Trump called immigrants rapists and murderers, but Biden has been deporting just as many or more than Trump ever did when he was in office.

Biden doesn't use fascist rhetoric but he's still liberal with the use of force.

The problem is that, as I see it, we are at a point where we can't just show up one day. I would rather light a fire under your ass to help address the existential problems than nod my head solemnly in agreement that the best we can do is not have a Trump presidency.

And it isn't just that Biden won't be involved with a socialist agenda, it's that he's all too happy to let the pigs spray down protestors working to push for change and accuse them of being paid actors. Right now, he's in a spot where he has to listen to his base, so now is absolutely not the time to absolve him of all his inadequacies.

shouldn't making sure the liberal stays be a prerequisite to the other praxis?

Certainly not a prerequisite, no. The work that needs doing is no different in either case, and is met with hostility (of different scales, sure) under either presidency. Both will protect the institutions we seek to dismantle with force; one will simply be more open about it than the other.

For a leftist, neither candidate changes that reality. It will simply be more comfortable under one than the other.

I can't help it if you don't understand the point of that phrase

That's not the point: voting is unrelated to the work of uprooting fascism. If you spend all your energy getting Biden elected, you are still no closer to solving the problem.

There is some credence to using that as leverage to get liberals (whose only concern seems to be getting their guy elected) to engage the actual work of eliminating fascism, but that's not what I was advocating here.

on the basis of their liberal ideology

Still waiting

Oops, looks like you used the wrong picture

I think it would help to imagine this as if we've already arrived at the peak of fascism - what would you be doing then? Likely mutual aid, political (probably undergroud) organizing, civil disobedience, ect. This is what they mean when anarchists say 'you can't vote fascism away', and this is what leftists mean when they say voting in this election doesn't really address the crisis.

The hard work of resisting fascism happens everywhere but the ballot box.

Whichever state supported group is shooting and beating and arresting protestors in China America, they’re tankies.

FTFY

Damage control is important because if Trump gets elected, no one is going to have time to organize. The last 4 years I only occasionally check the news or when I see stuff on Lemmy. When Trump was President, I was checking the general news feeds multiple times a day to ensure that he didn’t do yet another insane and damaging thing that I had to immediately plan for.

I think it's worthwhile to point out that keeping yourself aware of what you're organizing against is possibly the bare minimum of organizing.

I'm not advocating for a trump presidency, but I think this gives some credence to what accelerationists are saying

I wish more people who are concerned about the 2024 election would take that anxiety and join progressive groups now, not wait until after the election, because not only do you have the motivation to take action now it's also a good way to push the conversation further left and put pressure on the 2024 candidates. I know my local DSA chapter has seen an uptick in new members, but I am quite certain I see a lot of people on here pulling their hair out over the stress but refusing to join a cause.

If you're spending your time insisting people vote in order to kick the can down the road, then you should also be spending your time organizing for the cause now and not waiting until the crisis is postponed.

Feel free to cite any instance of that occurring to support your case.

Jesus, I can't keep having this argument with you. I will accept "Leftists who want to abolish private property [are fringe]" as an acceptance of the assertion that American Liberals share all or most of the central ideological tenants of Classical Liberalism.

liberals also support fascism/colonialism/laissez-faire capitalism/insert Republican ideology here therefore Democrats support fascism/colonialism/laissez-faire capitalism/insert Republican ideology here

LMAO, nobody is saying american liberals support any of those things on the basis of their liberal ideology. I'm not even sure you understand what a motte-and-bailey is, those two arguments don't follow.

Far be it from me to point out you're doing exactly the kind of disingenuous re-framing you're accusing others of by excluding those to the left of you as fringe. Yes, American liberals are 'left-leaning' compared to conservatives (on exactly the same arbitrary binary scale that is being critiqued by the comparison), but they still share core elements of classical liberalism, particularly by the emphasis on protecting liberal institutions like private property and market-based mechanisms. This isn't about muddying the waters—it's about acknowledging the nuance in political ideologies. There's real divide between those who support these liberal institutions and those who aim to dismantle them. It doesn't matter if you think that perspective is fringe - the distinction being made is still there. We're pointing to a genuine ideological distinction, not just retreating to safer rhetorical grounds.

People making the liberal comparison aren't trying to place you on a political binary, they're trying to point to a distinction that you're actively trying to erase or dismiss.

“Liberals”, in the US, are actually quite left wing (outside of the “anyone right of Lenin is literally Hitler” lemmy bubble).

