The point they were making was that this woman should still have been in the streets protesting genocide regardless of the sitting president. They are calling the complicity of this womans desire for inaction disgusting and it should be viewed that way. Getting your genocidal fuck in office does not absolve you of responsibility, if anything you should demand more from them. Going back to brunch means being comfortable with the crimes of your empire just because you aren’t threatened by them at that moment.
And what the 2024 nominee, Kamala Harris, who, you know, the presumptive or leading nominee for 2028, she’s she signaled she’s going to run again. One would be curious what she would say about this. She has not commented. She lost the election about seven months ago. Has not commented at all on Gaza, except twice to hand-wring about Israeli hostages. She’s not opposed anything Trump has done with respect to the genocide in Gaza, not publicly at least. She hasn’t publicly condemned anything that Trump has done with respect to Iran. And the bombing happened last night. Since then, she hasn’t issued a statement. She hasn’t condemned it. She hasn’t opposed it. Now, a lot of people say, Oh, well, Harris would have been better than Trump. Again, very possible, but the one person in the world who could solve this mystery, which is Kamala Harris herself, has yet to criticize Trump on the subject of Israel at all.
So you do know you have very few choices. How astute of you! Did you figure that out all on your own?
This is what you call a democracy? No anti-genocide choice, so just move on and normalize atrocities until the fascists kill you too. I’m never gonna look at the democrats as being separate from the Republicans again, because theyre not. They meet halfway with genocide when there should be none!
Do you think a guarantee of MORE genocide is less good than the level of genocide already going on?
If there were a real option where “no genocide” was on the table, people would take it. Do something to make such a choice possible. Hint: It’s not allowing fascism to take over.
There’s so much wrong with what you just said, that I don’t even have time to point out all the problems because I have to watch the next episode of Muderbot. But I will spare the time to point out there have been many times in the past several decades when democrats had the option to spurn their sponsors in the military industrial complex and not warmonger, but not a single one of those times did they choose the humane option and just not.
Anyone who thinks that politicians that are bought and paid for by the corporate war machine are just going to stop murdering kids is either incredibly naive, or an idiot. I’ll let you decide which of the two you are.
Anyone who thinks that politicians that are bought and paid for by the corporate war machine are just going to stop murdering kids is either incredibly naive, or an idiot. I’ll let you decide which of the two you are.
I agree. So why is the argument from your side of the table just apathy? Doing nothing isn’t going to solve anything, and the only options available ATM are nothing but limiting how much damage is done or accelerating/increasing the damage. Do you have any actionable solutions to get a secret third option, besides “hurr durr, I am not voting because both choices are bad?” Because not understanding the concept of a “lesser evil” when no other choice is available is far more naive.
Oh, so six million people can turn out to protest a dictator, but liberals can’t be bothered to do the same when it’s to stop a genocide? What the actual fuck, dude? So the only fucking time you’ll get off your lazy liberal ass to do anything is when it impacts you specifically? What a horrible person you are.
But hey, at least you can pat yourself on the back for voting for the lesser evil. What a shit take. I think that’s enough from you. Thank you, do not come again.
Less genocide? What does that even mean?! You can’t systematically murder a people to a greater or lesser degree. There is no “good” way to support a genocide. Just don’t support genocide. It’s actually fairly easy to do.
It’s not allowing fascism to take over.
So the people who happily funded and supported a fascist ethnostate committing a genocide and who continue to do so are going to stop fascism? Right, got it. That makes perfect sense.
You can systematically murder more groups than just 1.
If you support one genocide for your own personally benefit what’s to stop you from supporting another? You’re morally bankrupt and completely irredeemable at that point.
If it was that easy, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
It is that easy! You just don’t want to admit. You’re operating on an absurd moral plane where you think one set of genocide supporters is more redeemable than another. At that point you’ve already accepted the inevitability of fascism and you’re just trying to make a bargain with it. I’m here to tell you fascism doesn’t work that way. If you give it an inch it will take a mile.
you’re arguing that doing nothing is the morally superior response.
