Mr. Mouse 🏳️‍🌈🇧🇷

Well I was told we didn’t need to vote because there would be a revolution if things got bad. So, I assume that’s happening? Any minute now.

my apologies i didn’t see this person with my eyes and couldn’t hear clearly. my reaction was pure confusion, sarcasm and not ill intended. could have handled it better! now i know what a Zaghrouta is! I welcome all cheers and yodels from here on out

🚨 HOLY CRAP! A jaw-droppingly huge convoy of Irish patriot truckers and tractors FLOOD the roadways to protest the climate tyranny elitists trying to destroy their way of life It's grown so much the MILITARY was deployed. I stand with Irish PATRIOTS! 🇺🇸🇮🇪

"I want the Democratic party to treat me like a Never-Trumper" –Hasan Piker

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has just called to congratulate us on our victory.

Hungary election results (projection) 🔵 EPP (Magyar) - 125 🔴 PfE (Orban) - 65 15% reported

I'm trying to avoid taking the bait to lurch Hasan Piker back into undeserved Discourse prominence. That said, there are a few flawed assumptions in Klein's piece that I think need to be tackled in a more general direction. What Klein says about healthy liberal democracy is true: we do need to engage with people we disagree with. But this aspect of democratic theory doesn't begin or end there. Engagement produces democratic health when it is mutual. When there is good faith. In the abstract, both sides should have a commitment to truth. Commitment to truth almost seems like too much of an ask these days, so I'll change it to "both sides must be committed to at least some pretense of developing shared truth." Now, again, I don't want to limit this to Piker who, really, is a largely irrelevant manifestation of a larger group/set of phenomena: the online DSA/tankie-alligned far-left. This group, which has been prominent in Democratic circles since Bernie (2016) is best viewed as a kind of amorphous pathos that gets a dopamine kick from negatively influencing the emotional states of others on the internet. This gets into part of why they never attack MAGA; only libs or, in their parlance, "shitlibs." They have no effect on MAGA. MAGA doesn't give a shit. Liberals, meanwhile, tend to have softer hearts and, importantly, actually want to affect positive change. We also don't want to be associated with forces we view as pernicious, like racism, denial of healthcare, or genocide. For a decade, this has made us the perfect target for internet bullying from the far-left. What have we and our candidates been accused of by the online far "Left?" Supporting mass incarceration. Being anti-universal healthcare. And, worst of all, being pro-genocide. We have spent years attempting to explain our positions to the online far-left on all of the above and what do we get? More false labels. More lies. More bullying. How many Democratic candidates stood on stage in 2019 and raised their hands when asked if they wanted to ban private insurance? Candidates took that deeply unpopular position precisely because they assumed the online far "Left" had more influence than it actually had. It hurt those candidates and it hurt Dems' electoral prospects. And were those candidates ever rewarded for those positions? No. Elizabeth Warren got hit with "Snake-Gate" and Kamala Harris was a "cop." Now, I, for one, painstakingly described, in detail, how I didn't think a swift movement to Single Payer was logically possible OR necessarily wise (given GOP positions on abortion, LGBTQ care, etc). Did they ever listen to me, as I argued in good faith? No. I got guillotine memes. Someone said I should be made into dog food. Another said I should be dragged behind a truck. Then, 2023-2024, ugh. We, again, made painstaking efforts to describe how Biden would be better on Israel/Palestine than Trump. We did engage in good faith. We made arguments. We gave evidence. Were we listened to? No, once again. We were called pro-genocide. I got compared to North Korean propoganda. They said we were supporting "Holocaust Harris." They ignored every detail we gave and every argument we made. Nowadays, they call me a Jew with a big forehead (I'm not Jewish; not sure how my forehead falls in the normal (?) distribution) or say that I am pro-Netanyahu when I have always opposed Netanyahu. One might ask themselves how these labels/falsities, etc. have helped Palestinians, btw. This gets back to the main point. These people do not only FAIL at the metrics Klein puts forth for a healthy democracy, they actively aim to destroy them, They don't want "debate" with us. They want control. And not really over policy--as indicated by them dropping their policy goals the instant they get a newer, better drug. In doing this, they bring us FURTHER away from truth and therefore action on causes we care about, from healthcare to Middle East Peace and civilian welfare. Not only that, but to bring it back to the amorphous pathos, they don't just need total alignment on policy, they need total alignment on POLITICAL FIGURES. They went from being abusive to those who refused to Bend the Knee to Bernie to being abusive to those who think Hasan Piker stream is irrelevant to electoral politics. And let's be clear: THEY are the ones who "cancel" for non-allegiance. Look at what they did to Graham Platner. The Nazi tattoo, rape apologia, and POW corpse desecration were all fine but. . . . .when he decided not to go to Piker's little rally. CANCELLED. Their "ideology" is the performance of ideology. It's all psychopathy and addiction to moral bullying. Not only that: they have no commitment to all of the principles underlying Klein's argument vis à vis debate in a democratic society. They don't want debate. Joe Rogan values "debate" WAY more than these guys do. The online DSA/tankie/Piker/etc "Left" is essentially authoritarian, both in ideology and in personality. The same democratic theory that Klein cites would also hold not to spend time/energy on debate with people like these. They don't value truth. They don't value respect. They value dominance and harm. Go on their podcasts or streams or whatever. I don't care. But please don't misconstrue them as more powerful than they are. And don't let them lecture the rest of us on how we should--for the sake of democracy!--subject ourselves to authoritarian thuggery disguised as moral or political discourse. These people have feasted off of us for years. We should just say "no." In the aim of *actually* preserving healthy, democratic discourse. Klein is right about democratic theory and that same theory, fully applied, excludes bad-faith actors. These aren't just bad-faith actors. They're actively corrosive to the conditions that make debate possible at all

🎥 CNN: JD Vance has become the most unpopular Vice President in the history of the United States! 🔹 Polls show Vance's popularity has dropped by 21% since the start of the term in 2025, and compared to other Vice Presidents in recent history, he holds the worst rating at this stage of a term, with a score of -18.

This tweet reveals that Neera's definition of "the Democratic party" is just the apparatus of consultants, donors, and political elites she belongs to. She's correct, in that sense: The Bush-era neocons trying to take over the Democratic Party via their rebrand as "Never-Trumpers" are definitely nicer to the ultrawealthy and well-connected than Hasan is. That's because, like her, they see politics as an intellectual exercise and vehicle for personal elevation.

"I want the Democratic party to treat me like a Never-Trumper" –Hasan Piker

Hasan Piker: “I hate Republicans. The Republicans are far more damaging. The biggest terrorist internationally is the Republican party. I want to fight against the growing fascist movement in this country. My frustration with the Democrats is their conciliatory attitude towards that. You say Donald Trump is a dangerous force, but then you turn around and take on his anti-immigrant narratives from 2020”