Thank you for your service o7

That's honestly kind of hilarious. I guess someone was looking to make a career off of getting clout from this and didn't realize how they come off when they just say that that's what they're doing.

Even facing execution and met with reactionaries, John Brown used it as an opportunity to advocate for his beliefs, as he did in most cases. He knew well that a huge portion of the population would defend slavery with violence, and therefore that it must be opposed ultimately with violence, but he did not look at the overwhelming consensus in favor of slavery and say that it was no use talking to people, or do you think his comrades appeared out of thin air? Do you think every single one came from an existing abolitionist network, which itself must have come into existence ex-nihilo or get founded by a bunch of people who were born based? Was his project of rescuing slaves not itself also meant as a message to the wider country that slavery was intolerable and it could be opposed? One that helped to instigate a great shift in the popularity of abolition as well as galvanize existing supporters?

Yes, giving a little speech at a rally populated by liberals is not the same as being hanged for militant opposition to slavery, but we must acknowledge that people can be reached who once we might have considered our opposition, or else we have hallucinated the entire history of socialism and our cause is already lost regardless.

the No Kings protests are decentralized and will eventually fizzle out.

Obviously? No one thinks that the protest is going to itself lead to a revolution, the argument is simply that the protests are useful opportunities.

in my opinion many people do believe that not voting is “showing what they believe in”

It's a fact that many people believe that, but communication isn't just about how you feel, it's about what the other person interprets. The popular opinion is that non-voters are jack-offs who just don't care or are assuming Their Guy will win regardless (or in some cases that their vote was suppressed, like yours was). It is not that not voting is an act of protest, because it usually isn't.

if the material result is the same anyway i can see where they’re coming from

This is vulgar materialism. Just because voting for Gloria de la Riva or whoever doesn't mean that suddenly your neighborhood turns red does not mean nothing happened. Simply contributing to the voting record is doing something, it is showing something that people will always be able to point to to indicate the popularity of the socialist position over liberal positions among some people, and gives a more accurate estimation of how many people hold such a stance. I'm sorry it doesn't grant you an AR-15 and license to assassinate one politician of your choice, but you can't let your politics be decided by Pavlovian conditioning when you have the capacity to understand it in a higher-order way.

If you give a shit about what happened to your registration, find out why it was rendered invalid! If you are right about why and there is even a trace of evidence, there are civil rights groups who might take up your case for free and make a much greater positive impact than if you were able to vote in the first place. Even if the case was lost, if it's for bullshit reasons, you have contributed to the record of evidence of direct and willful voter suppression by the state of Georgia, which is useful for organizers and agitators across the state and even country. You don't need to do this, but don't just sit at the first roadblock and say there's nothing to do and it's great for not just you but anyone encountering this situation to give up. Just say you personally don't want to bother rather than frame it as an equally-effective course of political (in)action.

You misread at least the denotation of what they said, which is that there are problems with Hexbear's culture including that, though since they are accusing you and Hexbear both of poor communication, I can see why you'd read the connotation that the other descriptor also applies to you. I think both are extremely true of Hexbear, but you haven't demonstrated the "seeping anticipation" here, so I don't think that's what they meant.

and their head organizer literally ran screaming into the middle of our action, tried to interrupt a speaker with the siren mode on her megaphone,

What had her so upset? Calling for the destruction of the Democratic Party or something?

Your argument makes sense if the protest has no chance of really accomplishing something. If it does, you would be justified in spending more than that to support it.

Refusing to vote is very foolish if there is a third party to vote for who has a good platform, which is usually the case in Presidential elections at least. May as well show what you actually support instead of being indistinguishable from someone who stayed home because they were too busy jacking off. Comrade Onan has not swayed very much public opinion with his protests.

It sounds like what you're arguing is that the No Kings protest is an attempt by libs to coopt radical energy and has the involvement of countless moderates, but that radicals must engage with it because it can readily backfire on the liberals and produce more radicals. I completely agree with such a sentiment. The capitalists will sell us the rope.

I think it's a very "victors write history" thing to say Germany started WW1, though obviously even if they did it and even for how immensely bloody it was, it would not touch the evil of what Germany would do shortly thereafter. Like, Germany did awful things whether it started the war or not -- it was a stupid imperialist war that had no legitimate side and yet was escalated to an absurd scope -- but it just objectively was not the initial aggressor, though it supported the initial aggressor. It's also bullshit how Fritz Haber gets blamed for "extending the war" when literally anything but imperial defeatism or withdrawal is "extending the war," meaning basically every country "extended the war" except eventually Russia, once the Soviets were able to get out. Who else can be given credit? Serbia, as the country that was initially invaded? Bulgaria, for having limited participation and then surrendering early?

Sorry, I'm not pretending to be an expert on the subject or anything, it just seems so nakedly a "our side won and you were the biggest player on the other side, so it's your fault" situation.