I am not saying we shouldn't vote for Biden, but acting like we shouldn't be protesting the genocide of Palestinians is bullshit. I know Trump would be worse, but it doesn't mean we should speak out against Biden sending weapons that directly aid in the death of children.
We can't just pretend he isn't complicit in war crimes just because the other option is worse. We should be able to speak out against the atrocities.
I am not sure this is effective against those voters. If anything it's shaming, at best, which causes people to dig their heels in. Addressing those voters as petulant children is not the way to bring them on board.
But the point isn't to convince the voters who are being shamed, but to lessen the reach of their talking points to undecided or on-the-fence voters by pointing out the absurdity of the talking points being pushed.
If some clown is out there, trying to convince everyone clown makeup is the new style, the goal of mocking the clown is not to get the clown to take off their makeup, it's to remind everyone that clown makeup being 'the new style' is fucking absurd no matter how many times or how loudly it's repeated, and will make you look like a goddamn clown.
The people who are on the streets organising and protesting for Palestine are the same people who are doing all kinds of organising: unionising workplaces, mutual aid, street medics, etc. to build up communities and create actual positive change in society.
Do-nothing liberals will do absolutely nothing but complain every day of the year. Democracy isn’t a matter of voting once every 4 years.
Besides, most of these people, despite being highly critical of Biden and will show up to vote on the day. They’re just not going to spend the rest of their time campaigning for a lost cause.
Why not put some of the blame on liberals who aren’t doing enough? Or maybe the reactionaries and fascists who do not give a fuck about what the vote says and will do everything in their power to obstruct, ignore, overturn and use violence to get the outcome they want. You’re delusional if you think fascists will just go away if Biden gets the vote.
The comic is highly uncritical of any of the levers of power. In fact it entirely omits any imagery pertaining to politicians or legislators or any political party. So the only people it is directed at are those protesting the genocide in Gaza as though it came at the expense of other issues, while giving those in power who have actually ignored or even fought those issues a complete fucking pass.
Like it doesn't even mention Biden or any sort of strategy or demands the protestors might have, even. Just shames people for protesting a genocide.
The implication is clear, the issues are all matters of voting including "save democracy". It's the statue of Liberty, a clear symbol of American democracy. It is clearly directed squarely at people saying protest by not voting for Biden.
I get the gravity of the situation, but Trump's side has repeatedly made it clear they would go harder on Gaza.
At least Biden allows the protests to happen. Under Trump, the first protest would be the last as he would immediately mobilize the National Guard and authorize the use of lethal force to suppress it.
Is he, though? I know the president isn't directing this stuff directly, but the harshest crackdowns have been in cities run by democrats, in democratically run states. As the leader of the party he could've told local administrators to respect free speech rights of protestors.
You know what? I don't know he isn't directing this stuff directly. All the crackdowns happened at the same time in all those Democratically controlled cities, almost like it was coordinated and that someone at the top ordered it.
I was trying to be charitable to Biden, but yeah, the whole thing of 'Trump would've sent the national guard instead' thing isn't really functionally different.
On the other hand, there's examples of administrators engaging the protestors and giving concessions up to a point where they voluntarily cleaned up their encampments.
As opposed to the police currently beating the shit out of protestors. I understand it would be worse under trump, but that's a really low fucking bar. We should be asking for better, not settling for the regime which is only maiming protestors instead of killing them.
Minnesota's group is approaching this a smart way, from the local up. They're not spending much time in the high-profile positions; they're tackling local elections. Gets people used to the idea, and they stack higher and higher positions as they're going. It'll take time, but starting at the top and working down is a lot harder.
Same, local approach. There's a specific local city we're targeting the city council etc as well as spreading awareness to the locals that this is even an option. Your average person doesn't know it exists!
Except where it's been implemented. We have had several successes at the local level in Minnesota; we're a long way from the governor, but it's always moving forward, with a win every year and - so far - no screw-ups causing a regression.
Totally irrelevant for this presidential election. Also I'd argue for presidential elections the electoral college needs to go first. The increasing number of presidents being elected with a minority vote is seriously concerning.
I'll preface this by saying that near any voting system, ranked choice voting included, is better than FPTP. That being said, ranked choice voting does have some issues. Some that, arguably, can make it almost as bad as FPTP. To be more specific for this argument, I'll focus on the IRV type. The main negative aspects of this voting system, imo, are that it doesn't satisfy the monotonicity and Condorcet criterions. Regarding this topic, I highly recommend reading this article. It is very well written, and very informative.
The one issue with this way of thinking is that since changing such a fundamental system is typically (and, imo, understandably) quite difficult, one doesn't want to squander the opportunity with an arbitrary decision (I'm not accusing you of making an arbitrary decision, I'm just stating generally), as having another chance is unlikely. Furthermore, experimentation on a mass scale, i.e. country-wide, is generally not a wise idea. One should be firm in their convictions for the decision that they choose to support. It's possible to cause considerable damage within the edge cases.
You’re right, best deliberate about which one is best instead.
Aha, well, up to a point. Certainly worse to be stuck deliberating while society rots away under FPTP. There is certainly truth to your original point of not letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Experimentation? New Zealand, Ireland and Australia already stage elections using forms of RCV.
Interesting. I wonder how prevalent the issues were that I mentioned earlier. I also wonder what type of ranked ballot they use. I'll have to look into this more. Would you have any good sources for studies looking at the outcomes of them using that voting system?
patronizing is exactly the right word holy shit :(
i am not a single issue voter and i’m highly critical of those telling me to utterly ditch the blue vote. but i am very uncomfortable with this portrayal of the pro-Palestine movement and i hope you, the reader, are too
the artist of this should feel some level of shame i think
You're reading too much into it. The cartoon isn't about those who support Palestine. It's about those who make it their only issue. Ending up only hurting themselves and everyone else.
Under a cartoon representation of a quite standard-looking Palestine supporting protester.
