Rui Malheiro@HeavenlyPossum in the next election, just make sure the openly fascist party is defeated. If it goes according to history, they will eat each other and break into two or three parties. Then, you *might* have their support to reform electoral law into proportional representation. With some luck and good grassroots movements, you can then tackle on the not openly fascist party and work your way into a democracy.
HeavenlyPossumThe democrats hold office now, while snipers are being deployed against students
@HeavenlyPossum I know and it's sad, but not different from when your youth was protesting for the end of white previleges, the end of Vietnam war or the end of sexual discrimination. The best hope you have is to end the two party dictatorship. The endgame is the goal and it's akin to sacrificing the queen to enable the checkmate.
So we should vote for the party that’s overseeing violent repression of protests, because that party will (sometime in the future) be better or be replaced by something better?
@HeavenlyPossum no. You should vote to *make sure* you will have a chance to vote again in four years.
This advice come from experience. I live in a country where we could not (freely) vote for 50 years.
But that’s not what I asked at all. It’s ok if the answer to the question “who should you vote for to end the violent suppression of protests” is “no one.”
Woozle HypertwinIt's a choice between {the party that might not prevent positive change on this issue, as well as countless others} vs. {the party that will happily shoot you and anyone else who disagrees with them}.
Sorry, which one is which?
Dems: the party which at least tries to not be horrible all the time, even though they are still horrible a lot and are way too beholden to capitalist interests
GOP: open fascists who enjoy watching/making other people suffer
Any questions? I can give examples. Think of LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive rights, the right of non-rich people to speak and have opinions...
Oh, but the protests are being violently suppressed right now
By agents of a state run by a democratic president
Which state?
The United States (and many of its subsidiary political units, such as New York, which also have democrats in senior elected office)
I think it's very early to say that Democrats authorized or even support this. Here's what I could find quickly:
There is no clear evidence in the given search results indicating who specifically ordered the police suppression of student protests in California, New York, and Boston. The results discuss several incidents of police using force to break up protests at universities in those states, but do not name the authorities who directed the police response. The search results mention:
- In Georgia, police tased pro-Palestinian protesters and targeted them with rubber bullets at Emory University in Atlanta[1][4].
- In Boston, a violent clash between police and Emerson College students resulted in blood being visible on campus, with police pulling protesters away and dragging them on the ground[1][2].
- At the University of Texas in Austin, dozens of state troopers, some armed with automatic weapons, used batons to disperse protesters[2].
- Police in riot gear violently broke up peaceful protests at the University of Southern California, employing rubber bullets[2].
- At New York University and Yale, police were called in to break up pro-Palestinian demonstrations[5].
However, the search results do not specify which government officials or university administrators directed the police to intervene and suppress the student protests in those instances. More information would be needed to determine the specific decision-makers responsible in each case.
If you have any additional information, or anything which contradicts this, please let me know.
[edit: adding sources]
- [1] https://works.bepress.com/gerald_lebovits/354/download/
- [2] https://www.newyorkappellatelawyer.com/blog/new-exception-to-the-exclusionary-rule-and-fourth-amendment-suppression-issues/
- [4] https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/search-seizure/
- [5] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/22/us/campus-protests-columbia-yale
So either democrats ordered it, or are helpless to stop it?
...or haven't stopped it yet. It's not clear what the timing is on all of this. Maybe Wikipedia has an article...
This looks useful: Pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the United States
So maybe Joe Biden is just waiting for the right moment to publicly denounce the violent suppression of peaceful protests and exercise his authority as president to stop them?
What authority does he have? IANAL... (and unlike the GOP, Dems do feel some compunction to stay within the law...)
In his authority over the justice department, in his control over the national guard, and in his bully pulpit.
Or maybe he’s helpless?
Which specific authority does he have, when it comes to actions of municipal police?
This isn't a binary choice between "can fix it now" and "can't do anything ever". Given the things Biden has done while in office, I can hardly think he's okay with all of this. ...but I haven't yet heard what his take is.
