OK, please don't @ me until I finish this thread, and please keep in mind that my mind is made up and I'm mainly sharing this to talk with other people who are, you know, in favor of me not dying horribly in the next decade.

So, accelerationists. (1/x)

I have a broad definition of accelerationism which I suspect few people who use the term would agree with, but I'm going to stand by it: it's anyone who won't vote blue no matter who. And I am against it, 100%. (2/x)

I think there are a few ways people convince themselves/allow themselves to continue to believe that they can be some kind of special person who gets to vote for things that are definitely not going to win and not be actively harmful to millions of people: (3/x)

1) they don't really believe things are that bad, or that they will be that bad. I don't think I honestly know that many people in this position; it's basically limited to rich boomers and kids who probably aren't old enough to vote (4/x)

2) they believe things aren't bad enough yet for their preferred candidate to win electorally, but they will be in 2024. This is a very common viewpoint, very few of these people would call themselves accelerationists, but they are. More on them in a bit. (5/x)

3)they believe electoral politics has failed foreverat least under the current political framework, and that a collapse of the social order is needed, and that by failing to participate in the current system they hasten the demise of the old. This is textbook accelerationism(6/x)

I'll get more into those folks in a bit too.

4) The trickiest and IMO ickiest to deal with, folks who believe things ARE this bad, possibly they could be stopped and possibly not voting blue will make things way worse, but what's important is MORAL STANCE.

There's a variant of 4) which is somewhat less odious which is just nihilistic entirely, does not believe things could be made better by voting because they share the beliefs of 3) but they also believe (correctly, IMO) that no glorious collapse is coming either

(at least not one we recover from, ever.)

So I see no reason to debunk people in position1).For people in position 2),I refer them to the position of people who believe 3),whose kernel of truth is that the chance the current system will produce what 2)wants(a Democratic Socialist with a chance of winning, etc)is near nil

[my personal belief is the liberal one,which I'll explain later, and DOES include the possibility of a Democratic Socialist candidate like Bernie eventually becoming the mainstream, but that's somewhat out of scope for accelerationists because I see it happening by*deceleration*]

So, for people who think that by not voting for Joe Biden this year, you'll lead to a President AOC or whatever next time, you're wrong. You're just wrong. In 2024 if there's a chance to have a primary at all, another centrist will be nominated by the Dems

And there won't be a realignment of parties. We've have the ones we have for over 150 years, they've switched positions once and we're still in the midst of working through THAT switch, and it didn't happen all at once when it did. Give up hope on that.

Now, onto the non-electoral accelerationists, group 3). They're also wrong. The reason for this is that we are dealing with fascists. Fascists understand only violence. The handful of leftist groups that are violent will never counter the vast majority of rightist ones.

I mean, I loved Star Wars as a kid, but you just are not going to be getting a bunch of kids who spent their teens hunting womp rats signing up for your cause and mounting a resistance to overwhelming fascism. They'll join the other side. And chosen ones aren't real.

If you believe the Working Class or the marginalized - either, identity politics is as useless as class politics here - will join together to resist fascism, you are at best right that they will do so and fascism will ROFLstomp them.

Also frankly if any of this is your plan and you're serious about it, you're not here on Twitter, you're communicating only by encrypted messaging and encoded communications, and if you're openly talking about it here, you're not serious about it.

That leads me to 4) which I believe to be the most common throw-the-election accelerationist viewpoint. You actually believe either that we're all fcked, or that you simply cannot bring yourself to make a "moral compromise" you've decided saving millions of lives would be

At least the other positions have some level of idealistic silliness to them;this position is morally poisonous. You've decided that somehow, to check a box for a guy you think is a"neolib"or who has been accused of some bad stuff to save millions will, like, spiritually hurt you

It's like - and I'm sure I'll get ripped apart when the actual accelerationists find this thread, for using pop culture, but you know *extends middle finger* - it's like the original, pre-retcon Star Wars where it was bad to kill the Emperor for no apparent reason

"It'd be worse to kill Palpatine/mark this ballot to support Biden than it would be for MILLIONS TO DIE" no, it wouldn't, the fact that this is the moral ideology of at least one if not two generations right now is End of Evangelion-Shinji level disgusting

Anyway, all of this is being discussed at all because some very bad actors have managed to mentally capture the current generation to the point where the concept of "maybe things can get better over time, if we work at it" is not just wrong but HERETICAL

I mean, JESUS, have NONE OF YOU considered option number 5 where you vote for the person you think is a shitty centrist instead of the fascist who wants to kill your friends and for you to inject bleach, and maybe in 2028 someone YOU like is up, bc things got a BIT BETTER?

If we're all fcked, then we're all fcked. Why vote like we definitely are instead of hoping against hope that things can get a bit better?

For all you love to say my side says better things aren't possible, all your options are bloody and grim.

/fin, you may @ me now