Here’s the thing though: I have no idea which way you think this is biased without reading more of your analysis. Initially I thought you meant the BBC was biased against Vance because it made Walz look more relatable.

Why would you make jalepeños even worse?

Most of the people still supporting Stein are calling Bernie a sellout because he’s telling people to vote for Democrats.

In Michigan? Do they?

Anyway I’m already participating in my local government in non-partisan positions.

They have one example in Michigan (where I live), and he ran unopposed for trustee in Fenton Township.

Michigan has 1,240 Townships, 257 villages and 276 cities, and the greens have managed to get one position in one Township by running someone unopposed. Even the Libertarians have done better, as Wikipedia points out four current libertarian office holders in Michigan.

Here’s a link: https://lemmy.ml/comment/14025222

You being anticommunist is what I thought you meant. Those aren’t unrelated.

So you think that what I meant by “I’m more worried about [some people who] make other communists look bad” was that I’m an anti-communist? That seems highly unlikely. If I were anti-communist, surely I’d love those people precisely because they make communists look bad?

I have been acting in good-faith

Literally your first response to me in this entire thread was uncivil condescension.

Communists, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, etc. Anyone that actually defends AES and doesn’t repeat US State Department Propaganda about the Global South.

Yeah that’s not what I mean by Tankies, and it’s not what most people mean by tankies. Not all marxist-leninists are tankies, for example. In fact I’d go out on a limb and say most aren’t. But those who try to sweep under the rug the bad things that nominally-communist states have done are tankies, and they give other communists, other marxists, other marxist-leninists, and indeed all other leftists a bad name. (As an aside, most of the time those things were done by state-capitalist governments, not communist ones.)

doesn’t repeat US State Department Propaganda about the Global South.

I’m actually from the Global South. I can promise you the US state department is full of shit. As are most Americans who speak about it, including most American leftists.

Removed by mod

Please participate in good faith rather than just making accusations.

How about you start by explaining what you think I mean?

Are you saying there’s nobody who defends all three and claims to be a leftist? Because that I’d say I’ve never seen. But I’ve certainly seen various accounts claiming to be leftists and defending one or two of them.

Are you saying there aren’t people who defend aggressive actions by far-right politicians? That there aren’t people who defend Netanyahu, Putin and Trump?

Honestly I’m more worried about those who claim to be communists but do things that both go against the tenets of communism and make other communists look bad. Tankies are a subset of that.

Israel has a similar population and GDP to Michigan (and a similar land area to New Hampshire).

Despite being a swing state, Michigan has nowhere near as much influence over US national policy.

Mostly people who defend far-right aggression and pretend their stances are “leftist” getting upset when they get called out on their bullshit.

Not just that, but some of the loudest voices do more harm than good for leftism.

“Birds fly south for the winter” was the second example I remember of my classmates having only learned things with northern hemisphere bias after moving to the northern hemisphere.

The first was my classmates not grasping that while it was spring here, it was autumn back home.

Condescension was such a weird way to respond to my comment in the first place, and I’m sorry I fell for it and responded in the same vein. I should instead have taken the opportunity to point out that in addition to Kipling mentioning pawpaw in the novel, it’s quite possible that Terry Gilkyson had never heard of the American pawpaw either and that the fruit shown in the cartoon movie more closely resembles a papaya than an American pawpaw.

I’m well aware. Are you aware that the Kipling novel specifically mentions pawpaw too?

The pawpaw in the Jungle Book is what’s known in the US as papaya. It’s been cultivated in India since at least the 18th century. Likewise prickly pears have been brought all over the world. By the time Kipling wrote The Jungle Book, both fruits were well established in India, just as many old world fruits have made it to the Americas.