zohran mamdani please run for senate challenge
Wait… I thought he was a jihadist? Or does this mean that jihadists now like the gays? I’m so confused.
Okay, you’re clearly not getting it. Muslims are bad and gays are bad, so obviously they support each other. /s
if someone can get christians panties in a wad, when mentioning Mosques or arabic letters/numbers, its muslims.
it’s like how Iraq was obviously aiding and abetting al qaeda, even though to believe that you have to ignore absolutely everything about both
A Gay Jihad is imminent
al-gayda?
he’s like the anti gavin newsom 🥺
Of the “left,” maybe. Gavin’s a douche, but at least he doesn’t support any anti-LGBTQ legislation.
he is the typical center right.
He is anti-trans in both words and voting record.
he does veto pro lgbtq legislation tho: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/gavin-newsom-vetoes-important-hrt
True, true. Neoliberalism at its finest.
Arguably more important is how he votes, not what he claims to support.
Ohh have you heard his thoughts on transgender people though? Fuck Gavin Newsom, I will say it as many times as needs to be said. He will NOT fight for vulnerable people when push comes to shove, he is an empty stylized WWE character posturing to be Trump’s big rival nothing more nothing less.
Hopefully people of all stripes will be uplifted.
I do think he said he wants it to be a better city for everyone who lives in it.
My white cishet male ass* gets that making NYC better for everyone means it’d be better for me too, even if the most vulnerable among us get paid some extra attention when it comes to improving the things that make their lives harder. Some people seem to think that it’s a zero-sum game and improving other peoples’ lives must come at the cost of their own. It’s just blatantly untrue.
* My white cishet male ass also doesn’t live in NYC, but I mean in general. I want the world around me to be better for everyone, not just me specifically.
which means all the right wingers will come out of the woodwork to complain about how this somehow means it will be a city for only lgbtq+ and the rest of them will have to fight some made up enemy to keep their homes or other similar dumb shit. I’ll almost certainly hear about it from the maple maga at work.
remember the rich said they were leaving, they dint. only the ones that drank the koolaid of right wingism did.
That’s what allies are for
Maybe he should say ‘a LGBTQCS+ sanctuary’ to include cis and straight folk. It might make the point that everyone should feel safe and it’s not a zero-sum game.
These are the same people who complain about those “Coexist” stickers with all the religious symbols, and the inclusion of a cross on those has done nothing to dissuade them. They don’t care; they honestly believe it is their right to oppress others, and anyone stopping them from doing so (or even suggesting they shouldn’t) is oppressing them.
“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”
…so, do something about it…
They won’t give a shit. They’re bigoted sociopathic fucksticks. The types to react like that are a lost cause.
Nothing will turn them from their bullshit unless it directly affects them, like their favorite child being LGBTQ, and even then many of them choose to disown them instead of being empathetic with their own child.
Some people are just shitty human beings and should be shunned from civilized society until they’re willing to deal with being a piece of shit.
Most of them get mad when someone says cis, because “normal people don’t need labels” or whatever the fuck my drunk uncle will say this year while the kids open christmas presents
cIs Is A sLuR
It’s okay for me to use the word. My wife is a cis.
I like the “+”, it means I’m in there too, adding what I can to help =)
Good man
pfft classic sharia law andy
His hips don’t lie
While keeping the current NYPD 🤡🤡🤡
He has shown that he isn’t better than succdems like AOC or Sanders
If you expect the world to be exactly like you’d want it to be, every politician will disappoint you. Unless you get into politics and become a dictator.
no one who ever runs for elected office will ever be perfect. it’s still part of our movement to put better than the worst people into the office while we organize on the margins.
don’t let perfect be the enemy of good, but don’t forget to never accept good enough as good enough
Oh it’s the liberal again 👋👋
yes. you know liberals. always encouraging others to organize on the margins in order to bring about a resilient insurgency movement to seize the means of production because electoralism will never save us, only stave off catastrophe long enough for us to get in order. how very liberal of me to do 🙄
Your liberal understanding of history and political theory tells me something else, but oh well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
calling people liberal is such a buzzword for conservatives, tankies are no better than conservatives, you just have a veneer of being left while also adopting many things of the right.