You can actually do things that don’t require you to carry water for genocide supports. Go to a protest and connect with likeminded people. Organize your workplace or community. Engage in civil disobedience against unjust state violence. Instead of pretending that the only choice that matters is the one where you spend five seconds filling in one of two boxes every four years, do something that actually makes a difference.
Removed by mod
The point they were making was that this woman should still have been in the streets protesting genocide regardless of the sitting president. They are calling the complicity of this womans desire for inaction disgusting and it should be viewed that way. Getting your genocidal fuck in office does not absolve you of responsibility, if anything you should demand more from them. Going back to brunch means being comfortable with the crimes of your empire just because you aren’t threatened by them at that moment.
from https://citationsneeded.medium.com/news-brief-us-media-top-dems-assist-trump-and-israels-unprovoked-attack-on-iran-d391810dc29b
Unfortunately (thanks to living in a shithole) there’s no anti-genocide choice
So you do know you have very few choices. How astute of you! Did you figure that out all on your own?
This is what you call a democracy? No anti-genocide choice, so just move on and normalize atrocities until the fascists kill you too. I’m never gonna look at the democrats as being separate from the Republicans again, because theyre not. They meet halfway with genocide when there should be none!
Removed by mod
So in this case you think supporting a genocide is a good option?
Do you think a guarantee of MORE genocide is less good than the level of genocide already going on?
If there were a real option where “no genocide” was on the table, people would take it. Do something to make such a choice possible. Hint: It’s not allowing fascism to take over.
There’s so much wrong with what you just said, that I don’t even have time to point out all the problems because I have to watch the next episode of Muderbot. But I will spare the time to point out there have been many times in the past several decades when democrats had the option to spurn their sponsors in the military industrial complex and not warmonger, but not a single one of those times did they choose the humane option and just not.
Anyone who thinks that politicians that are bought and paid for by the corporate war machine are just going to stop murdering kids is either incredibly naive, or an idiot. I’ll let you decide which of the two you are.
I agree. So why is the argument from your side of the table just apathy? Doing nothing isn’t going to solve anything, and the only options available ATM are nothing but limiting how much damage is done or accelerating/increasing the damage. Do you have any actionable solutions to get a secret third option, besides “hurr durr, I am not voting because both choices are bad?” Because not understanding the concept of a “lesser evil” when no other choice is available is far more naive.
Oh, so six million people can turn out to protest a dictator, but liberals can’t be bothered to do the same when it’s to stop a genocide? What the actual fuck, dude? So the only fucking time you’ll get off your lazy liberal ass to do anything is when it impacts you specifically? What a horrible person you are.
But hey, at least you can pat yourself on the back for voting for the lesser evil. What a shit take. I think that’s enough from you. Thank you, do not come again.
Less genocide? What does that even mean?! You can’t systematically murder a people to a greater or lesser degree. There is no “good” way to support a genocide. Just don’t support genocide. It’s actually fairly easy to do.
So the people who happily funded and supported a fascist ethnostate committing a genocide and who continue to do so are going to stop fascism? Right, got it. That makes perfect sense.
Removed by mod
If you support one genocide for your own personally benefit what’s to stop you from supporting another? You’re morally bankrupt and completely irredeemable at that point.
It is that easy! You just don’t want to admit. You’re operating on an absurd moral plane where you think one set of genocide supporters is more redeemable than another. At that point you’ve already accepted the inevitability of fascism and you’re just trying to make a bargain with it. I’m here to tell you fascism doesn’t work that way. If you give it an inch it will take a mile.
You can actually do things that don’t require you to carry water for genocide supports. Go to a protest and connect with likeminded people. Organize your workplace or community. Engage in civil disobedience against unjust state violence. Instead of pretending that the only choice that matters is the one where you spend five seconds filling in one of two boxes every four years, do something that actually makes a difference.
You don’t get to tell people to shut the fuck up. That’s my job. Cool your jets or move along.
It was bound to happen that the worst of the worse would won. Since american been fine with a teo party system for centuries
So you agree with them.