I’m not really sure. One of the most common complaints among the less extreme portions of the right is that the left is too intolerant and strict and not fun to be around. And being more welcoming of the person themselves, even while acknowledging to yourself that their beliefs are severely flawed (possibly due to factors such as propaganda, peer pressure, religious beliefs), might be a way to help capture that crowd and work to win them over.

At the same time, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere where the person is clearly being malicious and possibly dangerous and is a lost cause. Stuff like “your body my choice”, using slurs, praising suicides of marginalized people, etc isn’t worth tolerating. Also when it comes to group activities, allowing these sort of people and ideas makes minorities uncomfortable, so when they leave to someplace more comfortable now your group is just full of Nazis. I seen no problem with cutting these sort of people out.

My family is conservative and I’m still dependant on them for healthcare, so calling them out usually isn’t worth it although sometimes I still do.

I have mine set to 18 hours

Well the election ended so there’s nothing to argue about right now

I graduated from a Christian high school a few years ago, and now they have a Discord server that’s basically their own version of 4chan and they post a bunch of edgy racist/queerphobic/etc stuff. Then the person running it went to MIT. It still exists and I’m pretty sure the staff knows about it and doesn’t give a shit. Of course the school itself promotes racist and queerphobic political ideologies as well so that’s not exactly helpful either.

I’m a Gen Z male, from what I can tell it seems like older generations tend to rely more on cable or traditional news outlets while younger generations tend to get their news from social media platforms like Instagram. Cable news tends to be more corporate and “normal”/consistent, while Instagram tends to feed news from a larger variety of sources that tend to be more anti-corporate and radical, but those sources also tend to optimize for very short bursts to get the point across quickly so the user can quickly move on to the next piece of news, and there’s also quite a bit of low effort content and reposts and misinformation and that sort of stuff. So I think it’s social media that’s the main driving factor in causing Gen Z to be more radical - which in some ways is a good thing since they have more awareness of the events in Palestine (and radical leftism is based), but the platform can also put them into far-right fear-mongering bubbles and cause serious problems.

I’m also a Gen Z male, raised in an evangelical household at a Christian school that supported Christian nationalism, and was supposed to be a strong conservative Christian but ended up turning into an atheist socialist instead. It’s kind of funny to read that Gen Z is going radical right when for me it was the opposite.

No, the blood is on liberals who allow the Democrats to support a genocide and get away with it without losing their votes to an anti-genocide candidate. Also on the Democrats for making their platform regressive and boring in favor of their donors so people lose interest in them and they lose.

So it’s the leftists fault for not voting hard enough between two pro-genocide candidates. What were we supposed to do to vote against the genocide, vote third party?

and move where? to another country electing fascists?

Firstly, I never told anybody to not vote for Kamala, what I have done is explain why people aren’t voting for her and why she’s a shitty candidate.

Secondly, what I described above are different situations. These are products of flawed systems, the products themselves are not inherently bad and are necessary for survival which is why they exist and why people use them. But because the systems are flawed, there is all sorts of fucked up stuff going on behind them. The products themselves have no power to fix the system, and most individuals don’t either without a coordinated effort, unless they are exceptionally powerful.

Kamala, on the other hand, would be one of those exceptionally powerful people that - by working with other politicians - can fix these systems, yet she chooses not to. And one of the reasons for that is because a large portion of her voter base doesn’t give a shit at all about the rights of anyone but themselves and their friends, shows no interest in improving them, and even dehumanizes people being oppressed by them, so she knows she can get away with keeping the oppressive systems in tact and the voter base will still support her.

In order to fix oppression, we need to focus not on the products of the systems but on the systems themselves. And how we fix the systems is by someone who is willing to fix them gaining power. Kamala and the Biden administration have demonstrated that they have no interest in fixing the systems, that is why leftists are trying to raise awareness of these problems and are putting pressure on the Democrats and the voter base to change their stances on these problems.

Do you pay taxes? You could choose to just go to jail instead. Do you use a device made with slave labor? You could choose to abstain from technology and not post on Lemmy. Do you work for a corporation? You could choose not to help them do shitty things and not get your basic needs met. If you said yes to any of these you are being hypocritical.

Do you live in a city with sane transit? (Also I put more effort into avoiding cars than basically everyone I know where I live, nobody else I know uses a bike.)

