The ability to form political coalitions with people on an issue by issue basis

... is the ability to govern

Man I wish I lived in your parallel reality where those where the deal breakers preventing anti-fascist coalitions from forming. Rather than, you know, imperialism and genocide.

The only big complaints I remember were about the Nazi from Maine

lol I've seen this before and even saw a little animation of it. Does anyone have a link? I've been looking for a few years now.

tale as old as time.

I thought we were the popular front?

I will keep on shitposting on the "both sides bad" clowns that pop up like mushrooms every late election cycle, until they do something useful, thank you for asking!

It is insane. It the establishment democrats who are going to fox news to agree with the fascists about israel

I second that. we have a long history of getting back-stabbed.

Good, keep infighting

A 50-50 of right-wing bots and right-wing moderates who don't want to be associated with the rest of the right-wing so they claim to be of the left (looking at you, liberals)

This conversation is broader than most treat it.

The rugpulling bait and switch of the democratic party is something that needs to be recognized. There is also the corporate apologetics, and I do think directly supporting a genocide is also a deal breaker.

But also, divide and conquer is a thing.

Remember how atheists suddenly started hating women? Or is it that atheists suddenly had to stop protesting the heritage foundation, and had to pivot defensively when trying to get circumcision banned in the states suddenly meant they obviously hate women for daring to suggest male circumcision is also bad when female circumcision is much much worse. This type of interaction reverberates until feminist academia is fully contorted into a tool for opportunists to shape like a bludgeon, and atheist spaces empty of progressive who can't deal with the emotional upset of being compared to Incels and Conservatives, and feminist academics are forced to prove they aren't all the opportunistic SJWs that misinterpret their own tools to make intersectionality an oversimplified version of "define everybody exclusively by their surface features, and self segregate to not associate with their evil 'surface feature attained at birth.'

Also now the heritage foundation is directly in power with a bunch of other opportunistic fascists, progressives all hate each other, and none of this means we shouldn't be careful of opportunists derailing collective efforts in support of incompatible abuses of human rights.

Doesn't mean we can't work with the neoliberal counter parties in fighting the blatant fascists, but we definitely need to recognize the shape of the battlefield as we shape our collective response, and how our collective response is reshaped by those with the power to do so. And also solidarity is important for any group that doesn't feel safe or represented in the current society. Usually such people are not your enemy, even if your social group is convinced that suddenly progressives need to start discouraging and being aggressive to people who actively want to be allies, because they have other needs, preferences, or surface features that don't actually define their entire being. Even if they look like the majority surface features of the "bad groups."

I don't doubt these conflicts are instigated by weird media pushes, which lately I relate to the hasan dog controversy, or the Hilary emails (recognizing this doesn't mean I like Hilary,) or media framing around antifa/BLM pushes.

There's a bunch of stuff about larger groups, and subpopulatons that can be exploited for divide and conquer, or strawmanning the whole group by enabling the least thoughtful, and most aggressive, which can be blown up by the media so that the whole group is defined by it.

Although often the group fully accepts their role of being the very strawman, because in group solidarity becomes everything, and solidarity with other movements is evil for showing how targeted violence towards other progressive groups is not actually the best progressive effort. Etc.

Funny, my litmus test starts at "do they support a genocide?" and then move on to things like "do they want to expand the militaristic police surveillance state?" and "are they running on being tough on immigrants?" and "do they do violent crackdowns on peaceful protesters?" and "do they protect womens rights?" and "do they protect queer people?" and "do they throw minorities and marginalised groups under the bus in order to appease right wing fanatics?" and "are they warmongers?"

Funny how that is. Funny how some of us only seem to care about whether or not their team is winning, while others care about what the teams are doing. Very funny.

violent vs non violent.