my personal view on the mutual aid vs. harris thing
If the choice is between Trump and Harris, I think it's very important that Harris get elected, despite all the problems with her, because the alternative is significantly worse.
Likewise, I am somewhat excited about the renewed enthusiasm among Democrats to actually do anything at all, and go (relatively) on the offense. In that light, the fundraising success is a good thing! I hope she succeeds at winning the election, despite my misgivings about the political system as a whole.
HOWEVER.
At the same time, there are people on here, in *your local community on fedi*, that are literally starving, with their mutual aid requests going unanswered for sometimes months at a time. *Your* virtual neighbours.
And in that light, I also think it is a good thing that people who donate to Harris but not to mutual aid requests are being made very, very uncomfortable by angry folks, including 'polluting' the Harris hashtags.
There are sometimes situations where people need a reality check, to stop living in their political bubble where if they just find the right political strategy, everything will magically be fixed. I often say this in the context of anarchism, but it applies just as much to Democrats and their supporters.
This conflict is exactly that. It is people in poverty telling Democrat supporters, to their faces, that they have neglected to care for their neighbours despite clearly having the means. Confronting them with the harsh reality of their politics. That their supposed political ideals are worth nothing if they are not put into practice. And that is a very important message to convey.
If you are a Democrat, a liberal, however you identify, this is something you should be listening to. It's going to be uncomfortable, and it is *supposed* to be; it is meant to shatter your illusion that poverty is a hypothetical thing that happens to Other People Far Away, and drive you into constructive action.
You can deal with this either by stubbornly insisting that these 'annoying beggars' are in the wrong, or by learning from what you are being shown and taking action to rectify it to the best of your ability.
The choice you make will tell other people a lot about your politics.
Along the same lines...
I'll admit I've been sloppy about it at times. But when I talk about "identity politics" I try to word it so that it's clear I'm criticising certain *practices*, not attacking certain kinds of *people*.
Particularly because it will inevitable be misrepresented as attacking people. Indeed, this is one of the practices I have a problem with.
@strypey I actually think it is entirely reasonable for people who have been left for dead by others, to personally attack those who have left them for dead.
I'd say this qualifies, in some cases almost literally.
@joepie91
> I actually think it is entirely reasonable for people... to personally attack
... anyone they judge to...
> have left them for dead
Um... OK.
I'm actually speechless. This is rare.
So... let me get this right. If I - a possible grifter (remember it doesn't matter) - beg for money on the fediverse, and someone doesn't give it to me, it's entirely reasonable for me to personally attack them?
Let's test this.
(1/2)
Hey @joepie91, I'm 6 weeks late on my rent and I don't have money for food this week. Can you please send me a few hundreds bucks before the end of the week? Without big donations of cash money from random strangers on the internet, I will surely die.
You wouldn't let that happen.... would you?
(2/2)
@strypey That is not what I said. Have you actually paid attention to what's going on? With people suddenly having >$300k to spend on an already well-funded election campaign while their neighbours have been struggling to collect a couple thousand for months?
And then when this is called out, they get basically told to be quiet because they are poor and, paraphrasing, they are disrupting the Important Stuff by asking for help to not die? While being called all sorts of vile shit, because people do not want to see the poor people in their nice virtual middle-class neighbourhood?
@strypey Because yes, if you participate in that, and you go and act all high and mighty because of how you are doing Super Important Political Work, people are absolutely in the right to *personally* call you out over that intensely shitty behaviour.
@joepie91
> people are absolutely in the right to *personally* call you out over that intensely shitty behaviour
I think there are more effective solutions to the issues you raise than people judging and shouting at each other, and calling each other names. With helps no one, ever.
@strypey I've been doing activism for 15 years by this point, and I have lost track of how often people have said "judging people and shouting at them doesn't help, you should be nicer".
But what do you know, it turns out to be the only thing that gets people moving in practice. Not exclusively, but being deliberately confrontational is *absolutely* an essential part of making change happen.
@joepie91
> I've been doing activism for 15 years by this point
Great stuff. Not that it's a competition, but for context, I'm speaking from about 30 years of activist experience.
> being deliberately confrontational is *absolutely* an essential part of making change happen
= demonstration. Appropriate for online messages directed at powerful institutions or people who have decision-making influence in them.
Otherwise, talking to people online = conversation. Difference principles apply.
@joepie91
> there are people on here, in *your local community on fedi*, that are literally starving, with their mutual aid requests going unanswered
Ok, I'm willing to believe most of these requests are totally legit.
But genuine question; if we don't know the person IRL, how do we tell the difference between legit requests and posts by grifters. Who've decided fake begposts on the fediverse are easier and less risky than ransomware attacks?
@strypey @joepie91 if someone is going to go through the trouble of scamming via mutual you they probably needed it.
The party that couldn't enshrine Roe v. Wade into law despite having decades, was always scamming ppl.
Once could just engage with the account, read their posts and give as they can, or find someone else to give to.
Me:
> if we don't know the person IRL, how do we tell the difference between legit requests and posts by grifters.
@NoFlexZone
> One could just engage with the account, read their posts and give as they can, or find someone else to give to
In other words, there's no way to tell. Good to know.
(1/2)
@strypey Why would this even matter? See also https://social.pixie.town/@joepie91/112855092008052476
And if we're talking about grifters, hoo boy, a very long conversation could be had about political fundraising. A conversation that notably wasn't had in this case.
I simply do not believe that a legitimate concern about grifts is the explanation here. *Distrust of poor people*, sure, that very likely has something to do with it, but that is very different from legitimate concern and precisely part of the problem.
@joepie91
> Why would this even matter?
Is that a serious question? Are you familiar with perverse incentives?
If making a random request for money on the fediverse reliably works, with no work required to establish a genuine need, this information will get around. The legit:grifter ratio will quickly move towards being mostly grifters. Directing money away from people in genuine need.
(1/2)
@strypey Directing *what* money away from people in genuine need, exactly? The money you're implying people shouldn't send to anyone in the first place because "they might be a grifter"? That money?
Also, did you actually read the post I linked at all?
For further context, see my comments in other branches of the thread.
@joepie91
> The money you're implying people shouldn't send to anyone
... without having a prior relationship or doing some due diligence....
> because "they might be a grifter"?
Yes. That money.
@strypey So do the due diligence and then send money to mutual aid requests. What are you actually trying to argue here?
@joepie91
> What are you actually trying to argue here?
You nailed it;
> do the due diligence and then send money to mutual aid requests
(1/2)
@joepie91
> it is a good thing that people who donate to Harris but not to mutual aid requests are being made very, very uncomfortable
As long as that doesn't cross over from pointing out the inconsistency in what they're *doing*, to personal attacks on who they *are*, 100% agree.