He could, at the absolute bare least, make a public statement in opposition to the violent suppression of peaceful protests by agents of a state he ostensibly leads.
At the other extreme, he could nationalize the national guard and deploy them to protect students from violence by local police.
In between, Biden has a variety of options to respond—or maybe he doesn’t and being president doesn’t matter that much!
Well, here's what the consensus reality appears to be at the moment -- TLDR: he's buying too much into the "support for Palestine = antisemitic" trope. Points to consider: (1) the GOP has apparently been actively advocating for suppression, and (2) you'll never be able to talk sense into them because they're fundamentally fash, whereas Biden/Dems can sometimes be reasoned with.
President Biden has faced a challenging situation in responding to the police suppression of student protests against the war in Gaza at U.S. universities. While the administration has reiterated its support for the right to peacefully protest, it has also condemned "antisemitic" rhetoric and violence among some protesters.
The White House has rejected criticism from Hamas, which expressed support for the protests, with Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates calling Hamas "the least credible voice that exists on this subject" due to its history of terrorism.
Biden has also emphasized his lifelong commitment to combating antisemitism and his implementation of the first-ever national strategy to address this issue.
However, the administration has faced accusations of carrying out a "police state crackdown" on the protests in alliance with the Republican Party.
Hundreds of students have been arrested at campuses across the country, with some alleging excessive force by police.
The FIRE organization has emphasized that while colleges can set reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on protests, they cannot limit the views being expressed.
Biden's handling of the situation is being closely watched by both Jewish and Arab American voters in key swing states.
While the protests have so far been a distraction, they could potentially build momentum and lead to scenes of unrest at the Democratic National Convention in August.
The president will need to navigate the issue carefully to maintain support from young voters while also addressing concerns about antisemitism and violence.
Hm, so he doesn’t want to stop the violent suppression of peaceful protests?
the administration has reiterated its support for the right to peacefully protest
..and I don't know what else he may be doing that is within his legal power.
Ok, thanks for helping me answer my question: “no one”
I can't stop you from putting everything in absolutist framing.
I'm sure the authoritarians will be fine with this, too.
Perhaps I'm being a little unfair.
Taking your question literally:
if someone wanted to vote for “a society in which snipers are not deployed against student protests,” which candidate should they vote for?
-- you are correct that right now the answer is "none". The Dems can't stop local police from deploying snipers, and the GOP doesn't want to.
If that very narrow and binary question is the only lens that matters to you, then that's the answer.
If that binary question is truly the only lens that matters to you, though... then I have to question your ethical framework.
Yeah, in my ethical framework, state violence is pretty bad and having rights is pretty important, so I can see why that might be questionable for some people.
So, yeah, the Dems are historically bad on this issue (separating Palestinian rights from antisemitism -- not the same thing at all, of course). Palestinian rights are human rights.
Thing is, I don't see how the Dems aren't by far more amenable to reconsidering this position, over time -- and some Dems have been actively supportive.
Try finding any support among the GOP.
The choice is between (a) Dems: slow, reluctant support and (b) GOP: active hostility and suppression.
I think that is a much more useful answer to your question, even if it doesn't literally answer the exact question you asked.
(...and that's without going into all the other rights which Dems do actively support, and which the GOP opposes. I'd like to see one example of a civil right that the GOP is better about, or even not-clearly-worse, than the Dems.)
The question, narrowly framed and carefully positioned as it is, is a right-wing framing of the situation, designed to make two very unequal things appear equal -- and I have a hard time believing that anyone genuinely believes it is the question which matters when it comes to this year's elections.
raphael@woozle all in all, i doubt the practicality of the question of ‘which head of state do i vote for to fix an entire society’s broad endorsement of police violence as a solution to problems, while the country is currently set up with heavy barriers between said head of state and its next lower administrative level and down’
@HeavenlyPossum @gekitsu Short term, yes -- but what's your point? Voting in a national election is rarely a short-term solution to anything. That's not what it's for.