“The cartoon isn’t about those who support Palestine.”
What textual or external evidence do you have for this? Genuinely what could I be missing here lmao? Open to correction but this sounds like you are gaslighting urself?
Edit to be very specific: The comic depicts what might be called a “generic” protester. And then puts words in their mouth that are not often heard: “I’m busy.” Not a popular slogan or anything.
There’s one protester, one speech bubble. That’s 100% of the protesters on the page, where the uncommon speech is inserted into the generic. Hence my interperetation that the artist is representing all pro-Palestine protesters here as single issue obstructionist bad actors, which is an obvious non-truth
It's a political cartoon. They're visual generally not textual. So there's at least your first problem of many. Though I think your problems are all of your own design. That you think that represents all Palestinian supporters says more about you than it does about Palestinian supporters.
But let's analyze your own claims using your own required proofs. Where does the textually say anything you've implied?
Hi there, just wanted to mention that visual texts are quite prevalent in rhetorical media (e: of which political cartoons are very much a part despite your strange assertion.) Thank you for considering this perspective. I would appreciate it if you could provide evidence from the visual text or another source to support any alternative interpretations.
An example of my perception: in a political cartoon, a white guy wearing a red MAGA hat might be perceived as representing Trump supporters. There would need to be considerable evidence for me to believe that such a symbol represented a specific subset of that group, of such a kind at least that I do not see here.
I may not engage in further answers to your questions until I receive a response addressing the evidence provided. Thank you for understanding, and I value your perspective.
Edit: I do see that you blocked me. So, that’s excellent :/
Your link has nothing to do with political cartoons. Could you be any more smarmy disingenuous or obvious. You can't even defend what you said. Nor can you admit it. Worse you resort to lemmygrad posting and making shit up. Proving that you're not engaging in good faith. The least you could do is make my name bigger on that image so people would know to laugh and ridicule you quicker.
Single-issue voters are one of the biggest challenges to a functioning democracy. Planks and balance provide depth; a willingness to compromise and work to the greater good.
But that's gone now, isn't it. And when a Palestinian advocate candidate is running for president, who supports pro-choice, affordable housing, and every other liberal plank except they object to green-colored libraries, then fuck them because I have to have my green-painted libraries!
Personally I would guess that the >50% of eligible voters who don’t vote, largely due to systemic disenfranchisement, are a bigger issue.
Another systemic issue is FPTP.
I find any solution to “fix” democracy that attacks/criticizes the individual voter to be barely valid. The solution to a systemic problem is always going to be systemic in my experience.
*Disclaimer: Not well-researched in the field, simply applying my knowledge from other areas to this. I welcome corrections.
I knew what was going to catch an eye. We're taking about single issue voters - would it have been better to compare 2A to genocide? Or anti-choice? Because those are real single choice issues that even better epitomize the issue, and neither is nearly as horrible as what's going on in Gaza; Palestine is just the most recent iteration.
And in this case, the single issue voters are making an insane decision, because he's actively goading Israel on. If you think Biden's weak-sauce response is bad, wait until Trump is in office: he will shift all military and financial support from Ukraine to Israel.
Netanyahu is ignoring Biden not just because Biden isn't taking any substantive action ("strongly-worded letters!"), but because he's knows Biden has every chance to lose to Trump and then he can start building the gas chambers.
People sitting this one out over Palestine are clueless dumb fucks. I hate Biden's continued support of Israel in this - although I understand it as political expediency - but Trump is undeniably a worse option for Palestinians.
Its very telling that you're comparing the Palestinian genocide with painted libraries as if everyone else but you is mindless and can't tell the difference between compromising on something completely serious and harmful to people versus something that's nonsense or less of a priority.
No one I know who does serious work on Palestine is only working on that one issue, wasn't doing anything before and won't do anything after. Burnout is incredibly high among activist leaders right now. Cut us some slack please
I think there's a lot of anger that anything is being tried at all. The expectation and goal is that nothing be done, which those in your opposition cannot help but reveal every time with their incessant brow beating.
Surprise! It was the same handful of self-aggrandizing, self-righteous, idealistic short-sighted imbeciles that were driving all of that discussion the entire time.
Reminds me of the mass blocker and mass tagger wars
Someone on twitter created a tool that auto blocks anyone who followed at least 2 of five specific users, and found that it basically entirely shut down the gamer gaters and began spreading the tool to other users.
You can imagine that the gamergaters were less than pleased to see their harassment campaign being obstructed, and even less happy to find out how simply they could all be categorized and dismissed.
People totally underestimate how infuriated trolls get when they're ignored. They want any attention, even negative. Just block them and move on, it works wonders.
Just to remind everyone, the issue is that we're funding a genocide. FFS, I don't want Trump to beat Biden either, but how warped and hollow is your worldview that you can look at kids getting their skulls cracked open for protesting a genocide and think, "Wow, look at those entitled single-issue voters." Truly a deranged take.
I personally saw this comic as a criticism of people vowing to vote third party because they don't like how Gaza is being handled, damning all the issues including Gaza to a dark future.
Saying everyone who agrees with this comic loves genocide and munches popcorn while protestors are being beaten bloody is certainly a take.
Believe it or not, but fueling this "one or the other" rhetoric hurts Democrats most. Even if the 3rd party candidates aren't viable, the people that would support Jill Stein or Cornel West are far more likely to vote for liberal candidates down-ballot. Extensive studies on voting outcomes show that disincentivizing voting outside the 2 party system is far more likely to keep progressive voters home.
Sorry if the following makes little sense, but your comment is interesting and I am quite buzzed on my evening off.
In terms of outcomes, I don't see the difference between someone not voting and voting third party for president in a first past the post system. If you throw away your vote, it's the same as staying home.
I think the best way to move a party in a direction is to have the right people join the 2-party system and change it from within.
That's done by winning primaries. AOC primaried the Chair of the fucking House Democratic Caucus and has been campaigning left very publicly since. Asa Democrat, not a more Left and irrelevant party.
