Omg I thought this was the onion. Fuck.

Fuck everything about this.

Donate here (I think, check for yourself ):

https://www.maah.org/donate-collections

https://thegivingblock.com/resources/charities-for-black-history-month/

https://www.charitywatch.org/top-rated-charities

Just to drive this point home for the quiet listeners at the back of the house, I’ve had very long conversations with conservatives (I’m in a red area) who actually get more distrustful the more you relate to them. I’ve been told to my face that nobody cares that much about other people, and I was clearly only pretending to in order to make them listen to me. That it was obvious, because nobody cares that much. That empathy can only be manipulative, and is never real.

It took me years to understand this isn’t a contradiction, but that since they can’t imagine caring that much, I must be fake.

My whole outlook changed once I realised that. It’s insane, but many people literally can’t envision caring, and they think you’re fake and just want recognition for doing so.

Several of these surveys take on a different meaning once you realise there are fundamentally different perspectives like this.

e: and this is one of the biggest divides with conservatives. Simple word choice will not bridge this gap.

That’s a big problem that switching from ‘oligarch’ to ‘king’ won’t solve. Using different words is a very simplistic answer, when what we’re fighting here is not a language barrier but a wide cultural one.

The real issue is complex and multifaceted: conservatives have been highly propagandised through increasingly insulated media bubbles to the point that now there’s very little that can penetrate them, and switching up a few words will not get them to listen. They’ve been taught to be distrustful of facts and reality, and to believe that compassion is weakness.

I don’t know how to fix this, but watering down our language will not help. That’s been tried many times, and it always backfires.

I read the article and I completely disagree with her. ‘Oligarch’ means something different than ‘king’, and many Americans don’t have the same negative reaction to the word ‘king’, which is often romanticised in media, whereas ‘oligarch’ calls up images of nefarious machinations in authoritarian regimes – exactly what’s actually going on.

Also, being whiny that the bullies are calling us ‘woke’ is reactionary and misses the whole point. This is where we should be doubling down, not diluting our language.

e: also also, having spent decades in UxD and usability (which entailed a lot of surveying and analysis), I’d be hesitant to rely on surveys that show a population’s preference for one word over another, because word feels are affected by far more than knowledge of their definitions, and the reasons aren’t easily captured in a survey. The reasons are what matter, not necessarily the word, and I’m sure she didn’t explore this enough to understand the sociology here.

No, she can fuck off.

The oligarchy is killing us, and spinning language won’t change that. Meanwhile, ‘woke’ just means ‘social empathy’, which is ironically the solution to many of the problems the oligarchy is causing (and they’re not shy about this – Musk recently said empathy is bad).

We need more ‘woke’, not less. And being butthurt that the fascists are using ‘woke’ as a slur against us is childish and easy to ignore if you’re not too simple to get it.

Fuck this. I’m woke and proud of it. We all should be.

In many of those states, if a fraction of the percentage that doesn’t vote did, it would matter. The numbers that’s based on (marginal percentages of known, reliable voters) mean the opposition party can’t unseat them, but in many cases, the doesn’t vote percentage absolutely can. Unfortunately a majority of eligible voters in those areas don’t vote for a variety of reasons, and that’s exactly why some people spend stupid amounts of money convincing you there’s no point in voting.

About 90 million: ‘My vote doesn’t matter’

e: bad %. It was actually much higher

Look, all I’m saying is give Pis a chance.

This cannot be real, wtf. This is cartoon levels of ineptitude.

Or sabotage by someone heading out? Please let this be resistance sabotage they haven’t noticed yet.

No. Not even remotely. Not even if I was assured it was a simulation. No.

Someone with a shred of ethics on this ethics committee better fucking leak this.

Especially when her main message is saving democracy

This is exactly the reason. Because saving democracy right now means getting every possible vote, and the Cheneys can sway some old, Reagan/Bush republicans who reflexively vote R without really paying attention. If even the Cheneys support Harris, they might take notice. It’s an enemy-of-my-enemy situation.

I think I understand why you’re not getting this. You simply can’t understand that under FPTP, the only way to vehemently deny one candidate and to keep them out of office is to ‘support’ the other, even if you don’t agree with them. When one candidate will destroy democracy and usher in an autocracy, if you actually care about having a choice in the future, the only effective solution is to support an opposition that will not destroy everything.

You still haven’t addressed how Biden’s foreign policy and Harris’s presumed foreign policy (due to her unwillingness to create daylight) isn’t a part of her platform aligned with the Cheneys.

This is not the topic of conversation, and I’ve already given you enough of my time. Google exists., and I’m not your polisci professor. You can look the rest up for yourself.

the mythical centrist Dick Cheney voter.

You mean the Reagan/Bush era republicans who are now the most reliable voting block, and who feel like the current Republican party has gone too far, but have been dutifully ticking that R every election since they were able to vote? The ones on a steady diet of Fox News who think trump can’t really be that bad, but if the Cheney’s of all people, those dyed in the wool conservatives, are supporting Harris, maybe they should at least look a bit closer at it – those people who don’t exist?

I assure you, those people exist. Especially in swing states. They exist so much, professional pollsters warn they might be over represented.

Thanks! I updated my comment.

Did it work? https://xcancel.com/realDonaldTrump/status/347191326112112640?lang=en

It’s loading weird for me, maybe because I’m on mobile?

Good point.

No, it isn’t. The Cheneys aren’t supporting Harris, but rejecting trump and trying to pull more moderate conservatives away from him. Not towards Harris – their platforms are not aligned at all – but to try to bring the GOP away from self-immolation.

Again,their motives are purely self-interest.

On the order hand, Duke is saying he supports Stein because her interests align with his. Huge ass difference.

e: formatting

You’re right, I misremembered an article I read last month:

# 200 aides of former Republicans, including both Bush presidents, endorse Kamala Harris

Bush’s lack of endorsement makes him somehow worse than he already was, in light of practically everyone else coming out against trump, and the bar is so low, Satan is tripping over it.

This isn’t about like or dislike. Again, it’s about her track record. If Duke had come out to support Cornel West, we’d have collectively shrugged. I’d still strongly recommend nobody vote for him because he’s a spoiler, too, and I don’t like him as a candidate, but a Nazi endorsement for him would not make any difference.

The entire reason Duke supporting Stein matters is because of her history supporting fascists. How is this difficult to grasp?