Even with whatever scale you're using to make that statement, there is still a distinct ideological divide between socialists/anarchists/communists and modern democrats. A centrist may fundamentally agree with the central tenets of liberalism (the right to property being the biggest point of disagreement), even if they ostensibly agree with many (if not most) progressive issues. Most people wouldn't notice those differences because they result in the same types of value statements, but leftists see them in high contrast because liberals will cater their policy decisions around preserving liberal institutions (e.g. the right of private property, small businesses, market-based financial instruments, ect).

But by associating US liberals with European economic liberals, it muddies the water and allows for a ton of motte-and-bailey style arguments.

I don't think it muddies the water at all, I think it precisely identifies the point of disagreement. I'm also not even sure what 'motte-and-bailey' arguments you could be talking about, let alone having seen one in practice.

I'll happily state my case for whatever usage I'm adopting, and ask for clarification when I suspect someone is operating on a different one, but I don't see any case to be made for the vague american label when discussing anything beyond american electoral politics - for the same reason i'm happy to jab at the usage in the same context, because it's the assumption of neutrality it asserts that I take issue with and am calling attention to.

The people who are using liberal derisively are playing off the american liberal self-identity. They're acknowledging both definitions in the jab.

A hammer doesn’t replace a carpenter.

I think a better analogy would be something like a loom: it doesn't operate independently and still requires an operator and mechanics, but it eliminates the need for rows and rows of weavers to complete the same amount of work (and that both puts many people out of work and undercuts the labor market, which are both big problems). Judging LLM's on a scale of total job replacement is IMHO a little ridiculous, because unless those LLM's are fucking sentient and autonomous, they'll never completely 'replace' a human roll. They will certainly make programmers/writers/translators/media producers more productive though, and that'll put quite a few out of work, and that's kind of a big problem.

Doesn’t matter what you or I think, if we want to have effective communication we need to use words as they are used.

I don't actually disagree with you, I just find it frustrating trying to use a more precise meaning to make a point and being met with resistance. I think a part of the problem is that leftists are trying to point at a distinction that exists within the overbroad american-liberal label that separates leftism proper and center-right democratic institutions, and i feel as if some centrists don't enjoy the discomfort of being singled out from the more progressive side of the caucus. I could be wrong, and I don't really care if I am, but I think it's important to acknowledge the tensions and to try not to erase the diversity of ideology that exists within the 'liberal party'.

Lol, I mean I get why you feel this moment is unique, but i'm looking through NYT articles from 1972 and if you take out the dated references you could almost mistake them for articles written in 2024:

To the Editor: When a Democrat for Nixon says “I'll vote holding my nose, but McGovern is not a big enough man to be President,” or “I don't like him, but there is no viable alternative,” or an uncommitted Democrat says “McGovern doesn't turn me on,” such remarks are liberalese for “I'm doing alright the way things are, and can't take a risk of any change in the status quo.” - NYT Letter to the Editor 10/19/72

"Lawrence F. O'Brien, the na tional campaign chairman for the McGovern‐Shriver ticket, accused the Nixon Administra tion yesterday of sanctioning tactics of “political espionage” that bordered on those of “a fascist state.” - NYT O'Brien Charges 'Political Espionage'" - 10/14/72

"Deceit, deceit, everywhere deceit—but especially on the political and cultural left, says Arnold Beichman, and most out rageously in the writings of the youth lovers (Marcuse, Slater, Sontag, Roszak, Reich and the rest). They say “America is al ready a fascist country or is on the road to fascism,” that the country “is guilty of genocide,” that “the Bomber Left ... is a moral force” They claim the white “American worker ... is a retrograde, decadent, self ish creature: a honky,” that “our political system is an ut ter fraud, particularly the two‐ party system,” that “American values are wholly materialistic,” that “America is insane,” and that our primary need is for “a violent revolution.” " - NYT, "Nine Lies About America", 10/8/72

I'm having a great time reading through these actually, it's interesting reading the op-eds from back then.

Saw this posted elsewhere and found it poignant

“If Nixon wins again, we’re in real trouble.” He picked up his drink, then saw it was empty and put it down again. “That’s the real issue this time,” he said. “Beating Nixon. It’s hard to even guess how much damage those bastards will do if they get in for another four years.”

I nodded. The argument was familiar. I had even made it myself, here and there, but I was beginning to sense something very depressing about it. How many more of these goddamn elections are we going to have to write off as lame but “regrettably necessary” holding actions? And how many more of these stinking, double-downer sideshows will we have to go through before we can get ourselves straight enough to put together some kind of national election that will give me and the at least 20 million people I tend to agree with a chance to vote for something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils?

– Hunter Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72