Chairman Meow ᓚᘏᗢ 🐿️🍉@woozle @HeavenlyPossum @gekitsu not speaking for Possum here but I'd encourage you to consider whether there are circumstances under which voting is not a *long-term* solution either. In which case you could spend your whole life voting yet wind up no closer to justice at the end than you were at the beginning. Perhaps further.
Try asking yourself this as a serious exercise: "what rules should I use to decide whether voting is actually working, and what should I do if I decide it isn't?"
If we don't vote against dictatorship, the people who like dictatorships will vote one in, because they don't stop to debate about it; they just follow orders. They've been getting closer to their goal every decade or so for 40 years now. ...and I should hope that you'd be as concerned about that possibility as I am.
I'd rather survive with a government that at least tries to help people live better, than possibly die under a government which actively sabotages anyone outside their in-group.
The more time and energy I have to spend fighting against powerful people punching down and pulling the rug out from under me and other non-wealthy people, the less time I can devote to working towards a better system of governance and a better society.
I'm not sure why this isn't obvious.
...and now I'm having to spend time fighting against people who want to equivocate between those two options. WTF? Have you really thought this through?
@woozle oh I promise you I have thought it through, and not only that but I've lived through it. So I wouldn't dream of discouraging anyone from voting.
That's why I asked that very specific question. And I still think you should address it seriously instead of assuming I don't know what I'm about. By all means vote, but remember voting is *the least* you can do, and GOTV is only a little more.
If you don't like my other question, here's a new one: what exactly are you "fighting me" about?
I did respond to your question seriously, although it wasn't a direct response.
I'll try again.
I think the problem is that your question is rather open-ended -- which leaves it to me to clarify your meaning. When I choose an interpretation that seems meaningful to me, you can then say "no, that's not what I meant" -- and much like HeavenlyPossum, you can then avoid taking any position on what it is you're actually trying to say.
...so I'll give you some possible interpretations without choosing one, and you can tell me whether any of them is what you mean (or clarify what you do mean, if none of them).
You suggested I ask myself:
[quote]
"what rules should I use to decide whether voting is actually working, and what should I do if I decide it isn't?"
[quote]
The ambiguity here is: what do you mean by "working"? Possible interpretations:
- Do I get what I want, when I vote? (Do I get less of what I want when I don't?)
- How does the outcome of the election affect me (directly or indirectly)? Does it really matter who wins?
- Do we get better social outcomes when more people vote?
- Is the aggregate personal cost of voting (time off work etc.) generally fairly compensated for by the gain in doing so?
So: is it any of those? If not, please clarify.
@woozle the last one is actually a pretty good way to put it, though I would like to emphasize that "in aggregate" across society is the important part, because your personal cost/benefit ratio is entirely dependent on how you feel about the choices you already have.
Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm not trying to discourage you from voting. I'm trying to encourage you to think about whether voting gives you the kind of "power" that you think it does.
@darcher I have no illusions that it gives me any power.
[edit, added] I mean, why would you think that I would think it does? "Power" is not what it's about. It's about keeping too much power from accumulating elsewhere. It's swimming in the ocean. It doesn't confer power, it doesn't even guarantee we'll live; it's just the best chance we've got.
@woozle Ha! That is a very anarchist perspective.
But that makes it sound like you're on team "Voting Is Harm Reduction - Not A Way To Achieve Substantive Change"
Is that a reasonable way to describe your position?
@darcher Halfway. It doesn't achieve substantive change on its own, but it does make such change more possible.
Yes, I am more or less an anarchist (of the "don't burn down the house until you've got another one built and have moved into it (and maybe dismantle it instead of burning it)" school of thought).
@woozle Excellent. Dual Power FTW (unless you prefer to call it something else). We are on the same page as far as that goes.
So to go back to the original question, what is the relationship (in your view) between voting and building the new house? Or, put differently, do you think voting removes any of the impediments to building a new house?
Edit: maybe a better way to ask is HOW do you think voting makes change more possible?
@darcher It's not so much that it removes them as that it keeps new ones from accumulating. It prevents change (which is generally a slow, effort-intensive process) from being kneecapped.
