"Global Warming"? Well I've experienced cold winters, THEREFORE CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX.
"Patriot Act"? Well I don't care for the encroaching security state, THEREFORE I MUST BE AN ENEMY OF THE STATE.
"Never forget"? Oh shit, slipped my mind, I GUESS 9/11 NEVER HAPPENED.
"1%"? Well gosh, I know a medical technician who earns $350K/year, but they're still paying off student loans, THEREFORE THE WAGE GAP IS A MYTH.
"Believe all women"? Buddy, I have an ex who used to lie and cheat on me, THEREFORE WE SHOULD ACQUIT HARVEY WEINSTEIN.
These assclowns are total fucklords. Guarantee if you ask them to break down any of these slogans down they could do it in exquisite detail. The truth is they just disagree but lack the conviction to say so and want to lecture you instead.
(I'm always thinking back to Matt Christman's dichotomy of "don't be an ahole vs. don't be a p*y" that perfectly encapsulates today's libs/cons).
Yeah I'm not gonna mince words here, anyone who can hear a cry for a right to life and think "nah fuck you" should probably just go hang themselves and stop wasting perfectly good oxygen.
It’s funny you used both “climate change” and “global warming” interchangeably. You’ve probably noticed that saying the latter has fallen out of use in favor of the former.
Not saying you’re wrong about your post, but anecdotally as a climatologist, our community stopped calling it “global warming” and started calling it “climate change” specifically because it (the climate) isn’t uniformly warming and we also aren’t sure of how we will affect the climate long term, but also because people would still say “WARMING? BUT WHY WINTER COLD?” We literally had to rebrand “global warming” to get people to start listening since colloquially the word “climate” means almost nothing whereas people tend to have an explicit idea of what they believe warming is. Sometimes just changing what you call things works/helps. I bet Bernie would’ve done better if he called himself something like a New Deal Democrat or something instead of calling himself a democratic socialist
You gotta hide the democratic socialism pills inside the dog sausage or Americans won't eat them
You gotta hide the democratic socialism pills inside the dog sausage or Americans won’t eat them
Socialists have to be honest with their working-class target audience, or else they won't be trusted once workers figure out the pill is in the sausage. This is opportunist CPUSA "crypto-socialist" nonsense, a deliberate lowering of the Marxist banner.
I've seen enough unironic versions of this formulation that I thought you were dead serious.
There was, incidentally, a large koch-funded effort to switch to "climate change" terminology. I don't have the sources for you, I read it a long time ago, but the calculus was something about it sounding less urgent or dangerous. There's of course no way of knowing for sure, but I don't think we'd be in a worse position today if people kept using the phrase global warming.
I don’t either but the rebranding happened around the same time it started to be taken seriously (in the most loose of definitions)
The move from Global Warming to Climate Change is good, because you can keep the abbreviation - CC - and update the meaning to reflect reality: Climate Collapse.
because people would still say “WARMING? BUT WHY WINTER COLD?” We literally had to rebrand “global warming” to get people to start listening
Scientists are so weak lol "we have to use the fossil fuels propaganda words to get people to listen", absolutely cucked
Hey genius we are using these words for people who aren’t climate scientists (like you) to understand so if that makes us cucks what are the rest of you?
Also I’d rather be a cuck if it means maintaining a habitable planet. I’ll call it whatever I have to lmfao
Who the fuck cares about "cucked" -- what matters is whether people listen to you
Not sure why this is getting downvoted. Professional scientists tend to have the politics of PMC liberal technocrats, so of course they're going to be weak and both make concessions to backwards consciousness and to reactionary psyops. Most of the "successful" scientists suck so much at politics that they take the terms dictated by capitalists as completely exogenous and unchangeable by themselves, never expunge the brainworms they picked up as a rite of passage, and have no position of strength to leverage materially like the proles have overall.
Exceptions include grad students, postdocs, adjuncts, some early tenure-track professors, and other severely underpaid and indebted scientists "in training" who have so little power within academic spaces and so exploited inside and outside of them that they've increasingly taken up working-class politics, having been alienated from academia in particular and the PMC in general. The scientists with the best politics tend to be the "failures" and unlucky "junior scientists" with the least weight in decision-making processes like switching from global warming to the more euphemistic climate change, the sort of decisions made to soothe the egos of the sort of rich assholes scientists or their universities might have to beg for grant money.
It's getting downvoted because -- unlike your comment -- it's not any sort of analysis of the problem or critique of the solution, it's just saying "lol these losers are CUCKED" like some old T_D shitpost. It adds nothing and misses quite a bit.
Defund the police is not a slogan, it's a demand. And a mild one at that. I'd rather be shouting "abolish the police."
I think a lot about this tweet. Cops should be desperate to be defunded.
This. Do people somehow believe it's a campaign slogan to get the democrats of all people elected? Wait, what am I saying? This is burgerland, of course the point was going to be missed, whether deliberate or not.
