OBJECTION!

The slavery enjoyers are not happy with me, it seems. If only downvotes had the power to change historical facts.

It’s actually just a funny coincidence, though it’s funny when people freak out about it. Mao’s “little red book” is written 红宝书, while the app is 小红书, so the connection is only really there in English. Red is a reference to two institutions the creator was involved with, Stanford Business School and Bain & Company, both of which use red as their main color (I imagine the general association of red with good luck may have factored in as well). As for note vs book, I mean, a notebook is a “little book,” and note is short for notebook (e.g. Death Note).

If you actually look at the app and what gets posted there and what doesn’t, it’s pretty silly to assume it’s a reference. It was originally called “Hong Kong Shopping Guide” and was targeted towards tourists, the userbase skews female and relatively well off. It’s like Instagram, there’s lots of cat posts and the the like, lots of fashion, I’ve come across some pretty impressive furries, and it’s even got a decent sized queer community, particularly popular with lesbians.

Even if it were an intentional reference to Mao’s book, like, so what? The users are the ones putting out content and they’re just regular people. Not everything is some sinister plot.

For the record, that line is more in reference to people talking about things that allegedly happened on the fediverse, like, “I saw such and such user say X.”

Here is a detailed account of what Tibet was like with sources. If there’s a specific claim that you’d like me to clarify or back up, I’d be happy to.

Tibet emerged as one of countless warlord states in the chaos following the fall of the Qing, it never received international recognition and is recognized as part of China and claimed by the ROC (Taiwan). In the period when it was autonomous, it was ruled by a slaveowning theocracy with an average life expectancy in the 30’s. Whipping, mutilation, and amputation were common punishments and poverty and starvation were rampant, with people frequently having to sell their kids for food. The monks and lamas, meanwhile, lived on the backs of the people in extravagant mansions with thousands of servants.

“Free Tibet” is essentially just “The South Will Rise Again” with extra steps.

Isn’t it the exact opposite? The only thing China can do with my data is try to sell me stuff. Meanwhile, the authorities in my own country have the power to kick in my door and drag me away to some blacksite.

If I were Chinese, I would rather the US government have my data than the Chinese government, but since I’m American, I would rather the Chinese government have it than the US. Pretty much everyone anywhere in the world ought to regard their own government as their highest security risk.

The dems didn’t have a candidate people wanted to come out for, and the people who stayed home were older more conservative people who vote democrat because they don’t like the current republican party. And they stayed home because the canidate changed, not the policy.

Right, and that’s the only possible reason, isn’t it? Because people’s voting behavior is explainable by exactly two things: policy and bigotry. Messaging is irrelevant. Changes in the economy and political situation are irrelevant. Sexism is the only factor that matters, and, conveniently yet completely coincidentally, just so happens to be a factor that completely absolves Kamala and the Democrats of any and all fault.

Im sorry these subjects make you feel insecure.

Projection.

Maybe try self reflecting and growing instead of screaming about how the neolibs should have magically changed their stripes.

I don’t expect them to change their stripes. I think their economic approach is a very flawed strategy both in terms of not being good policy and in terms of winning elections, you can’t run on the status quo when the status quo isn’t working for people. However, even completely ignoring that aspect, it was still a terribly run campaign lacking any coherent message while failing to adapt to a changing media environment (streamers, for example) which the right jumped on. Kamala Harris had never demonstrated any real ability to connect with voters or get out the vote and would have bombed out of a competitive primary exactly like she did in 2020.

Do you accept that it’s possible for an individual woman to be a bad candidate or to run a bad campaign, or do you think claiming that is automatically sexist? You can always rely on liberals to weaponize allegations like that in order to defend the ruling class.

I have to say I find your grandstanding and accusations funny because I’m old enough to remember when Elizabeth Warren attacked Bernie Sanders by claiming that he said he didn’t think a woman could win the election (which he denied), and it was enough of a scandal for a bit of a news cycle. Now, you’re telling me that a woman couldn’t have won the election and it’s somehow sexist to think otherwise. What a joke. Namecalling is all you’ve got and it’s completely meaningless to me.

I don’t care what senators were elected,

Of course not, since that contradicts your narrative. It’s quite a stretch to assume that if a woman loses it must be because of sexism (ignoring the many, many flaws in her campaign), but it’s an even bigger stretch to assume that people who didn’t vote for her, yet voted to put other women into the upper echelons of the US government, merely didn’t vote for her because of sexism.

Your narrative is impossible to disprove through evidence because it was not derived from evidence, and the purpose of the narrative is not to reflect reality. The purpose of the narrative is to save face and deflect criticism from the party. It is purely a psychological coping mechanism, which personally I have little patience for.

She gained black men

No, she didn’t. She got 78% of black men compared to 80% going to Biden last election.

The reason you get downvoted is that accusing voters of bigotry is a way of deflecting from actual strategic failures, things that could’ve been done differently, and more importantly, could be done differently in the future. It’s a way of saving face at the cost of self-reflection and improvement. It’s just an excuse.

It’s also simply not true. Three swing states that Kamala lost elected female Democratic senators. Given the very limited dataset we have to extrapolate from, it’s hard to imagine a world with more compelling evidence that your narrative is false.

The economic messaging was the main thing but even taking that as a given that they had to follow their donors’ interests, it was just a really poorly executed campaign. Had to be to get the worst results since the Republicans won California. Tbh Harris just has terrible political instincts and she would’ve never survived a competitive primary (as evidenced by 2020).

One thing that’s staggering to me is that they left Hasan Piker as an untapped resource. I’m not like a big fan of his but if you have this field of streamers where all the big names are right-wing, except one, you should really consider, like, figuring out what he’s tapping into or doing right, idk, hire him as a consultant, go on his stream, do something with him. The Democrats are so slow to adapt strategically while the Republicans are much quicker to adapt, and idk what that’s about, complacency ig.

Obviously the Dick Cheney strategy was completely useless, as usual. Democrats are married to this conventional wisdom, treated as a truism, that the way to win is by appealing to the median centrist voter, along this purely one dimensional spectrum of politics which is completely divorced from reality. I suspect the article is correct that they’re too caught up in analytics that they lose sight of how people actually think.

Didn’t she lose ground on nearly every demographic? This is such trash analysis, just datamining and then applying stereotypes to avoid admitting any fault on the part of the campaign’s strategy.

Funny how female Democratic senators won in three of the swing states Kamala lost, almost as if sexism wasn’t the deciding factor… but that could imply that Kamala failed for a reason that’s potentially her own fault, which might require some kind of self-reflection on the part of the Democratic party, and we absolutely can’t have that under any circumstances. The Democrats can never fail, they can only be failed.

There are third party candidates who support ending the Palestinian genocide by stopping arms shipments, but neither major candidate does.

I have no knowledge regarding a genocide in Crimea or how it could be best addressed, and I believe questioning or examining evidence for any claim of genocide is against .world rules, so I suppose I’ll have to give you the benefit of the doubt, but said claim doesn’t really factor into my calculations.

I don’t consider either question all that relevant.

I wanted him to step down primarily because of his support for genocide. Biden was obviously unfit and unacceptable for a ton of reasons, just because his successor doesn’t share one of those problems doesn’t make her automatically acceptable. Its arguable that it would better if the president is mentally unfit, if they’re pursuing an agenda that is fundamentally wrong.