Hypothetical:
If Trump wins, a lot of my friends will be making plans to move -- to flee the country if they can, or at least to find a safer state to live in if they can't, because they would know the federal government won't be protecting them against authoritarian hate, and hate will once again be officially sanctioned at the highest level.
That kind of thing uproots communities, disrupts projects for change, takes away resources. (...quite aside from being discouraging.)
When more people vote, authoritarians tend to win fewer elections, and the slow processes of change are stomped in the face by fewer and smaller boots.
When fewer people vote, more well-behaved Nazis are able to walk into the bar.
...only I think now we're past the stage where they have to be well-behaved to get in; too many of the bouncers are sympathetic. We now need to get them out.
That's yet another way of explaining why this election is so important: if the GOP somehow wins in any substantial way this November (which I don't think they can do honestly), they will have taken over the bar, and we'll be done with elections until there's an actual revolution. (I can't imagine that being pleasant to live through, assuming one is somehow able to do so.)
@woozle sorry, had to break for chores.
Yes even "good" revolutions are best avoided, yes Trump again probably means no more elections and no more federal protection (though I suspect we'd disagree strongly about how much protection we have now). There's no need to persuade me to vote, and no need to persuade me this is the most important (US) election of my lifetime.
Of course it is, because at least half of them have been. 1/
@woozle And I'm very much a pragmatist, so no need to sell me on compromise in politics.
What you won't to be able to persuade me of is that there's any meaningful "social contract" or "obligation" between voters and politicians. I've been voting for 40+ years and every single time, the people I voted for either made things worse, or actively helped the people I didn't vote for to make things worse.
That's my lived experience, as the kids say. 2/
@woozle OTOH, I'm also on board with Harm Reduction, so I put years of serious and sustained effort into getting less-evil candidates elected anyway. Because, to be fair, things get worse slightly slower when the less-evils are in charge.
Which gets to what (I think) we disagree about factually. You say voting (and winning of course) keeps new impediments from accumulating. I say it doesn't. Actual power is the only thing I've ever seen work. 3/
@woozle Which is also to say US elections are a ritual to *make people think* new [impediments to justice] are not accumulating, when in fact they are.
So yeah, absolutely, vote. Heck, I do it too. But I stopped doing GOTV or donating, because (IMO) voting has never once "worked" in the sense you described above.
This is all IMO YMMV etc, but my advice is not to expect voting to prevent things from getting worse, let alone make things better. 4/4
@woozle Actually, let me amend that a little bit.
Don't get emotionally invested in voting, or politicians, or whether other people vote. That just works against you and the people you want to protect in the long run, because it makes you more vunerable to manipulation.
You say voting (and winning of course) keeps new impediments from accumulating. I say it doesn't.
I don't think I ever used the qualifier "only".
Actual power is the only thing I've ever seen work.
When it comes to dealing with the Right -- which, yes, has far too much influence on Dem policy -- force is in fact the only language they speak. ...and Dems lean this way when they say things like "give me a popular mandate, and I'll do what you want". I haven't forgot when we-the-people did that at Occupy, and Obama allowed the police to do what they did anyway.
So, yes, we need our own power-base -- but if we use the same sort of top-down control structures, then in the long run the fash take over.
We have to work out ways of organizing that can act quickly and powerfully without putting too much power/control in too small a space.
> So, yes, we need our own power-base
It's good to see that, because in some of your responses to Possum it seemed as if you were implying that voting is a way to exercise power, but that not-voting is in some sense "surrendering" that potential lever of power.
US elections aren't like that. Insisting that everyone has an obligation to vote for the "lesser evil" over and over isn't realistic, even in the context of Harm Reduction.
@darcher I didn't insist that, nor did I argue for voting in terms of power. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
What you won't to be able to persuade me of is that there's any meaningful "social contract" or "obligation" between voters and politicians.
I wouldn't attempt to argue that. The main reason Biden hasn't been a disappointment for me is that I've learned to set my standards low.
> The main reason Biden hasn't been a disappointment for me is that I've learned to set my standards low.
Yes, that's the tricky bit, isn't it?
