I've read comments from people who start with a confusing statement seeming to use definitions of words that aren't commonly accepted and when asked to explain their definition resort to ad hominem and topic switching rather than defending their point that their definition is a commonly accepted use of that word.
I didn't say the definition was correct because Wikipedia says so, I said that's how the word is normally defined, and the Wikipedia definition (which was the first thing that popped up) aligns with my experiences with how I've seen the word used. So when you say the word "tankie" includes anarchists, I'm wondering whose definition or what reasoning are you pulling from.
Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to authoritarian communists, especially those who support acts of repression by such regimes, their allies, or deny the occurrence of the events thereof. More specifically, the term has been applied to those who express support for one-party Marxist–Leninist socialist republics, whether contemporary or historical. It is commonly used by anti-authoritarian leftists, including anarchists, libertarian socialists, left communists, democratic socialists and reformists to criticise Leninism, although the term has seen increasing use by liberal and right‐wing factions as well.
The only time I've seen it be applied to anarchists is when Reddit libs don't like anyone left of them doing stuff like protesting, but normally the Wikipedia definition is how I see the word used.
it has a gui installer (i use arch btw)
Fascism was already in America the moment Biden gave Israel funding for the genocide and the Democrats threw all sorts of social issues under the bus. "Not fascism" in the current state of the country was not a choice, the only difference was how fast fascism would accelerate. The Democrats chose to make their platform boring in favor of donors and lose, and the fact that so many people support Trump shows that this country has much bigger problems than just that Trump was elected. This is a problem that needs much more than just voting to fix.
People who are normally socially and economically conservative (which may in part be due to far-right propaganda news outlets) but also differ in significant ways from mainstream western conservative politics, and they are much more opposed to the genocide than they are supportable of those socioeconomic values. Not so relevant in 2016, a lot more relevant right now. There's probably more of them than you think.
I'm talking about what the Pro-Palestine groups are doing, not what I'm doing, since you keep saying Pro-Palestine groups should promote Democratic candidates so I'm explaining why they aren't doing that. Since you think you know how a pro-Palestine organization should be run, why don't you go to a protest, find an organizer, and tell them your idea then let me know how that goes? I'm not in charge of those groups so if you're going to argue about what candidates Pro-Palestine groups should support you're wasting your energy on the wrong person.
If the Democrats wanted a ceasefire they would actually be trying to make that happen. The staff pushing for a ceasefire, some of whom remained anonymous out of fear of retaliation, are going against standard Democratic policies. Also that article happened a year ago, still no ceasefire. Meanwhile seeing what Democratic political figures who are on the highest levels of government post, all I ever see is either explicitly pro-Israel stuff or pulling the "protesters are anti-patriotic and pro-Hamas" card. Pro-Palestine Democrats are a minority if they even exist, and the majority of the party who actually has an influence in public policy is bought out by the military-industrial complex and other corporations and don't give a shit about anything but their paycheck - Democrats overall are only escalating the conflict and are not going to end the genocide no matter how much they pretend they want to - Biden hasn't and Kamala has made it clear which side she is on.
Given that Democrats want the Palestinians to exist
Wow those bombs the Democrats sent them sure seem happy to help Palestinians grow and prosper
The Democratic Party’s inability to get on the right side of history on this issue should not deter pro-Palestinian groups from acting in their own self-interest to achieve their goals.
Have you even been paying attention to the protests? Unlike lemmy.world politics, these protesters hold a very fine line between what is tolerated and what isn't, meaning anything that causes their families death and suffering through their tax dollars crosses that very fine line. The entire purpose of the protests is to demonstrate that this issue is not one they will negotiate with. Expecting a group to tolerate their families being less bombed over more bombed is fucking ridiculous. I wouldn't want my family to be bombed at all and neither do Palestinians.
Palestinian statehood would be dead under a Republican christo-fascist dictatorship along with millions of people.
Palestinians will be dead regardless of whether it is a christo-fasticst dictatorship or a corporate-fascist dictatorship committing the genocide. Don't expect them to negotiate with either of them.
WHY ARE YOU YELLING
Tuta is used by the CIA for people who are afraid of Proton having ties with the CIA