the prodigal Jim returns!
Why did the article feel the need to mention US foreign policy from the early Trump administration? I can't imagine it would be hard to find hypocrisy from the Biden administration itself.
Instead of talking about the US human rights failures, it spends time downplaying the accusations about Uighurs. None of the information constructed here builds into a cohesive thesis.
beautiful fields of corn
Fascists think they do
I can't really imagine danger being particularly extreme for anyone other than trans people, for trans folk updating passports is likely a good idea. But keep in mind that blue states would still be relatively safe.
If shit truly gets to the point where it's death squads and fascist street gangs, realistically there would not be anywhere in the world that would be safe.
I don't think we need to be worried about full-blown civil war, but preparing for an increase in stochastic terrorism probably isn't the worst idea.
truth is dead
Douchey rant?
new skill learned: "investigative journalism"
That doesn't really respond to what I said
but it applies to voting, we can argue about the effectiveness of voting as a tactic but people who vote are more politically engaged than the type of person described in the quote
There are many people who vote, and do nothing else, and that is condemnible. But unless you have direct evidence that the quote originates with someone who explicitly denied the effectiveness of voting in totality I see no reason why the quote would not apply to forms of political advocacy you happen consider ineffective
I don't particularly want to argue about the effectiveness of voting, beyond to say that I strongly disagree with any bright-line distinction between "electoralism" and whatever other strategies you would care to mention, and that EVERY successful movement (leftist or otherwise) that had the option had the ballot as part of their strategy.
gotta get that sweet corn