Revolutionary Giuli
@giuli.revolutionarygames.co
Giulianna Maria Lamanna (she/her). Writer for @revolutionarygames.co, wife of @jason.revolutionarygames.co. #rewilding #ttrpgs #covidconscious
Nowadays that’s true, but that hasn’t always been the case — nor will it always be unless we all try to eliminate nationalism as a concept.
November 17, 2025 at 1:04 AM
Nowadays that’s true, but that hasn’t always been the case — nor will it always be unless we all try to eliminate nationalism as a concept.
It’s the foundational logic of nationalism: the idea that human beings are not people in their own right, just tiny pieces of their ethnic group, which is the real person here. It needs to be opposed, explicitly and consistently, until we’re finally rid of it.
The other day, a Zionist accused me of hypocrisy for saying genocide is bad when I am an American and America has committed genocide. I didn’t respond — just blocked her because where do you even begin? — but I can’t stop thinking about that post and what it implies about the nationalist mindset. 🧵
November 16, 2025 at 11:22 PM
It’s the foundational logic of nationalism: the idea that human beings are not people in their own right, just tiny pieces of their ethnic group, which is the real person here. It needs to be opposed, explicitly and consistently, until we’re finally rid of it.
As a far leftist, I strongly support Republicans saying that only far leftists care about stopping pedophilia. Perfect, no notes, keep up the good work.
November 16, 2025 at 4:19 PM
As a far leftist, I strongly support Republicans saying that only far leftists care about stopping pedophilia. Perfect, no notes, keep up the good work.
The second time, he narrowly lost; the third, he narrowly won. In all three cases, the vote was agonizingly close. Given that he has lost the popular vote to both a woman and a man, and that all elections were very close, I don’t think gender was the most salient issue here.
November 16, 2025 at 3:19 PM
The second time, he narrowly lost; the third, he narrowly won. In all three cases, the vote was agonizingly close. Given that he has lost the popular vote to both a woman and a man, and that all elections were very close, I don’t think gender was the most salient issue here.
The first time, he won on a technicality. Again, Clinton won the popular vote. A majority of American voters, in 2016, voted for a woman. The electoral college screwing Clinton in the exact same way it screwed Gore (a man) is not a reflection on how sexist American voters are.
November 16, 2025 at 3:19 PM
The first time, he won on a technicality. Again, Clinton won the popular vote. A majority of American voters, in 2016, voted for a woman. The electoral college screwing Clinton in the exact same way it screwed Gore (a man) is not a reflection on how sexist American voters are.
He won the popular vote against the sitting vice president in an election that was a referendum on her boss’s presidency, in another anti-establishment election in which he was again an outsider and she was as establishment as one could be without literally being the current president.
November 16, 2025 at 3:19 PM
He won the popular vote against the sitting vice president in an election that was a referendum on her boss’s presidency, in another anti-establishment election in which he was again an outsider and she was as establishment as one could be without literally being the current president.
Trump lost the popular vote twice in a row: once to a woman in an anti-establishment election where she was the establishment candidate and he was the outsider promising to shake things up; once to a man in an election that was a referendum on his own presidency (during a pandemic that he worsened).
November 16, 2025 at 3:19 PM
Trump lost the popular vote twice in a row: once to a woman in an anti-establishment election where she was the establishment candidate and he was the outsider promising to shake things up; once to a man in an election that was a referendum on his own presidency (during a pandemic that he worsened).
But then we’ll be stuck with everything continuing to get worse, forever, when we could’ve had actual change. Because people are placing AOC in the same category as Clinton and Harris just because they’re all women, when she’s properly in a category with FDR and they’re in one with Gore and Kerry.
November 16, 2025 at 3:06 PM
But then we’ll be stuck with everything continuing to get worse, forever, when we could’ve had actual change. Because people are placing AOC in the same category as Clinton and Harris just because they’re all women, when she’s properly in a category with FDR and they’re in one with Gore and Kerry.
And I’m afraid Democratic primary voters will think, “Well, *I* like AOC, but America will never vote for a woman, so we’d better support Gavin Newsom because he’s a white man.” And he’ll probably even win because Trump’s disastrous policies will be top of mind, and voters will vote not-Trump.
November 16, 2025 at 3:06 PM
And I’m afraid Democratic primary voters will think, “Well, *I* like AOC, but America will never vote for a woman, so we’d better support Gavin Newsom because he’s a white man.” And he’ll probably even win because Trump’s disastrous policies will be top of mind, and voters will vote not-Trump.
What scares me is, we have an *incredible* potential candidate for 2028 who does happen to be a woman, but more importantly, she is NOT a neolib, NOT an empty suit who will say whatever she thinks will get her power, NOT like Clinton or Harris in any of the ways that matter.