But they also have to be able to win general elections, as we saw many of the craziest Trumpers in 2022 win their primaries, being ideologically what their base wanted, and get their lunch eaten in the general election.
Drunk TLDR: Work the two party system, don't scare the normies and sink the boat, slow boil the country into a brighter future
Here's the thing though. You're not just voting for the president this year. Telling leftists to get in line to support a candidate complicit in genocide is similarly likely to put Trump in the office. If you don't want to see Trump elected, encourage voting generally. That includes supporting people that want to see Cornel in the office. Because the brass tacks is that most people lean to the left in this country. Telling them that a vote for "their guy" is pointless, keeps them home. It's a factor as to why he was elected in the first place.
Supreme court is already captured.
Congress is nearly captured.
If Trump wins, there's a good chance there won't be another chance at resolving things even remotely democratically.
I've voted 3rd party in the past when I lived there. But this election really is gonna be one where they can't be affordable to do.
This is a "lose the battle to fight the war" situation, because end of the day, ANY choice you make will still result in Palestinians being genocided.
Voting for Trump, Biden, 3rd Party, or None.
Unless you yourself have some military training and think you have a shit at straight up assassinating Netanyahu as a random like rogue assassin, there's nothing you or I can do about that other than protest and boycott. You can still protest the genocide and criticize Biden. You can do campaign for 3rd party support elsewhere. You can still do so when congressional elections come.
But you won't have that option at all if Trump wins. The damn dude is literally calling himself a dictator.
Jan 6th happened.
You have to lack complete critical thinking skills to think, at this point, giving the guy who's in the same ideological bed as Putin and Netanyahu a good chance at the presidency, is a good idea.
giving the guy who’s in the same ideological bed as Putin and Netanyahu a good chance at the presidency, is a good idea.
My brother in christ, he already has a chance at winning because this country clearly has no mechanism to bar insurrectionists from running, despite a constitutional amendment. I'd also appreciate it if you stopped assuming I haven't been thinking critically about how I'm going to vote. I'm not going to sit on my ass if he wins, I'm going to fight like hell. I hope you do too. Because it's already a possibility.
Do you know which state has the longest running streak of progressive voting presidential elections, as well as some of the highest voter turn out in the country? It's Minnesota. This beautiful state has been voting to the left since 1974 for Walter Mondale, and consistently has voter turnout of at least 70%. In 2022 the state legislature won a trifecta state government and passed swathes of progressive liberal bills. Do you know our secret? We don't vote shame, we just encourage everyone to vote their truth.
You think the dictator in chief Trump will let you vote???
Yes, you do lack critical thinking.
If by "fight like hell" you mean armed resistance, go ahead. That'll be the only option left for change at that point. He's not going to give up power the second time. He barely did the first.
Glad I left the USA. Dumbasses like you that have zero tact proved and continue proving there's no hope over there.
lmao, so you're just assuming things about me and trying to pin me as "lesser" because I disagree with you. I'm glad you left too, that's one less toxic "vbnw" person in this country. I will never support a genocide. That is my line. If you can't respect that, then go fuck yourself.
Not assuming anything. You've already shown what you lack.
You're still supporting genocide no matter what voting choice you take, including not voting at all.
Unless you stop paying your taxes at least. I don't pay US taxes, therefore I'm actually, literally, not supporting a genocide. Leaving the country and renouncing your citizenship is a way to not support the immoral things the USA does too.
Now all that's left for you to decide is if you'll be allowing a greater evil to make things worse, including future genocide - and you have chosen to do so.
I'm no formal teacher, but I'll still take a crack at it.
Let's say you're (by force) part a large military group of 1,000 soldiers and a general. This general has ordered y'all to commit some heinous things.
Soon, however, a new general has a chance at leading the group. He's one who has done so in the past. He promised he'll do things that to you, are much worse. He even has an accomplished record.
Both generals either way have agreed to help a foreign army to annihilate a village currently being razed; but the current general at least might not destroy more future villages, while the new one who wants to take power promises he will, and he'll go further. In the army you're currently in, 450 support the new general, 400 support the current general, 20 don't care , 30 don't support either but only pick the current one because they think it's better than the other, and 50, like you, don't want either.
Now, obviously you dislike both generals. And there's this third general who says he's opposed to destroying villages. So you want to join his side.
Problem is, his army is only 10 people. Even if you got all 50 of those from your current army to support him, 60 of you can't stop anything. Especially not the village
So now I'll end this with a question: what's the best option to stop future villages from being destroyed further?
Aside from lacking all nuance and missing several real world factors in the US I'm sure you missed since you're not American, I'll play. Go to the next village with the 12-62 professional soldiers and train them into a guerilla army to violently oppose all those who wish to destroy them. Who would have guessed that military analogies don't fucking work for politics.
Let's do our best to put that into real world solutions:
A Palestinian state, or a viable path towards a Palestinian state through their own self determination
Restore land and property forcibly seized by settlers
An end to all military funding to the state of Israel
An international coalition army to stand between Israel and Palestine, funded by the US
Brokering a deal with other nearby countries to assist in nation building
Reparations
Neither Biden or Trump are willing to do any of those. Electing either will mean we continue to sit and watch as women and children are murdered and thrown into mass graves.
I said I don't live in the USA anymore. I've mentioned multiple times indirectly this fact. Practice reading comprehension.
You're right, nether will do either of those things. 1 however WILL however try to ensure that those things are not possible, while also doing their best to end any shreds of democracy that do remain AND will lead to even MORE support for more deaths.
So, considering that neither will do either of those things, but one will make things worse for future Palestinians (there's still the West Bank), and push forward into maximum the "women and children are murdered and thrown into mass Graves", explain to me now how THAT'S better? Or how you not doing everything possible to stop an even higher amount of deaths is more moral than checks notes allowing it to happen?
