Much credit to this post.

    • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      14 days ago

      A nationalist “tough on crime” anti-socialist with a deep appreciation for cops-for-capitalism pining for a return to “glory days” for a subset of residents while scapegoating others via racist and xenophobic policies? While pushing a genocide? Whose supporters can’t even name the parts of her platform that appeal to them, instead trying to build a cult of personality and identify through who they reject?

      To the extent anyone is fascist any longer she’s right up there. But she uses rhetoric that is normalized for liberals and flies under the radar because the oppression she supports is sanitized and “politely” obfuscated.

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      14 days ago

      No, she’s much, much worse, mostly because Russia needs Trump to stop weapons supplies to Ukraine again like he did last time.

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    14 days ago

    Well worth it to actually click through and read some of the specific articles on topics of interest. The descriptions are not all accurate.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        14 days ago

        Many of these are about a case of a man supposedly throwing a knife under a car, for instance. “A crime he didn’t commit” is inaccurate, it remained very much in question.

        https://laist.com/news/kpcc-archive/san-fernando-valley-man-s-freedom-hangs-in-appeal

        Really, I recommend reading through any that strike your interest, and not simply trusting the one-shot summaries provided by a random person on the internet.

        • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 days ago

          Many of these are about a case of a man supposedly throwing a knife under a car, for instance.

          So far as I can tell, a single bullet point is about this, just with multiple links.

          “A crime he didn’t commit” is inaccurate, it remained very much in question.

          It’s a claim straight from one of the links and I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that a conviction based solely on cop testimony, later contradicted by other witnesses, with an incompetent defending lawyer that was later disbarred, is plenty enough to make that claim.

          Really, I recommend reading through any that strike your interest, and not simply trusting the one-shot summaries provided by a random person on the internet.

          Sure, but read them critically and not with a pro-cop bias.

          • Carrolade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            13 days ago

            It was also a point of at least one of the other bullets.

            Also need to read them without an anti-cop bias, it’s about conflicting witnesses. This puts the case into question based on an unbiased reading of the evidence at hand.

            Definitely read them critically, certainly. But remove all bias, not just pro-cop bias. There’s a whole bunch of nuance in the handful I clicked on that the pithy shorts neglect or outright spin.

            • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              13 days ago

              It was also a point of at least one of the other bullets.

              It was mentioned in a summary article of Kamala’s reactionary behavior as AG that is at the head of the other bullet points about this. It was a small part of a summary article that is entirely correct in its thesis.

              You are being misleading in your criticisms and should retract your false framing of OP’s post.

              Also need to read them without an anti-cop bias

              No I don’t. An anti-cop bias means being correct about power structures and, in this case, why you cannot trust them to tell the truth in court, let alone as the primary or sole evidence for guilt. In contrast, a pro-cop bias suggests either naivete or knowing sympathy with the legalized gang boot.

              it’s about conflicting witnesses.

              It’s about the primary evidence being the claims of two cops that were later contradicted by other witnesses (one of whom was also a cop!), the incompetent atyorney and the impact it had on the defense, like I said. Please address what I actually said, this is becoming repetitive and you are saying things already contradicted by myself and the articles in question. You read them, right? You recommended everyone do so. Why are you mischaracterizing them by omitting important information?

              I didn’t even mention how this reflects on Harris, who used a technicality to keep harassing this person rather than address or accept the material facts.

              This puts the case into question based on an unbiased reading of the evidence at hand.

              It puts the conviction and its fundamental basis into question, making it spurious. That is, unless you have the misapprehension that cops don’t routinely lie in their reports and in court. It is laughable to take the original case seriously.

              Definitely read them critically, certainly. But remove all bias, not just pro-cop bias.

              It speaks to a status quo naivete to presume the best position is one “without bias”. That is not only an impossible thing, it is a counter-productive thing to persue. Are you going to read the article without a language bias, where the words could mean anything or something, it is all the same to you? Will you be reading the case without a temporal bias? Maybe the events happened in a totally different order, who knows! Maybe 27 years is actually a day. Understanding the world and its systems necessitates bias.

              Such as that a case built on the testimony of two cops is, to make it simple, horseshit.

              There’s a whole bunch of nuance in the handful I clicked on that the pithy shorts neglect or outright spin.

              Given that you were wrong and misleading about this one, I am not optimistic about this, but feel free to share your other critical readings.

              • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                13 days ago

                I am not being misleading at all, this is strongly slanted content.

                Your “correct about power structures” betrays you. I think it is quite reasonable to see even police as individuals, capable of individual action. To me it’s testimony of two against two. The defense attorney’s incompetence is another issue entirely, but does not make the man innocent. Maybe he threw the knife, maybe he did not. Until we get a better answer in court, that’s all we’ve got.

                I really don’t think we need to consider temporal bias, unless this happened in low light conditions. Nor language bias. Simply bias towards the witnesses. You are disregarding two of them due to your own perceptions of structural power, I am disregarding none of them. I prefer my way. The rest of your rhetoric is rather silly.

                I read a few of these this morning, and saw legitimate cause for concern. I do not recall which specific ones I clicked on though, I tried to pick a handful at random. Regardless, a cautioning to be wary about internet spin is far from misleading, and this is definitely spun. I strongly suspect you simply like the spin out of an acab position, which I clearly do not ascribe to. You can call me naive if you like, I am certainly aware of the incentives for police to get convictions. I do not find such a position sufficient to simply disregard all police testimony, however. That simply should not be good enough, regardless of your philosophical leanings.

                • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  13 days ago

                  I am not being misleading at all, this is strongly slanted content.

                  I have explained how your claim is misleading twice now and you have not responded to that.

                  Your “correct about power structures” betrays you.

                  Betrays me how? You never elaborate on this later on.

                  I think it is quite reasonable to see even police as individuals, capable of individual action.

                  And yet the system produces a legalized gang that watches each others’ backs and routinely lies on reports and on the stand. You can’t just ignore that reality away, though clearly you would like to because knowing that cops are unreliable witnesses against defendants blows up the entirety of the prosecurion’s case. It is an absurd thing, and gullible, to think that cops’ testimony is enough to presume any level of guilt.

                  To me it’s testimony of two against two.

                  “If you stop making me think about context and facts, it’s simple, really! My position is nuanced!” lmfao

                  The defense attorney’s incompetence is another issue entirely

                  No it is not. It also undermines the original conviction, highlights the cruelty of Harris’ intervention, and provides a hint at the systemic issues re: the criminal punishment system that should lead you to have a less pro-cop, pro-prosecutor bias.

                  but does not make the man innocent. Maybe he threw the knife, maybe he did not. Until we get a better answer in court, that’s all we’ve got.

                  The burden of proof is on the positive claimant. Claims of crimes are not, by default, ambiguously true just because they are prosecuted or because there is cop testimony. Your logic is that of the southern white lynch mob.

                  And it reflects poorly on your comments, not on OP. You should withdraw your claim and apologize.

                  I really don’t think we need to consider temporal bias […]

                  I was obviously being absurd on purpose in both cases. Bias is inherent to having a correct understanding of something. The problem here is not bias at all, it’s being biased towards cops and prosecutors. You should be biased against them in these examples as they have a poor track record and it is for systemic reasons. And, to boot, they were contradicted by others, including another cop. This normally puts a huge target on the back of a “snitch”. See how useful bias is? It means you understand the forces at work and can judge the value of actions in context.

                  Simply bias towards the witnesses. You are disregarding two of them due to your own perceptions of structural power, I am disregarding none of them. I prefer my way. The rest of your rhetoric is rather silly.

                  I have actually listed at least 6 arguments around this, from different aspects of the case, and you have ignored nearly all of them. Noting the irrationality of your problem bias is just one part of explaining one of those angles.

                  Because I think you have forgotten, I will remind you that you are claiming the OP is being misleading and that the content of the articles does not match the claims, listing one example so far (and in a different misleading way, as I have noted twice!): that it isn’t kosher to say an innocent man was convicted (despite one of the articles saying this verbatim), that it is actually ambiguous and man, you just can’t tell. I will add a 7th argument: you are entirely missing the real point of those articles anyways, which is that Harris stepped in to harass this man in a technicality, i.e. the exact timing of challenges and the presentation of witnesses.

                  The rest of your rhetoric is rather silly.

                  Oh dear.

                  I read a few of these this morning, and saw legitimate cause for concern.

                  Yet you have only listed one example and didn’t even characterize it right in its basic framing, as it was only stated in one bullet point.

                  I do not recall which specific ones I clicked on though, I tried to pick a handful at random.

