Building off this, people have to look at more than just the protests. “Radicals” shape the Overton Window, think Malcom X.

In a world where nobody protests and nobody is participating in radical activism, nothing changes. In a world where there are protests but still no radical activism, there is usually no change, though the media and capitalists will feign care and “listen to the issues”. When the protesters become the moderates, the ruling class finally cedes some power to stop social revolution.

In a world where there are only radical activists, no moderate protesters or passive bystanders, there would be social revolution, monumental change. This has happened before, and it’s why the ruling class concedes changes as the overton window becomes more radical.

To a lot of people this looks like “protests work!” but it’s not the protests primarily, it’s the threat of social revolution, led by the radicals and supported by the new moderate position of protesting against the status quo.

That’s a pretty idealist take in the grand scheme of things. We have hard data that public opinion has virtually no influence on what the law is.

https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba

If it’s something capitalists really want, it’ll get put into law. In this case, it’s possible they actually don’t care to give the government the ability to surveil the public better, so it might be one of the very few things where public backlash could stop it (would actually need data to support this, not just some anecdotes).

Trying to apply this to the broader sociopolitical climate and saying “your voices do matter” is just too reductive. If it’s the public vs. the capitalist class in American “democracy”, the capitalist class wins every time.

"For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. "

You ignored or missed the main point of my comment. Do you think the entire world ends in 2027?

I admitted the country would be worse off between 2024-2028. But you entirely ignored the idea that we might get some concession from politicians if it’s clear to them they lost due to being pro-genocide.

Do you think that’s literally impossible? That even in a world where it’s abundantly clear that being pro-genocide lost them 2024, that they’d definitely stay pro-genocide in 2028?

It’s not clear what the better outcome is, unless you can only see 3 years out. If you’re able to look 5+ years out, then a Republican winning in 2024 could mean an anti-genocide Democrat president in 2028 that wouldn’t have won otherwise.

If it’s clearly demonstrable that being anti-genocide would keep Democrats in power longer, that increases the chances they’d be anti-genocide.

I get that Americans aren’t the ones being genocided, but some people understand that Palestinians have the same right to life as Americans, so it’s fine to treat this as if there was an active genocide happening in America.

Both parties are pro-genocide, but one side might actually cave because their constituents are generally anti-genocide, while Republicans tend to be happy with it.

I see it as totally plausible that Biden loses 2024 because of a sharp drop in the support from anti-genocide leftists, and that it could end up being extremely clear to the Democrats in power that they need to concede this issue to us in 2028.

If Biden wins in 2024, it’d be a clear signal that their current strategy is working, just guilt everyone into voting for a Democrat no matter what, even if they’re actively encouraging genocide.

If my desire is to stop the genocide of innocent Palestinians, is the liberal answer “shut the fuck up and vote for Biden, thanks”? Because that feels unsatisfactory.

There are coalitions of Muslims/leftists refusing to vote for Biden because of his pro-genocide stance. These people aren’t claiming that Republicans will be the saviors of Palestine, rather they’re speaking in the only language liberals understand. “Don’t do what we want and we remove you from power”.

Yes, 2024-2028 would be worse, but the hope is that losing an election due to being pro-genocide might make them anti-genocide.

Your original stance was that it is “problematic” to equate them. Do you think it was problematic for Fredrick Douglass to equate them? If not then your original position has to change.

We don’t have polling on prior chattel slave views on wage slavery, but since you’re making a habit of just going with your gut, I’ll do the same. I’d wager most prior chattel slaves would’ve been more than happy to abolish all forms of slavery (including wage slavery).