I don’t own a car either but unless we improve public transit and city planning in the US there are situations where not using a car is simply impractical. My city is enormous and while my ebike works for shopping trips and getting to places <20mi away, I can just barely reach downtown and back with it before it dies. If it’s pouring rain, it’s not waterproof and it gets me soaked which is both uncomfortable and a health hazard. There are a lot of activities promoted by leftists in my area that I don’t go to because I would be spending 3 hours in transit to get there and back and I simply don’t have time for that (and Uber is too expensive). There are other places that take 3 hours one way to get to on public transit but 20 minutes by car. Where I live is not at all designed with sustainable transit in mind, and while I don’t own a car here I don’t blame people for wanting to use one. Not to mention I have almost been killed multiple times because the cycling infrastructure here is 45mph 6 line roads with no sidewalk or bike lane.

I use lemmyverse.net for finding communities

If supporting Kamala is your definition of a leftist echochamber you clearly haven’t browsed Lemmy much

I just don’t get how people are looking at Harris’ stance as being pro-genocide.

Blinken stated here:

In speaking with him the other day after he made his decision about not seeking re-election, what he’s intensely focused on is the work that remains over these next six months to continue the efforts, the work that we’ve been doing, particularly trying to bring peace to the Middle East, ending the war in Gaza, putting that region on a better trajectory

However, as you said earlier:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the one who wields the power to deny Israel’s aid.

Regarding:

There’s way more background on why Blinken has only stopped two aids and also because of classification reasons, not every stopping of aid can be published

I would like to hear more on this.

A lot of the funds that Israel is getting, is funding they secured before the Gaza invasion.

I did come across this where apparently Israel secured funding through a deal with the Obama administration.

I’m not sure what other reasons there may be that Blinken isn’t stopping the military aid which I would like to hear, but it seems to me like both the Obama and Biden administrations are the ones that pulled us into the genocide and that Blinken is playing the “we are working toward a ceasefire” card while not stopping the genocide, and figures like Harris are also playing the same card while pushing the same anti-protest rhetoric as Zionists. This article does suggest that Harris isn’t going to have Blinken as Secretary of State and that her new pick might be more critical of Israel so it seems like there’s at least some chance she might deviate from what Biden is currently doing; however, the article also suggests that she will have a similar approach to foreign policy as Biden. Aside from that, with the track record of Democrats historically supporting Israel and siding with donors against the interests of people along with their recently having dropped multiple progressive issues, I don’t think people are convinced that Harris (and many Democrats in general) is going to stop the genocide (not saying that Trump who openly supports Israel is going to be any better).

I’m trying to understand how this system works and came across this article from Al Jazeera which, if I’m reading it correctly, is saying that the US did determine gross human rights violations but the Biden administration is refusing to apply the Leahy Law. Doesn’t this mean that Biden does have the authority to stop sending military aid but isn’t, or am I misunderstanding something? Also, aside from Leahy Law why can’t he veto the military aid?

TikTok is popular because it’s addicting, not because it’s useful, so I don’t understand why anyone would use this.

Trump is targeting mostly far-right evangelicals who have a common vision on what they want the country to look like. He has a lot of energy when doing so, and because of how similar their interests are he could get away with all sorts of stuff and they would still vote for him.

Harris (and Democrats in general) is the only alternative mainstream candidate that everyone else has, and that “everyone else” consists of all sorts of people with conflicting interests: liberals, neoliberals, centrists, progressives, leftists, different religious groups or cultures, varying economic demographics, racial minorities, LGBTQ, and immigrants for instance. They’re trying to appeal to all of them at once, but because they don’t have a shared vision, nobody is happy and they get more scrutinized. To make at least some of them happy, they need to focus on certain groups and deprioritize the interests of other groups. However, once they do that then the groups they deprioritize get angry since they no longer have representation, and the groups that are still there remain skeptical because of the history of not working for their interests in the past.

The advantage that third parties like PSL have is that from the start, they’re trying to appeal to a specific group of people with a common vision like Trump is instead of trying to play both sides with conflicting groups and making nobody happy. The problem (aside from the election duopoly bought out by corporations) is that they are a very small political minority so they have no real chance of winning the election without winning over people from other groups which is a challenge, especially when there are many more unknowns when it comes to progressing than there are when it comes to reverting to a previous state so there is more fragmentation due to those sort of disagreements.