Haven’t gotten around to trying to really read this article in full but it looks like you’ve got a pretty serious misquote.

That last paragraph you quote, which is at the end of the article, is followed by a single sentence given its own paragraph. So it actually reads as follows:

The promise of an end to the drama might be enough to elect Kamala. I want it to be true.

But it is a lie.

Emphasis mine.

So he’s not saying it’ll actually happen. Of all things he’s rejecting the “40k Ork logic” that you’re trying to pin on him. It sounds more like he’s lamenting that ‘If Democrats weren’t lying, maybe Kamala Harris winning would lead to better circumstances, but they are lying.’

Cutrone has had some completely garbage takes (e.g. Palestine) but we don’t need to stoop to the level of misreading him so carelessly. That benefits no one.

Why do people on this site keep saying, without checking, that there are no resources available whatsoever to help people get out of evac zones? Making claims like this without checking first could get people fucking killed. Do better.

There are government resources available to help people evacuate. I actually made a thread that lists some resources including for the county that Tampa is part of: https://hexbear.net/post/3632288

I still don’t see how this is radlib. It might be radical to your or me, but how is it a radical form of liberalism instead of just a form of mainstream liberalism?

We should be careful about watering down words. The Atlantic being radlib would mean there’s little liberalism that isn’t radlib.

How is The Atlantic radlib? There’s not really anything radical about it.

Is he really making a mistake? It seems to me like he’s engaging in immanent critique of The Atlantic.

He’s showing how what it does contradicts and differs from what it says it does.