Again, your taxes are still supporting what's happening. You're still supporting what's happening. The final question is, do you want your money being used to turn kids into skeletons, or do you want your money being used to turn kids into skeletons ×2?
Because that's the choices you're actually being given when it comes to voting and doing something.
Of course, if you literally don't want to participate in either, then go ahead, I encourage that. Cause good trouble. Don't pay taxes, serve your time, get others to do the same. Or move away and renounce your citizenship. Put your mouth where your money is. You talk the talk but I don't see you walk the walk. Stop pouting on here about what's happening and instead do something. Stop commenting about how both are bad and start saying "so that's why you should join me in doing ___", and then actually do something about it. I've done my time and paid my dues, let's see if people like you do the same.
I know you won't though. It's easy to protest, it's hard to take action. I've seen it plenty, and that's why I finally decided to literally no longer participate in contributing to that system or bother fighting. You can't fix an utterly broken culture.
Distinction without a difference. You now have degrees of separation from US politics that guarantee you'll miss the less obvious stuff that have big impacts.
move away and renounce your citizenship
Are you paying? Because I can not afford to uproot my life. I can't even afford to drive over the US border into Canada, and I live in fucking Minnesota. I have 0 control where my taxes go. I do not support genocide. The Government extracts money from me under threat of violence, and I'm far more useful as an activist getting arrested or killed in direct action than I ever would as a felon in prison for tax evasion. That's right. I'm willing to die violently to stop the US government from funding this genocide. I already do everything I can with the limited amount of money and free time I have. Don't pretend you know me.
Yeah yeah, I've heard it plenty but never hear of it, even in the underground.
Funny you're willing to not vote to prevent a worse outcome, and supposedly even willing to get killed.
But not to go to prison for not paying taxes in protest.
Yeah, totally believable.
Maybe you should ask yourself if you know yourself instead.
PS: Moving to another country and renouncing citizenship isn't supposed to be easy. But I never said doing the right thing ever was. It's also still not the only option.
I have $7000, total. Last I checked, you can't move anywhere with that. I'd be homeless in less than 2 months, in a strange country and with 0 connections. Tax evasion is an act of indirect civil protest. I prefer direct action. I know who I am and what I value. You're condescending, presumptive, and unwilling to place aside pride to understand perspective. You are the reason Europe think Americans all act that way. Sincerely, go fuck yourself.
I know because I'm having a friend move here who only has coincidentally slightly more than that. They're coming August 31st are currently cramming Finnish.
Prefer direct action? Get many to protest with you then to not pay taxes until the government agrees to stop aid to Israel.
And no, Europeans think of Americans that way because Americans don't show real effort. There's constant talk of putting your life on the line for a cause but then, never do. I already have for the nurse strike in Finland. What have you done?
Presidential votes are different because the Electoral College. A third of my state's 2020 voters could abstain from voting Biden or vote 3rd party and Biden will still most likely win. So the calculus is way different than for say, congressional offices. Unless you're one of the say 100,000 or so people living in a swing district in a swing state your vote for president is probably already decided due to the Electoral college.
It would take a catastrophically unpopular policy stance to threaten the electoral college vote in my state, and the same is true for most US states.
Well, first of all, that is abso-fucking-lutely not my take, thanks. Secondly, if it's just about third party voters, why is that young person sitting front of tent? Could have gotten the anti-Biden point across with a Genocide Joe shirt. Could have really driven the third-party thing home with a Jill Stien shirt. But no, the artist depicted a white kid in a Palestinian keffiyeh, holding a Palestinian protest sign, and placed them in front of a tent. The artist is clearly pointing at the campus protesters, who've been on the receiving end of an extraordinary amount of state-sponsored violence for their activism, and saying, "look how unreasonable these people are."
People who make these typa posts are the same people who wouldn't show up to a protest for any of these things
yall are actually insane if you think protesting genocide is somehow mutually exclusive from other issues, or that pressuring Biden automatically means you're voting for Trump
Both this community and Politics have some of the dumbest party shill takes ever.
People just don't understand that political discussions are in nature pr work. You need a good pr strategy to succeed in what you want and impulsively selected actions might be bad for your pr work. And the truth is most people don't think about pr before posting about why XYZ is bad.
Literally the British government fucked themselves like that. They wanted to avoid responsibility and found someone to blame in their pr work. A few decades later and their country is leaving a huge market to avoid having to comply to the market's rules, while also kinda wanting to join the market for trading and having to comply again for economically reasons (and the threat of terrorism due to north Irland)... While being unable to make it happen without splitting up the country due to people rejecting that by eu bad. So the best they can do is trade deals with little to no impact on their trading. And while everything goes so well, parts of it are looking into leaving them. Politics are pr work. If you want to have an impact, then play in the big leagues, play like it.
“If Nixon wins again, we’re in real trouble.” He picked up his drink, then saw it was empty and put it down again. “That’s the real issue this time,” he said. “Beating Nixon. It’s hard to even guess how much damage those bastards will do if they get in for another four years.”
I nodded. The argument was familiar. I had even made it myself, here and there, but I was beginning to sense something very depressing about it. How many more of these goddamn elections are we going to have to write off as lame but “regrettably necessary” holding actions? And how many more of these stinking, double-downer sideshows will we have to go through before we can get ourselves straight enough to put together some kind of national election that will give me and the at least 20 million people I tend to agree with a chance to vote for something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils?