Your expectations are calibrated by your experience of the relationship between voting (in aggregate) and getting results (in aggregate), such that for you voting is still "worth" it. Other peoples' experience of that cost/benefit ratio are different, and if you're trying to organize them you need to respect that.
@darcher This is not news to me. I'm not one of those people going around saying "you HAFTA vote, you GOTTA!".
To the best of my recollection, I've been arguing entirely in terms of (a) Possum's claims, and (b) cost-benefit analysis of different voting strategies (including "not").
@woozle in that case I misinterpreted. It sounded to me like you were coming from a HAFTA, position, especially the one (linked below) where you implied that other people not voting would leave you with less time and/or opportunity to do other community-building and justice-seeking things.
Voting is fine. But it's important to acknowledge that in practice what your choices are drawn from different factions of "powerful people punching down."
Woozle Hypertwin (@[email protected])
@[email protected] If we don't vote *against* dictatorship, the people who like dictatorships will vote one in, because they don't stop to debate about it; they just follow orders. They've been getting closer to their goal every decade or so for 40 years now. ...and I should hope that you'd be as concerned about that possibility as I am. I'd rather survive with a government that at least *tries* to help people live better, than possibly die under a government which actively sabotages anyone outside their in-group. The more time and energy I have to spend fighting against powerful people punching down and pulling the rug out from under me and other non-wealthy people, the less time I can devote to working towards a better system of governance and a better society. I'm not sure why this isn't obvious. ...and now I'm having to spend time fighting against people who want to equivocate between those two options. WTF? Have you really thought this through?
@darcher Again, I wasn't saying that this implied a moral obligation but explaining the social cost of lost elections.
Yes, it's a good-cop/bad-cop choice -- would you prefer your shit sugar-coated or sprinkled with opiates?
We try to fix the world we have, not the one we wish we had already fixed.
@woozle Sure, but this started with Possum explaining that they didn't want to eat shit.
You are focused on the social cost of lost elections, and that's fine, but (with a very very strong disclaimer that your choices are yours, not mine) the elections you "won" had a cost as well.
I'm a biologist. I see things through the lenses of evolution and ecology and ethology, where "winning has a cost" is easier to understand. That's the cost I think you're underestimating.
@darcher I was focused on answering their question. I don't think I contradicted the idea that the choice is shit either way.
Maybe a better analogy would be "would you prefer human feces or horse-manure"? One is a lot easier to work with, even if they are both, in fact, shit.
I'm focused on this subject because it's the subject we've been discussing. You'll note I have several times mentioned bigger-picture concerns.
"Winning has a cost" -- that's why it's called a "cost-benefit analysis" and not "which choice is clearly and unambiguously better" analysis.
...though when it comes to Dems vs. GOP, or Biden vs. Trump, we seem to be asymptotically approaching that latter condition.
...which isn't to say that even the best Democrat will do everything we want, much less that any elected official doing everything we want would be able to achieve everything we want.
All this should be understood context, in any discussion on this topic.
@woozle I find that when I have to keep updating my metaphor, it's a good time to regroup 🙂
> asymptotically approaching that latter condition
Yes, precisely.
To elaborate, the reason "cost of winning" is easier to understand in biology is that there are all kinds of situations, especially in predator/prey ecology, where "winning" very clearly moves you further away from any "world you wish you had" and sometimes even makes those "worlds" entirely inaccessible. 1/
Cost of winning happens in economics too, in the form of "market failures".
US voting, in this sense, is a "lemon" market. You can't fix it as a consumer using your purchasing power. You have to fix it some other way.
By expanding the House or adopting the NPVC, or ranked choice, or whatever. But your reps *don't want that* and once you've voted your leverage is gone. That loss of leverage is the "cost of winning" in the voting game.
BTW if you want a "cost/benefit analysis" scenario that provides a *really* outside-the-box perspective on human politics, the evolution of "mutually assured destruction" signals like bright colors on poisonous species is a great example.
It's more complicated to explain than lemon markets, but it's a useful parallel if you want to understand how certain kinds of political problems happen.