explain my politics to me, please, since you know them so much better than i do. tell me how my belief that we need to conduct coalition building in order to bring about a stateless, hierarchiless, moniless society is improper leftist thought. tell me how my belief that every society can be understood through the lens of how its economy works and we’ve been on a cycle of imperial fascists holding all the power for 12000 years (at least) and adopting the aesthetics of liberation is fundamentally pro-capital in nature.
i’d love to know where i can improve, bot you’ve just called me “the liberal” out of nowhere on a comment where i was fundamentally agreeing with you and encouraging others to understand that electoralism is not the beginning and end of resistance and that in order to create durable anti-fascist actions and bring about a good economic condition for all people they need to be doing more.
I’m not talking about this thread exclusively LOL.
Most of your takes I’ve seen on c/leftymemes just seem western AF and whack
Obvious troll is obvious
because trying to talk to dogbert is the etirety of my persona. i ended up blocking the most active poster to that comm because their entire existence seemed to be punching anarchists while only supporting authoritarian politics, which i took issue with. what’s funny is some of that behavior saw them getting a temporary ban, so… glad to know you judge me almost entirely on trying to encourage a fellow leftist on how to be a more effective communicator.
tell me though. what am i getting wrong about leftism outside of my zone. how can i be a more effective coalition builder as an anarchocommunist. what flaws am i exhibiting as someone who coalitions most easily with religious anarchists? i developed most of my class based politics growing up in poverty in the states and then talking to russians, Ukrainains, Cambodians, and people from Ireland about their experiences resisting oppressive governments.
i am very willing to adjust how i resist authoritarianism. none of us can be free until we are all free.
Removed by mod
I have to tell you I found this comment to be basically incoherent. Also I don’t understand why you’re using ellipses that way. I’m so confused.
…good for you, ad hominem…
That’s not what as ad hominem means
“Also I don’t understand why you’re using ellipses that way. I’m so confused.”
Hello, I’ve seen you post a few times using the same format, so I believe this is a stylistic choice you’ve made. I’m not sure I should be engaging, but in case you’re not trolling, pointing out that communication you’ve provided is difficult to understand, and then pointing out a stylistic choice you use to communicate is not an ad hominem, it’s pointing out that your communication was difficult to parse and the ellipses (part of the communication) did not help.
That’s not an ad hominem.
ad hominem /hŏm′ə-nĕm″, -nəm/ adjective
Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument.yes they’re attacking your argument and position as incoherent because of the use of language, terms and punctuation render it unintelligible, not because of who you are as a person.
which they didn’t do. they said they didn’t understand you, explained why they didn’t understand, and then asked that you either explain or restate.
you abusing the definition of ad hominem seems like a gish gallop
…you seem to fit the definition…
…what is?..
…you are attacking me for how i respond, seems, quite, umm…ad hominem…
…i see that no one read the original comment…
…we have not met, previously. please do not make fun of my idiosynchrasies…that seems so unfair and ableist…
Uhhh, you ok man?
…yeah, are you?..
…wtf? you think you are being fair?..
Did you just reply to yourself to ask this question? What the fuck is even happening in this thread?
Just a note, I couldn’t parse your original comment either, ellipses or not. And saying as much is not as hominem.
…any argument couched in how the argument is fought is ad hominem…
That’s just not true. Ad hominem has nothing to do with the argument. If someone attacked some aspect of your character and dismissed your arguments on those grounds, that would be ad hominem. But in this case all they did was express confusion because your original comment was pretty incomprehensible.
i’m starting to think this is a poorly programmed bot based on how this poster is not engaging with the request for clarification and is trying to claim that stating that the rest of us don’t understand what they are trying to say is an attack on their character
But they do have real comments elsewhere
…ellipses…
…too bad…