– Hunter Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72
Lol, I mean I get why you feel this moment is unique, but i'm looking through NYT articles from 1972 and if you take out the dated references you could almost mistake them for articles written in 2024:
To the Editor: When a Democrat for Nixon says “I'll vote holding my nose, but McGovern is not a big enough man to be President,” or “I don't like him, but there is no viable alternative,” or an uncommitted Democrat says “McGovern doesn't turn me on,” such remarks are liberalese for “I'm doing alright the way things are, and can't take a risk of any change in the status quo.” - NYT Letter to the Editor 10/19/72
"Lawrence F. O'Brien, the na tional campaign chairman for the McGovern‐Shriver ticket, accused the Nixon Administra tion yesterday of sanctioning tactics of “political espionage” that bordered on those of “a fascist state.” - NYT O'Brien Charges 'Political Espionage'" - 10/14/72
"Deceit, deceit, everywhere deceit—but especially on the political and cultural left, says Arnold Beichman, and most out rageously in the writings of the youth lovers (Marcuse, Slater, Sontag, Roszak, Reich and the rest). They say “America is al ready a fascist country or is on the road to fascism,” that the country “is guilty of genocide,” that “the Bomber Left ... is a moral force” They claim the white “American worker ... is a retrograde, decadent, self ish creature: a honky,” that “our political system is an ut ter fraud, particularly the two‐ party system,” that “American values are wholly materialistic,” that “America is insane,” and that our primary need is for “a violent revolution.” " - NYT, "Nine Lies About America", 10/8/72
I'm having a great time reading through these actually, it's interesting reading the op-eds from back then.
I think this is a great example of the rachet effect in action. We are now at the point where it has rachet-ed into the Democratic party enabling genocide versus the Republican party enabling genocide and having a plan for turn the US into an overtly fascist nation.
It's important to vote Biden in the general, it's just as important to criticize and protest Biden (plus the Democratic and Republican parties) for their continued support of genocide militarily and on the international stage
the point the person above was making was that they're always sick of voting for the lesser of two evils and your response is 'but this one is really evil?'
Uh... Nixon was terrible. He resigned in disgrace. Even Republicans shunned him after he left. It's hard to put into words how much Nixon disappeared from modern society.
Without a second Nixon term, Watergate is probably not as big of a deal. Then Fox News is never created. You can see where I'm going with this.
The point is, yes every election is important. Be grateful you can vote, and that your vote counts. It hasn't been the norm for most of human history.
Uh oh, looks like someone is sharing communistunpatrioticterrorist undemocratic speech. Undemocratic speech is any time you:
Oppose fascism
Skip an ad
Don't buy something
Take the bill of rights seriously at face value
Encourage someone else to do any of the above.
Please lie down on your stomach with your arms at your sides and someone will be along to pepper spray you and charge you with domestic terrorism shortly.
Remember kids, any criticism I don't like is propaganda.
I'm critical because we could be doing better, not just for ourselves, but the whole world. Instead, our leadership is threatening to attack the ICC if they hold Nettanyahu accountable for genocide.
No, it’s because you and your ilk only ever criticize Biden/Democrats, as though the roiling dumpster fire that is the Republican Party is beyond reproach. Don’t they control the House, and by extension the purse strings? Haven’t they held up funding for Ukraine more than once? They should be doing the same for funding for Israel, right?
My ilk? I'm actually a little curious what you think my ilk is.
I expect the republicans to be fascist pieces of shit. I'd see them swept out on their asses tomorrow if given the choice. I have higher expectations for the democrats, which is why I give them shit.
And when Biden goes around congress to fund the genocide, what then? We all know republicans are borderline fascists- there's honestly no point in calling a spade a spade since republicans will never listen to reason anyway (and many of them are in a death cult). But democrats claim to be better than republicans, so obviously when they do shitty things, they get held to higher standards. When Ronald fucking Reagan is tougher on Israel than Biden, there's an issue here. Hell, even Obama vetoed UN resolutions more than republicans. Reagan, in contrast, allowed 21 UN resolutions against Israel to pass. It should be clear as day that comparing Biden to Reagan screams "get higher standards", but it seems like a huge swath of democratic voters are either too comfortable in their life to care about blood being on their hands (mixed with post 9/11 anti-arab racism) or they feel like they have a gun to their head in the form of another trump presidency.
You can't reason with republicans about this because they literally need the genocide to happen to bring about the end times (and also a mix of white-supremacy/christofascist fueled anti-arab racism). It's Biden who isn't distancing himself enough from what we collectively thought was a bar only republicans and literal fascists would fall to.
Must be why Republicans are forwarding legislation that would force Biden to continue sending arms to Israel, and Biden has said he would veto such a thing.
But I'm not claiming to be silenced. I'm lampooning how the US has been to live in basically for all of living memory. We talk a lot of shit about freedom, but we're pretty embarrassing when it comes to walking the walk. We'll shrug helplessly as private equity owned hospitals put everyone in two trillion dollars of debt, but God forbid some people protest police overreach, or we're going to police overreach the shit out of them.
I've been watching self righteous self proclaimed radicals since I was in middle school. I'll happily trade a million Abbie Hoffmans for one Thurgood Marshall.
He won't unless we demand it. Come on, we know that. He's not the hero in this story. He won't lead us to a better future. But if he loses, there will be no future.
Wow, look at all those issues democrats won't actually do anything about, they'll just let republicans destroy those things so they can scream about them to get votes and continue to do nothing about them.
Oh, and democrats support genocide. No amount of whataboutism should disguise the fact that democrats are deep throating a genocidal apartheid ethnostate led by far-right war criminals.
Thank you for your well-researched and very-nuanced view, I hope you enjoy Donald “They’ve got to finish what they started, and they’ve got to finish it fast, and we have to get on with life.” Trump's next term, 2024-20??
We won’t be able to see whether or not they’ll enjoy it because like in 2016, and again in 2020- they’re going to vanish once the election is over. Regardless of who wins.
They’ll move on to other issues that make them appear as if they care about shit. And it’ll just repeat every four years while none of them will do anything in between elections that will ever amount to any change.
I’m talking about the clowns that throw a temper tantrum over single-issues and shout from the mountaintops that no one should vote until they get their way.
They don’t do shit during the in-between election years and then suddenly show up to demand a bunch of shit that they make out to be incredibly simple, but refuse to listen to people that know FAR more about it than they do.
And when it’s all over- they reroll as victims of their own design.