November 16, 2025 at 3:06 PM
What scares me is, we have an *incredible* potential candidate for 2028 who does happen to be a woman, but more importantly, she is NOT a neolib, NOT an empty suit who will say whatever she thinks will get her power, NOT like Clinton or Harris in any of the ways that matter.
If their losses are just because America is incurably sexist, why didn’t they both suffer Dukakis-style blowouts? Why are their losses very much within the range of expected values for “uninspiring empty suit candidate who wants to keep the current horrible system going just as it is”?
November 16, 2025 at 3:06 PM
If their losses are just because America is incurably sexist, why didn’t they both suffer Dukakis-style blowouts? Why are their losses very much within the range of expected values for “uninspiring empty suit candidate who wants to keep the current horrible system going just as it is”?
Honestly, the same was true of Clinton, and again *she won the popular vote* — much like her fellow uninspiring neolib Al Gore. And Harris did about as well as John Kerry. They were similar politicians and ran similar campaigns to these white men and experienced similar results.
November 16, 2025 at 3:06 PM
Honestly, the same was true of Clinton, and again *she won the popular vote* — much like her fellow uninspiring neolib Al Gore. And Harris did about as well as John Kerry. They were similar politicians and ran similar campaigns to these white men and experienced similar results.
And if Harris had run a better campaign — or if she’d been a better person — I think she would have won. She wasn’t just “a woman.” She was establishment politician promising to maintain the policies of an extremely unpopular president in an era where the people were/are desperate for change.
November 16, 2025 at 3:06 PM
And if Harris had run a better campaign — or if she’d been a better person — I think she would have won. She wasn’t just “a woman.” She was establishment politician promising to maintain the policies of an extremely unpopular president in an era where the people were/are desperate for change.
But then Biden became president, and the disastrous impact of HIS policies were top of mind, so people voted not-Biden (administration). He was on track to lose by far more than Harris — which was why the party freaked out and replaced him with her.
November 16, 2025 at 3:06 PM
But then Biden became president, and the disastrous impact of HIS policies were top of mind, so people voted not-Biden (administration). He was on track to lose by far more than Harris — which was why the party freaked out and replaced him with her.
Yup, him too. He and Harris have a lot in common. I don’t think he won because he was a man, though. I think he won because Trump was the president, so the disastrous impact of Trump’s policies were top of mind, so people voted not-Trump.
November 16, 2025 at 3:06 PM
Yup, him too. He and Harris have a lot in common. I don’t think he won because he was a man, though. I think he won because Trump was the president, so the disastrous impact of Trump’s policies were top of mind, so people voted not-Trump.
She brought on Clinton as one of her main advisors!! And it’s like, in a world of 8 billion people you choose the ONE person who has lost to this guy before? Why? WHY??
November 16, 2025 at 4:08 AM
She brought on Clinton as one of her main advisors!! And it’s like, in a world of 8 billion people you choose the ONE person who has lost to this guy before? Why? WHY??
Mostly what I remember is the smug tone of inevitability (it’s her turn!), her undisguised contempt for the left, and her supporters’ constant insistence that if you weren’t over the moon to vote for her it could only be because of your sexism.
November 16, 2025 at 3:55 AM
Mostly what I remember is the smug tone of inevitability (it’s her turn!), her undisguised contempt for the left, and her supporters’ constant insistence that if you weren’t over the moon to vote for her it could only be because of your sexism.
I’ll grant you, Harris isn’t a true believer like Clinton, more a chameleon adopting whatever policies she thinks benefit her in the moment. She’s briefly flirted with progressivism a few times, only for her consultants to snap her back to the neoliberal status quo. That’s where she always ends up.
November 16, 2025 at 3:51 AM
I’ll grant you, Harris isn’t a true believer like Clinton, more a chameleon adopting whatever policies she thinks benefit her in the moment. She’s briefly flirted with progressivism a few times, only for her consultants to snap her back to the neoliberal status quo. That’s where she always ends up.
You mean a fascist now and a corporate hawk whose neoliberal policies inevitably lead us to fascism later? Yeah, that’s a tough choice. I held my nose, but I can’t really blame anyone for not wanting to do the same. The fact that sometimes the neolib is a woman doesn’t seem all that relevant to me.
November 16, 2025 at 3:24 AM
You mean a fascist now and a corporate hawk whose neoliberal policies inevitably lead us to fascism later? Yeah, that’s a tough choice. I held my nose, but I can’t really blame anyone for not wanting to do the same. The fact that sometimes the neolib is a woman doesn’t seem all that relevant to me.