                  By this I will take it to mean you refuse to provide more examples despite claiming to have them.

                  Regardless, a cautioning to be wary about internet spin is far from misleading, and this is definitely spjn.

                  Only if you are biased towards cops and prosecutors and do things like, say, try to remove context from consideration or look at the case in its totality because that would contradict your narrative. You don’t see the irony in this behavior while decryjng “internet spin”?

                  I strongly suspect you simply like the spin out of an acab position, which I clearly do not ascribe to.

                  Feel free to respond directly to what I say and ask questions and you might be able to make accurate conclusions about my positions.

                  You can call me naive if you like, I am certainly aware of the incentives for police to get convictions.

                  And this describes the totality of your understanding of how much and why cops lie in reports and in court?

                  I do not find such a position sufficient to simply disregard all police testimony, however. That simply should not be good enough, regardless of your philosophical leanings.

                  I will take that as a “yes” to my question.

  • SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    14 days ago

    LMAO at the amount of “her entire career has been about building and filling internment camps, but at least she doesn’t have the popular support for a soft coup!” in this thread.

    • Mambert@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      14 days ago

      A federal prosecutor has always dedicated her career to building “internment camps” but a literal coup that led to several deaths was “soft”?

      • Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        I can’t tell which you’re trying to do, apologize for maga chuds or kamala’s abuse of black people and immigrants.

        • Mambert@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          That’s right where I want to be. So on the fence you frustratingly want me to just pick any side.

          But for your own sanity sake, I prefer to side with society freedoms. I’m too young and broke to care about tax brackets or inflation rate.

      • SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        13 days ago

        Several deaths:

        six people died: one was shot by Capitol Police, another died of a drug overdose, three died of natural causes, and a police officer died after being assaulted by rioters.

        I’ll admit it may technically be a mischaracterization, but I don’t think you understand the level of violence that is typical of “hard” coups.

        • Mambert@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          I just disagree with softening the word by adding “soft” at the beginning. A soft coup is a coup. Date rape is still rape, candy-corn-murder is still murder. No need to add prefixes to try and categorize them, and artificially make some sort of hierarchy.

          By naming it any less than a coup, and holding all coups to the same standard, it’s an attempt to soften it, and I am against that.

          • SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            13 days ago

            It’s not a hierarchy per se so much as different categories/distinctions which I do think is useful. A serial killer is different than a hitman which is different than a soldier. I agree they are all functionally the same but they serve different purposes and have different characteristics which are important to keep in mind when talking about them.

            That being said you’ve changed my mind on calling it a “soft” coup as it doesn’t really accurately describe the differences I was trying to convey. “Incompetent, halfhearted, and poorly planned autocoup” would be more accurate but it’s a mouthful and I don’t know if that’s the most useful distinction either.

            Either case thanks for the pushback!

            • Mambert@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              13 days ago

              I definitely agree we have different names for different scenarios!

              When a rich person is murdered, they’re assassinated

              When a religious figure does a magic trick, it’s a miracle etc

  • Mambert@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    14 days ago

    I don’t see “attempted a coup when she lost an election and still denies losing to this day” so my mind is still set.

      • nick@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        14 days ago

        No. The stakes are too high for this bullshit. Better Kamala than an actual literal fascist.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          14 days ago

          The stakes are too high to not organize, voting for the Dems doesn’t stop fascism, or even delay it.

          MAGA is popular for the same reason other nationalist, fascist movements have risen over the course of modern history: as a response to Capitalist decay. MAGA isn’t popular for genetic reasons, intellectual inferiority, or other reasons like that, but as a common class interest. All of the descriptors in the OP are consequences of the driving factor of class interests, not the drivers themselves.

          Fascism is most often represented as an alliance between the Petite Bourgeoisie and Bourgeoisie proper, driven by the Petite Bourgeoisie, as monopolization of Capital results in competition becoming more and more difficult, and the Petite Bourgeoisie faces Proletarianization. To prevent the Petite Bourgeoisie from joining the Proletariat in solidarity, the Bourgeoisie proper turns their hatred against the Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat.

          What does this all mean, in practical, American terms? Small business owners, landlords, ie the “middle class,” is shrinking in power, so the Small Business Owners are aligning with billionaires like Musk and Bezos against immigrants, workers, unhoused peopled, gender/sexual minorities, women, ethnic minorities, and more.