But they ... DO something about this issue in-between elections. They are protesting and demanding the Biden administration to change their course. That is political action. What else are they supposed to do? Anything other than playing with the political power that's left to them?
Everybody against those demanding a harder approach against Netanjahu's genocidal campaign and threatening their votes is talking about how these people have to save democracy by voting Biden regardless of what he's doing. Well, isn't that part of a democracy?
Of course it's part of a democracy. But the point everyone's making is that it's a very dumb thing to do because it's likely to reduce your democratic power in the future.
Is the president not at fault at all when he doesn't change his course? Also a majority of people seem to favor a ceasefire. Why not at least for campaign purposes actually enforce a ceasefire from Netanyahu?
How do you think we got trump in the first place? The awfulness of the republican party did not begin with him and will not end with him, but the whole time democrats have insisted that we need a republican party. It's a tag team play that ends in fascism regardless. If trump is beaten, the next bogeyman will be there for democrats to point at and claim "we just need to beat this one guy and then we'll work on issues you care about, we swear" yet again.
Seriously, Palestinian American here and I feel actually violated for them to be using my kin's corpses as fetish porn for their narrative.
I have family who are Nakba victims that I haven't been able to meet because they put everything into giving my grandfather the chance to escape, people who actually experienced the genocide first hand, and all I can see in these people wielding it as a cudgel to declare they won't vote and nobody else should either is the same white cynical "leftism" that made Nader and Stein become the perfect catastrophes for American democracy.
Here is the single Palestinian cause, Badna N3aesh! We want to live! We want to live, both in the homeland, and everywhere else we may go, and that means you have no right to use our dead to let the ones who would kill us here too into power.
This. It's almost like how a prominent Lemmy dev seems to believe his "struggle" is the same as a former Haitian slave. You want to talk about offensive appropriation to the point of self parody?
The idea that these privileged cynics use the corpses of heroes as a pedestal to push their agenda is absolutely disgusting.
Kinda hard for Palestinians living in Palestine to actually live when biden hands over billions of dollars in weapons for israel to bomb them. Why are you more mad at people opposed to genocide than the ones who full-throatedly support the bombing of Palestinians?
The point literally couldn't have come at you any more directly, and you still dodged around it and redirected, and doubled down on the pretense that somehow this person doesn't care about their own dead relatives, and you need to instruct them on what's important and what they need to understand and how to look at it, and why they should get on board with your politics, otherwise they don't care about their own dying and suffering people.
I wrote one sentence pointing out how biden's actions run directly counter to "we want to live" and then asked a question for clarification. You jumped in and twisted yourself into a pretzel to tell me how much I've missed the point without actually explaining how.
Sure. So it's not really my place to have this whole conversation, but I already did get involved, and I'm happy to give my input.
The point is that whatever's going on with Biden, Trump is objectively worse on every single metric, including but not limited to the safety of Arabs, Palestinians, and potential victims of the American military in general, at home and abroad.
Someone who cares about dead Palestinians could absolutely try to pressure Biden to stop sending weapons to the IDF, remove Netanyahu to the ICC, or whatever they want to do. Or they could point out that Biden is a monster for continuing the US's war criminal support for Israel, and not immediately denouncing Israel the instant they started blocking food aid or bombing hospitals. Sure. All that makes sense. If any of that is what you're doing, and it sounds like I'm trying to disagree with it, I am not. I actually originally came in this thread complaining about the OP cartoon, because I think most of the Palestine protestors are absolutely consistent and justified and the cartoon is grossly unfair as applied to them.
The very specific and very politically motivated construction from there to "that's why I can't support Biden, against Trump" or "that's why I'm not voting" or anything like that, is endangering Palestinians in Palestine, Palestinians in America, Hispanics in their home countries and in the US, Americans in the US, and many many other people, to an absolutely horrifying level.
This person is, if I am understanding them correctly, objecting very specifically to the second one. They're asking that people stop using the suffering of them and their family and friends to try to promote a particular political agenda which actually endangers them, increasing the chance of a genocide much much worse than what's happening right now in Gaza, while pretending that it's a Palestinian-friendly course of action and they're doing it because they care about Palestinians. They're pointing out that it's a ghoulish and dangerous thing to point to their own dead relatives and then try to use them to excuse a politics which threatens to make a lot more corpses, while pretending that it's on their behalf.
That's fair, but I think there's room for disagreement on how to pressure biden and if biden is actually even better for Palestinians at all. After all, biden has been the top supporter of israel for his entire career and is the top recipient of money from pro-israel donors by a huge margin:
So far biden has given israel everything they've wanted or needed. There is the case where he withheld weapons (but not "defensive" weapons) because of Rafah, but by that point israel already has more than enough to level the entire area and biden is already back to moving things forward for future weapon shipments. Clearly biden doesn't feel pressured enough to truly change his ways and I don't know how guaranteeing your vote will add pressure. I'm not saying to vote for trump, I myself will be voting for biden, but I feel like we shouldn't telegraph guaranteed votes to biden and the democrats no matter what they do. That's just a recipe for them taking you for granted and letting them get away with whatever they want.
if biden is actually even better for Palestinians at all
You have GOT to be joking.
we shouldn't telegraph guaranteed votes to biden and the democrats no matter what they do
This part, I actually agree with. Ralph Nader did a great interview where he was expressing this huge level of frustration with Democratic voters and said more or less, I get the reality, but there is a way to wield your vote in order to get things that you want. You get together a coalition, and you credibly communicate to the person in the election that they can only get all of your votes if they do X, Y, and Z. That puts pressure on them and it can absolutely change policy.
To him, he was saying that he thinks it's criminally silly to just say "well Biden's better than Trump so he can count on my vote." Like I say, objecting to that makes sense to me. By the same token I think it's silly to say "well Biden's not good enough so he can count on not getting my vote even if Trump is 10 times worse". Both of those courses of action are passing up an opportunity to actually influence policy. But stuff like the uncommitted votes in Michigan I thought were a great idea.
