@King Kreole , I need you to explain something to me about the supposed progressive wing of the coli who were indifferent to whether or not Trump got elected
I don't know anyone in the supposed progressive wing of the coli was was indifferent to whether or not Trump got elected. I didn't see that sentiment. What I
have seen are a bunch of posts from the Liberal/Centrist/Anti-Progressive wing of HL crowing about how they're looking forward to Trump punishing marginalized people and delivering comeuppance for the crime of not voting for Kamala Harris.
- To your credit, you are at least able to admit that he would be worse for Palestinians than the alternative. Some of the other knuckleheads posting on here are not even able to admit that
- We knew he would try to slash Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare
- We knew he would try to slash every type of benefit that helps poor people in America and either keeps them out of, or alleviates, their poverty
- We knew he would be bad for the environment
- We knew he would lead a more corrupt and kleptocratic government
- We knew he would be bad for literally EVERY possible progressive priority that we can think of
This is not abstract, this will hurt real people. People will suffer because of his election.
Putting the issue of Palestine aside (I believe Trump would be worse but I'm not sure how much that matters given the current state of how bad things are), I very much agree with the rest.
How could so called progressives be indifferent towards that outcome? I am open-minded enough to your reasoning to help convince me otherwise, but it is hard to shake the conclusion that a lot of the supposed progressives on this site are more concerned about lecturing others and their own progressive purity than how actual outcomes will affect actual people, and that is what disgusts me the most about the accelerationists that are masquerading as progressives. They don't actually care about real people, they are more interested in maintaining the façade of their purity.
I'm not advocating for indifference to that outcome. I haven't seen any progressive posters or commentators or politicians or activists advocate for indifference to this outcome. I saw a lot of progressives disgusted by the actions and direction taken by the Harris campaign and advocating a different path forward that didn't capitulate to right-wing ideology and at least maintained the sheen of being a moral option instead of being less immoral than the other guy. Progressives were arguing for this from both a moral politics angle
but also a strictly rational electoral victory angle. The nausea Progressive felt at the Harris campaign centering Liz Cheney wasn't just because she's evil, it's also because we could see it was a dead end from the perspective of actually winning the election.
One of the differences between Progressives and Liberals is that Progressives want to win
in order to enact real positive change in our society. Liberals want to win for the sake of winning. For Liberals, winning elections is the start and end of the process, which is why they don't do shyt about all those issues you mentioned above when they're in power. Liberalism is not an ideology that cares about real people, it cares about maintaining the appearance of caring about real people. Which is why when push comes to shove they will choose Liz Cheney over Universal Healthcare or stopping a genocide. That sucks from a moral perspective
as well as the perspective of winning.