I think it is important for people to understand that Obama was also evil and that at least some of why people reject that (albeit not all as Shaun’s post somewhat implies) is down to aesthetics.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Also a debate over who is or isn’t “evil” is pointless and unwinnable and the kind of thing that just makes people mad at each other. The important conversations are “is doing bad things”, followed by “is going to do bad things”, and then, as time allows, “did bad things”.
Getting people who should be united in their hatred of Trump etc to go at each others’ necks about Biden/Obama/etc is as easy as human nature and requires no conspiracy. But if you DID want to suck the wind out of any possible liberal/left alliance, that’s what you might try to do!
I'll just share that even John McCain didn't think Obama was "evil." Have to believe only the tankies are coming off the top rope with that take. 😐 https://youtu.be/JIjenjANqAk?si=ineIocyiN23C2HI8
I also don’t think “tankie” is a meaningful epithet and you’d probably find as many anarchists as Stalinists who would agree on the “evil” bit, but yes it’s both ridiculous and pointless.
What if, stay with me, the party that constantly capitulates to the right is actually responsible for allowing the fascists to accumulate power? Like imagine the number of kidnappings going on if the asses you are covering didn’t rubber stamp balloooning DHS, ICE and military budgets.
Are the fascists existing in a vacuum? I didn’t realize the so-called resistance doesn’t have any responsibility to push against fascism. It’s the fascists’ fault the DNC rubber stamped their agenda.
Man the problem here is we act like the fascists don't exist at all and the DNC are the only people who do anything. Why is yelling about this more important than cleaning up the actual fascists right now? Why do we act like solving issues about what happened years ago matters more than today?
Like following this logic we are also partially responsible here, because we didn't stop it either. So instead of relitigating it let's fix the fucking problem now.
Yes, everyone who accepts this piss poor excuse for representation is complicit in the ratcheting effect of a Democratic Party that is in constant capitulation to fascists.
Why do you think this is important? Again, I am being serious to be clear. What does having people understand this do that you think is worth getting into fights about it online for hours now?
Sincerely, I appreciate you being honest even if I fundamentally disagree here. I don’t think this is helpful unless there’s something we can be pushing people towards. Like, okay, people believe you, now what? How does this get us to reform? Seems like this is step 10 and we’re on step 0.1.
At the very least, if people can agree that presidents are bad for deporting millions of people and committing war crimes, then maybe it will be less politically expedient for them to do so.
But I mean, I’m just a nobody posting on social media. What could i post that actually is helpful?
I don't think you get people to agree with that by arguing that the president is evil, you get them to agree with that by arguing the act is evil. People are already agreeing with that based on seeing Trump do it, whether or not they think the guy from a decade ago was also bad doesn't really matter
"in response to a fascist upswing in America, our priority needs to remain criticizing the democratic party. Because this is going to lead to a revolution somehow"
Neato. Can you start the revolution now, or do you have to wait until there's a Democrat on the ballot?
The problem here is when you spend hours shouting about this and not the other stuff people get the impression this is the priority. I certainly got that impression that that's what you think, that's why I spoke up in the first place.
One of the reasons I have argued so passionately in this thread is because people have been saying stuff like this the entire time. You’re just criticizing me for defending myself and my point.
If you expect people to see this as a morally relevant claim, this means you are willing to sacrifice YOUR life, freedom, etc. for someone else’s moral goals. If you have to be enslaved or be tortured or killed for the benefit of an end result, you are fully willing.
On social media whining about violations of international humanitarian law? That whining? The reason the laws exist is to stop horrors that occurred through the 20th century. This is why those laws don’t say ‘it’s fine to mass slaughter civilians as long as it all turns out fine in the end.’
Well, you dont. Maybe in the case where these actions are directly tied to one another like the Trolley Problem, but even the point of that is that there is no clear answer.
Obama’s drone program or deportations were not necessary for ACA.
Biden was more of a genuine leftist than Obama in some ways. Drones, following through on the Afghanistan withdrawal even while corporate media attacked him for months ... and then he supported a genocide. Sigh, me & my purity politics.
Also "stopping drones" doesn't excuse former drone killers, eh
Right, it is designed to have no CLEAR answer, meaning that you have to resolve the dilemma as best you can, knowing that there is no perfect solution. You're watching someone pull the lever to kill one instead of five and then poking them and saying "So you wouldn't prefer NO ONE die? Interesting."
The entire flaw of the trolley problem is that you have to choose from an arbitrary binary that doesn't reflect the act of real world choice. It's a game for freshmen college students not a serious analysis of moral dilemma.
Right but compared to which null hypothesis? Obama inherited two wars. You can't just flip those off overnight.
Even if Obama had found an "exit strategy" before he left office, it's still inevitably going to lead to death.
There is no "neutral US presidency with a baseline of zero deaths"
Utilitarianism is a false harmony abstracting individuals from their material conditions, treating workers and capitalists as equals in a moral calculus. It erases class antagonisms, upholding the status quo by ignoring how “happiness” is shaped by exploitation and alienation under capitalism.
True. Few people are completely free of evil. We have the capacity to be evil, and most of us have done an evil thing at least once or twice—been cruel, for example. We also have the capacity to be good. To call someone ‘evil’ is to say they’re committed to doing evil, an opponent of goodness.
Comments
I’m not sure what your standard is for an appropriate level of action, but I’m quite comfortable with mine.
I also don’t think “tankie” is a meaningful epithet and you’d probably find as many anarchists as Stalinists who would agree on the “evil” bit, but yes it’s both ridiculous and pointless.
Also, honestly just somewhat addicted to arguing and haven’t gotten into a good one since fleeing twitter.
But I mean, I’m just a nobody posting on social media. What could i post that actually is helpful?
Neato. Can you start the revolution now, or do you have to wait until there's a Democrat on the ballot?
One of the reasons I have argued so passionately in this thread is because people have been saying stuff like this the entire time. You’re just criticizing me for defending myself and my point.
Obama’s drone program or deportations were not necessary for ACA.
Also "stopping drones" doesn't excuse former drone killers, eh
Have you noticed?
Like has already been said, it's not clear how drone strikes were necessary to achieve the ACA.
Even if Obama had found an "exit strategy" before he left office, it's still inevitably going to lead to death.
There is no "neutral US presidency with a baseline of zero deaths"