I mean that coalition building takes work, and it maybe won't succeed, it's this huge operation where throwing around comments on Lemmy is pretty easy. But it will actually help, if you do it.
The balkanization of the left has been a thing since before the Balkans themselves.
Just because someone protests an active genocide doesn't mean they cannot also be upset about what else is wrong in the world.
Divisive cartoons like this, horse race politics, and the straw man argument of the single issue voter are all more dangerous than the youth finding their voice in political discussion.
It's largely orchestrated. Fascists push it because it weakens the left. Leninists/Salinists/Maoists push it because they see it as accelerationist. Which to them is a good thing, because their ideology isn't an improvement over capitalism. They know they can only convince others to adopt it by making things worse, not better. Much the same as capitalism and mercantilism does/did.
He is. Support for Israel is policy, not politics. It's not Biden supporting Israel... it's the entire US political establishment that does.
You might just as well ask Biden to stop the US from being imperialist - no member of the US political establishment would ever do that. Period.
This is why you see liberals everywhere heeding the clarion call to pre-emptively start looking for people to blame when Biden hands over to the GOP (the "bad cop") come November.
No I agree. The establishment is fucked. And If Biden were actually serious about beating Trump (because the stakes are rightfully so high), then he'd Buck the establishment.
Neoliberals would rather have a Dictator Trump than a Progressive Policy. Which is hilarious when the "progressive policy " is just a sign that says "no genocide".
Your "fixing" just changed the meaning entirely to ignore the hard truth you don't care about. And you pretend you're being altruistic, just to be extra disgusting I guess
I have probably one of the more controversial comments on this thread. I plan on voting for Biden, because harm reduction is the best I can realistically do in this federal election, and the other guy is very clearly worse. I encourage you to do the same just based on my own beliefs and opinions. I'm still openly critical of Biden because fuck sitting back and watching a genocide happen and saying "golly, at least he's not Trump". We can and should do better, and if team Biden doesn't like it, maybe they should stop supporting genocide.
I think the issue is the people stating they won’t vote or the ones wanting to let Trump win to “just tear things down.” We don’t have near the numbers or popular will to tear things down and we didn’t have it last time Trump tore things apart. The damage he did is still being felt across the government and people just don’t understand how slowly change happens. It took the right 50 years and billions of dollars to get us here. It’s not going to change with one president or one political event.
I read that before, prolly from one of the gradbears or something, on how they didn't mind Trump winning and going full authoritarian, because that was a chance to "hit the reset button". Now, even with my best will I can read that as 'revolution + new constitution' but I cannot imagine how these people think that shit is going to go down in the USA today.
Maybe I'm just not up to date on the memo, but where did the idea that criticism isn't allowed come from?
I can't think of any president that I haven't criticized. Obama pissed me off immediately forgetting about his promise to close Gitmo or stop warrantless surveillance.
I'm not seeing people saying not to criticize the administration.
What people are saying is holy fuck white supremacist Christian fascists are about to instill a monarch who will hurt many, many people if they can get away with it.
It's a pretty clear and understandable message, and its unprecedented nature over the last few centuries kind of does warrant the volume with which it is attempted to be conveyed to people who say things like "because I don't like what the administration is doing with issue x I might not vote or will vote 3rd party."
Not liking what the administration is saying and saying you don't like it is the very essence of the American experience. But throwing away your vote in this century's equivalent to the election in 1930s Germany is not just tone deaf but an active middle finger to every minority that's going to be persecuted under gold-plated Hitler, Palestinians included.
Personal experience on Lemmy and Mastodon. Even things as trivial as criticizing the Biden campaign's strategy for stuff like hiring high level HRC16 folks and taking their advice as anything more than a joke or their strategy of just telling people who are feeling economic strain that they're actually just confused because everything is great has earned me all kinds of ire and claims that I'm everything from a Russian troll to a Trump supporter. Really, it pains me to see the democrats sucking this hard; I see a lot of familiar themes from '16 developing and it's making me nervous, including how other left voters are giving me shit for having the gall to question the wisdom of the campaign.
If we're going to win, I think it's not going to be by repeating the HRC16 strat of hand waving all criticism with "But Trump! The election is too important!" It didn't work last time, and I don't think it will this time. Besides that, it's kind of disappointing to hear what effectively amounts to "I'd love to be critical of genocide, but the election is too important." I kinda get where they're coming from, but at this rate, there might not be anyone in Gaza left to save by the time November gets here. We'll just have to kick rocks and go "golly, hopefully the next genocide doesn't happen in an election year".
I'm genuinely curious, would you vote for Hitler as a form of harm reduction? Obviously the genocide he did was bad, but say he was running against someone else who was also planning on committing a genocide.
The Nazis put money into infrastructure development, education (granted in this context it was also indoctrination, but there was genuine education being done too), expansion of welfare; better access to healthcare, public works programs, public health policies (though again, muddied with ideas about "racial purity").
Imagine he was running against another pro-genocide antisemite, but who was against all the welfare/public spending mentioned above, and instead wanted to deregulate the economy, causing even more material harm than the Nazis.
Would you be telling people to go out and vote for Hitler as a form of harm reduction? Is there literally no line a person/party can cross that makes them not worthy of a vote; no line that makes the system illegitimate and participation in it/implicit endorsement problematic?
Look, what you're trying to to get at here is that by voting for one party, you're affirming support for their policies. Perhaps the best way to frame this is that this is a little like the trolley problem, in that I can choose to do nothing and let the trolley (the US political system, in this case) run over five people people (Trump stops any finger-wagging at Nettanyahu and probably encourages a similar attack on the West Bank, as well as starts rounding up and deporting anyone with any detectable melanin levels, as well as going all in on climate change on the side of CO2, as well as whatever the fuck else who knows), or I can become a participant and pull the lever to try to make the Trolley run over one person instead (Biden's half ass finger wagging at Nettanyahu). Is pulling the lever problematic? Yes. But I think not pulling the lever is objectively worse.