Liberals don't understand the actual point of political demands or what a principled political program full of such demands might look like. They only know of policy proposals and political slogans, cobbled together into an unprincipled cafeteria-politics platform. Armchair online libs are like chuds in the sense that they believe paid PMC think-tank groups like MoveOn are the only ones workshopping/brainstorming demands like M4A, GND, defund/abolish the police, etc., and that the demands aren't coming from spontaneous people's movements and smaller grassroots and socialist organizations. These are the same sorts of people who think AOC and Bernie invented the Green New Deal platform, have no conception of "the left" outside of what's within the co-opting reach of the Democratic Party, and believe the only left-wing opponents of the Democrats are either Russian bots, crypto-Dengist PRC shills, chapo shitposters, or useful idiots of these other groups.
Were you just lurking Stupidpol? This was just a thing there. About about how "defund the police" is a stupid slogan.
As always, social democracy is objectively fascist
https://old.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comments/k4z84d/rstupidpol_you_lose_people_with_snappy_slogans/
CitizenGymSocial Democrat | Perfect Market Idealist [score hidden] 5 hours ago
The slogans are successful because they're divisive.
Conflict drives engagement on facebook & twitter. So the newsfeed algorithms promote divisive slogans in order to sell adverts.
If the slogan had been "Black Lives Matter Too" or "All Lives Matter!" then it wouldn't have seen half the coverage it did.
awful_neutralSocial Democrat [score hidden] 8 hours ago
Activists are never going to stop coming up with slogans like this because the whole point of them is to filter out the "undesirables" and signal how much more radical and virtuous you are than everyone else. If normal people hear your slogan and don't immediately get offended or question it in some way, it's not provocative enough, and if eventually they get used to it and start using it anyway, it's been "co-opted" and it's time to move on to something else.
The people who come up with this stuff either don't actually care about winning or are so far removed from the public that they don't understand that they aren't.
enby_stranglerLeft Pragmatist [score hidden] 7 hours ago
I like the slogan "Re-fund the police." Sets you up in contrast to these guys, sounds good to pro-police voters, and stands for a good policy goal (shift police funding towards better training and recruitment and away from the war on drugs and petty offenses).
Why are you downvoting this user? They’re right.
Stupidpol social democrats are fascists. Social fascism has been around for a hundred years, since the chauvinists destroyed the Socialist International to back their nation’s imperialist wars.
This ties into why I can't really get mad at anarchist and really didn't like the pod's take on the statue thing. The dems really build up this strong deference to power in their base and a big part of getting people to be any sort of leftist is breaking that down and getting past the fears of being ostracized. If you can't look a cop in the face and say no, or take down public property when the mayor tells you not to, you are not going to be hardened enough to do any of the militant labor practices people talk about. You are not going to know or trust any of the people around you.
The Democratic party exists to co-opt movements into accepting their own death.
You must accept police murders to not scare off moderates.
Don't you hate Republican environmental deregulation? You must accept climate death in 2045 instead 2040.
Never stop criticizing neoliberal Democrats. Never trust any politician with a D next to their name, even the "left" Dem entryists. Organize community coalitions outside the reach of the Democrats whenever possible. Support independent socialist and working-class candidates where they exist, i.e. those who take no money from capitalists and answer only to the working class and the poor.
I think Breanna Joy Gray also made a good point that when we use strong language, liberals don’t co-opt our message.
It’s easy for liberals to take over phrases like healthcare is a human right, reform the police, Black Lives Matter, etc and water them down to support whatever breadcrumb bullshit they’ve decided fixes the issue.
Liberals won’t touch defund the police or ACAB, eat the rich, billionaires shouldn’t exist, abolish ICE, etc.
The trick is finding language that is too strong to be co-opted and watered down, but not so strong that it overshoots its target and you end up talking about things you don't actually want and that ordinary people don't really want, either.
I think you'd be surprised at some of the things "ordinary people" in this country want. The lyin' news media will never admit it, but "eat the rich" is more popular than either political party
They are doing this for a reason with BLM and DTP. When we get another cop shooting an unarmed black man that sparks massive protests and riots, the first thing we're going to get as a result is Biden/Harris pushing a bipartisanship bill to stomp out the protest movement with authoritarianism. It will be something like the law France just passed outlawing the filming of police all together.
They will come after the protest movement early on to stomp it out.
It will be called Breonna's bill and it will make it legal for cops to shoot protestors in the legs.
"Defund the police", "ACAB", "Eat the rich" - the thing that makes these slogans so good is that they can't be co-opted by libs.
Watch how fast "Reform the police" got turned into "Our hardworking cops need more funding" to see the kind of shittery that happens to any demand which isn't couched in language that libs can't twist
Easier to hate the two-faced backstabber than the bald-faced enemy.
