Young voters explain why they’re bailing on Biden — and whether they’d come back
www.nbcnews.com
Biden’s numbers among young voters have slid during his presidency from the high margins that helped him beat Trump. Several former supporters explain why.
  • stolid_agnostic
    1·
    6 months ago

    Nah. This is a circle jerk. I say a thing and then the reactionaries descend to tell me that I’m wrong. Yet nobody has anything to offer beyond “you’re stupid”.

    • GinAndJuche@hexbear.net
      171·
      6 months ago

      A group of better educated people are telling me I’m wrong, clearly they are just reactionaries.

      What a beautiful mind you possess.

    • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      8·
      6 months ago

      Oh, you must have missed my comment then. Here you go:

      During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum

      If they just wanted power, they could have easily joined the very powerful repressive governments that ruled at the time. Castro could have signed on with Batista’s regime. Mao could have joined the ruling KMT. Instead, they risked their lives doing the much harder and more dangerous work of going against the US empire and it’s puppet states.