          How do we fix this? Grow the Petite Bourgeoisie and restore their position? Absolutely not! That’s when fascism is established. Trying to “turn the clock back to the good old days” results in dramatic reductions in worker rights and a solidification of power.

          What we need to do is establish Socialism. A victory of the Proletariat, a folding of the large monopolist syndicates into the public sector so they can be centrally planned for the public good, rather than privately planned for profit, is the way forward. This is the way to escape fascism’s rise. This is the way to defeat MAGA.

          I recommend reading the book Blackshirts and Reds, fascism’s irrationality has rational, material origins, that can be understood and defeated, and it isn’t in the “marketplace of ideas.”

          • nick@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            14 days ago

            Yeah that’s never happening dude, sorry; this shit’s way too entrenched. Until we start killing lobbyists and billionaires off, ain’t shit changing. Might as well be pushing Jill stein.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              14 days ago

              How’s that radical rise of the proletariat going for those in Venezuela? How did it go for the Soviets after Lenin? How’d that whole great leap forward go for the farmers in Maoist China?

              Venezuela is doing alright, not great but it isn’t really a Socialist state. The USSR had great success in many areas, like a doubling in life expectancy, free healthcare, free education, huge increases in home ownership, and more. The PRC struggled during the Great Leap Forward, Mao was only about 70% good, Deng course-corrected back to Marxism-Leninism.

              Or perhaps you are of the “These are not true Marxist regimes. There’s never been a true Marixst state” camp. Gee, I wonder fucking why? Perhaps because it doesn’t work. Marxism is unsustainable at scale.

              No, AES states exist and Marxism works. Cuba, the PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, etc. are all guided by Marxism-Leninism. Socialism guides the largest economy on the planet, if it couldn’t scale then it wouldn’t have.

              You want a commune, go for it. A town of co-op of farms, by all means. Perhaps even a small city state, just beware, if you introduce a power vacuum, some smooth talking snake oil salesman is going to try to fill it.

              I am not advocating for Communes, I don’t know where you got the idea that I was.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  14 days ago

                  Can you explain?

                  Edit for your edit:

                  I would also hardly consider Cuba or Laos as frontiers of innovation. Just curious, do you feel that innovation is an important aspect of civilization? If so, do you think socialism and innovation can thrive without the sacrifice of one to the other?

                  Cuba and Laos are doing well, Cuba especially is great in the healthcare sector for innovation. Yes, Socialism and innovation thrive together. Markets are good at preparing the ground for public ownership and planning through the formation of monopolist syndicates, but that’s really yhe biggest aspect, innovation is often held back by the profit motive.

              • rothaine@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                13 days ago

                The USSR had great success in many areas

                The PRC struggled during the Great Leap Forward

                You seem to be papering over the part where a shit ton of their own people died, so I don’t think this really works as a pitch. You’d need to find a way to ensure that mass death wouldn’t happen again, and then succinctly express it.

                Mao was only about 70% good

                Anyone who does mass executions is a fucking monster. Probably better to leave this out of the pitch.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  13 days ago

                  I can discuss in-depth with you if you’d like, but Blackshirts and Reds is the perfect book for you. AES is by no means a fantasy wonderland, but it is a dramatic improvement on existing conditions. The Kuomintang and the Tsars were more brutal than the Communists, and that brutality lasted for centuries.

              • ma343@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                14 days ago

                This is my problem with the PSL, you can’t call yourself a party for liberation and then support the DPRK regime, an absolute hereditary dictatorship. It’s great to point out the flaws in the US ruling parties, but campism is just ignoring the very real flaws of anyone who happens to oppose the US internationally because they’re on your “team”. In reality, there’s no team except the working class, and these supposedly leftist governments are usually not treating the working class well either.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  14 days ago

                  The DPRK isn’t a hereditary dictatorship, that’s not accurate. No, it isn’t a utopian paradise either, it’s somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.

                  but campism is just ignoring the very real flaws of anyone who happens to oppose the US internationally because they’re on your “team”.

                  Have you read Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism before? Are you familiar with the term “critical support?”

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          Fascism is caused by systemic political and economic factors- basically when capitalist psuedo democracy runs out of runway and the capitalists choose to preserve capitalism over the concessions of bourgeois democracy.

          If you care about democracy you have to join a socialist org and fight for socialism.