them into account.
Single-issue voters aren’t capable of rational political conversation, or thought processing. They will be attracted to whichever charlatan offers to scratch their particular itch.
If you can’t grasp nuance, you really aren’t qualified to have political opinions.
And despite that, they continue to exist and continue to be a factor with which Biden must contend.
And yet, single issue voters are voters. No matter how much you want to disenfranchise them for disagreeing with you.
Note that nowhere during this conversation have I said that I am a single-issue voter. I’m voting for Biden despite his support for genocide. If you don’t understand the difference between acknowledging the existence of single issue voters and actually being one, don’t talk to others about nuance.
Sure, they exist, but they aren’t worth wasting any time or campaign effort on - unless you’re suggesting that the campaign should simply promise these people what they want to hear without any intent to actually deliver.
Pandering is really the only way to bring such people into your camp - and it’s the tactic that the GOP uses to pull in fringe groups and religious nuts. I don’t think the Democratic party should start operating that way, even if it means losing elections.
My opinion is not that single-issue voters should be disenfranchised. Everyone should vote.
My opinion is that no reasonable person should waste their time listening to the opinions of single-issue voters or trying to have any kind of political discussion with them, and that no serious political campaign should waste time trying to pander to them.
Side note, this “you”:
wasn’t directed at you personally, but broadly/generally. I thought that was obvious in context, but I was wrong. My apologies for the confusion.