Based 😼

Apologies for the long comment you were fully within your right to haphazardly essentialise about the state of affairs, sometimes we just want to complain. Its just about the audience really, and it can be so difficult to distinguish between bad-faith actors and those who are being snobbish in their response to you when you have the wrong audience for your rhetoric.

It really depends on your audience, unfortunately the majority of people you speak your rhetoric too will not have 10% of the basis in knowledge required to make a consistent logical leap between neatly packaged concepts. Especially when many of those concepts have been prepackaged to the audience as inherently deserving of ridicule. Whereas the core ideas of most of those concepts are agreed upon across the political spectrum.

Its far easier to argue against the Friedman Doctrine, the idea that “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits”, than it is to argue against capitalism itself in an optics sense.

Again its easier to argue against the current state of things, often colleqioully known as ‘neoliberalism’ and ‘late-stage capitalism’, than it is to argue against capitalism. Even if that implies the same as what you said (that capitalism tends towards or has tended towards inevitability), it will be received much more graciously as an observable fact of the current state of affairs.

The Trump camp argues against the current state of things very effectively, despite intentionally identifying the issues incorrectly and pushing them in the worse direction. Because most people can identify the current system is broken, and most want to believe they can help to make it better. If they are given the right framework, debunking common misconceptions, blaming ‘late-stage capitalism’ for example, corporate elites, info about PACs and lobbying (how capitalism undermines democracy through bribery), then they would hopefully come to the conclusion themselves.

My point being, while its not always your responsibility to meticulously articulate (some of) the core fundamentals of your ideology; if you hope for effective praxis then approaching people where they are at is necessary. Otherwise you risk appearing out of touch and facing (however (un)justifiable) pre-prepared ridicule potentially harming the ideology further through vibe association.

When your audience is non-leftists (liberals), argue against corporate greed and for real social responsibility for wealthy and corporate actors, who should be providing their fair share to society first. Then argue for state ownership of public services, some services should not be ran for profit and instead for maximising public good (public transport, healthcare, energy, water, etc.). Argue against nestles actions in flint for example, or healthcare costs. These are all easy wins, argue against the big monopolies making us pay more for worse services, argue they should be broken up to allow competition.

Like I say though, you are within your right to complain and not explain, just don’t be surprised when you have stinky libs acting smug and being arbitrarily obtuse.

Also, don’t be dissauded by the humiliation, that is their strongest tool in making us powerless.

I’m reminded of a quote from Yuri Bezmenov:

“I realized that the purpose of propaganda was not to persuade or even to deceive, but to humiliate. When a person hears lies of the most absurd kind, and can say nothing in return, eventually he will be emotionally spent and conquered, and will not feel that he has any right to say what is true, or that there is no one who will care. Once this has been achieved, liars can move on to action, to do whatever they please without a whimper in response.”

Definitely a much better tone.

My mate had a game of pool with him at a local pub, I think he said he seems pretty down to earth, although since he ate the bacon sandwich all goofy like maybe he’s truly despicable - who knows.

They make em just as compact with the UK plug too 😀

I don’t think it undermines anything to liken people who parrot 1-to-1 nazi rhetoric to nazis. Especially if you’re referring to maga republicans which have taken many steps past dogwhistle and into stochastic terrorism and promoting violence against minority groups. Yeah, of the 200 or so house republicans, only between 5-10 of them are ‘actual nazis’ in the sense that people mean, but those are also the current face of the republican party, who people actually know the names of.

It really isn’t so absurd to compare a group of people actively working against the rights of women and minorities, who actively staged an insurrection attempt, who want to install a christofascist dictatorship with their ‘red ceasar’ in the coming years to the nazis.

Yeah most of them aren’t literal members of the nazi party, only a few have been found with memorabilia, but at what point is the difference still worth fighting over? When all our rights are gone and we have no means with which to fight back?

If a group of people speak like nazis, act like nazis, plan to act in future like nazis, and are supported heavily by open nazis who demonstrate using literal nazi symbology… Then what is it you’re trying to prove by saying that they aren’t?

What you are saying almost seems to be like when racist people get upset at being called racist, not because they are or aren’t, but because they see it as some sort of grave insult instead if a description of their presentation.