Agreed on the trolley scenario, but that's not exactly analogous. I'll try to make an analogy that extrapolates the principle of our current scenario to illustrate what I'm getting at.
Imagine there are 3 candidates, two major parties and a third party. Both candidates in the major parties want to nuke the planet to establish an American world government. Our guy wants to nuke 6 billion people, their guy wants to nuke 7 billion people. Polls show that the third party candidate has the same chance of winning as polls in the 2024 U.S election show. The third party candidate is against dropping nukes on the planet to establish a global America.
Do you vote for the one who wants to nuke 6 billion people as a form of harm reduction? Or is there some line that a candidate/party can cross that makes voting third party the best option, despite how unlikely they'll win?
I've voted third party before; it's a fairly meaningless gesture at best, letting the trolley run over five people while still holding the lever at worst. Imo, you're looking at the wrong thing here. In a FPTP election system, you're always going to end up with a two-party duopoly with voters constantly trying to play harm reduction. If you want to have a meaningful impact at the ballot box- to have our third party votes actually count for something, it requires addressing the voting system that creates these conditions. Ranked Choice Voting/ STV movements are growing in the US; I plan on joining the one in California, I suggest you do the same thing.
I understand your sentiment, but I'm curious if you'll actually commit to the principle you are espousing. Would you actually vote for a candidate that wants to bomb "only" 6 billion people over 7 billion, instead of "throwing away" your vote for someone who doesn't want to nuke the planet?
That's a hard thing to answer for me, because it turns into looping arguments about ethics vs game theory. In practical terms, I know that other voters will avoid choosing the third party candidate, so the obvious choice is then re-apply my selection filter to the one of the two likely candidates that kills fewer people. In pure ethical terms, the obvious choice is to vote for the candidate that wants to kill nobody and then spend the rest of my life standing on the side of a road in the nuclear wastes ranting about how other people are bastards. I've been on both sides. In the moment, I choose pragmatism.
But really, the best thing to do is to try and reform our election system. I actually just signed up with CARCV.org before I hopped on here. When I have more time, I'll look at what I need to do to volunteer instead of just signing a petition and joining a mailing list.
I came back to say that your assertion about a two party system never arriving at a "too extreme" position is 100% correct. That's why it needs to be done away with.
I'm deeply uncomfortable with the amount of people calling those wholly opposed to complicity in genocide as "single issue voters". Sure, if genocide isn't enough of a concern for you to oppose candidates that are complicit, then I guess you can call it "single issue".
We're talking genocide here, so I'm going to compare this to the most known genocide on the planet. Imagine if we knew about and could see the Holocaust occurring as it happened when it started, and FDR was funding the Reich including circumventing congress. Would you expect people to still vote for FDR, or would you expect people to oppose his candidacy? This caliber of rhetoric as well as this post has turned this leftist away from my plan to vote for Biden. Nice work folks. I'll be voting for Cornel West and trying to keep the liberal trifecta in my state legislature this year.
If Trump wins, funding for Israel will increase, and even more Palestinians will die. So basically, you're valuing your purity over human lives. Which is quite fascist, if you think about it.
No, it's fucking not. Cornel West opposes funding to Israel, supports a 2 state solution, and supports the same issues strawmanned by lady liberty. I value the end of a genocide as well as a socialist economy. If neither of the mainstream candidates will stop the genocide, I'm going to vote for the only candidate that wants to stop the genocide as well as handle the other issues I care about, in a way I'd align with. My barely tepid patience with Biden and supporters like you has run out.
The reality is that either Trump or Biden will win and if you're not voting for either of them then, practically speaking, you might as well not vote at all. Third party candidates only ever get a tiny fraction of the overall vote and that's not going to change this time.
Biden is the less genocide candidate. He's been getting aid into Gaza, putting pressure on Israel, and directing funds towards humanitarian aid. All of that would cease immediately under trump.
Realistically, the best way to reduce genocide is through protest, donations, and activism. Electorally, the best option is to vote for Biden in the hopes we can keep trump from making thing unimaginably worse.
clearly my message went over your head. Either a candidate supports a genocide, or they don't. Biden can wag his finger all he wants, he's still complicit in genocide. The truth is that he's handling Israel more conservatively than Ronald Fucking Reagan.
If you put things in such stark black and white terms then every president has supported genocide; they've been funding Israel since the beginning, and America itself is built on stolen, colonized, and occupied land.
In truth elections have consequences, and across the board things will be substantially worse under trump than Biden.
I think you forgot that I stated I'm a leftist. Specifically I'm an anarchist. I already think every president in history is a criminal. I'm talking about what's happening in the here-and-now in the midst of the second Nakba.
Didn't you say you were going to vote for Cornel West? What are his thoughts on the genocide of Native Americans and whether the land should be returned to them?
He made a statement on Indigenous People's Day about what he already plans to do and states plainly that he needs to do more work as a scholar and activist to learn about how to bring justice to the Native Americans that were genocided in pursuit of Manifest Destiny.
To this end, today I’m pleased to announce that as president, I will establish a Federal Office for Tribal Equity and Liberation ... This office will be charged with guiding and assisting me with confronting and dismantling challenges specific to our Indigenous siblings - from access to clean water, clean air, and a healthy environment, to ending the epidemic of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, to ensuring that all treaties are upheld and respected in ways that are perpetually monitored and evaluated to increase justice and maximum efficacy. This office will also inform my administration on the best and most expeditious ways to codify and enforce FPIC (Free, Prior and Informed Consent), as well as the Land Back Commission I’m committed to forming as part of my Policy Pillars for a Movement Rooted in Truth, Love, and Justice.
Bringing justice to those that were genocided would entail ending the occupation, returning all stolen land to their ancestors, and probably transferring all assets to them. Not some half-assed "I'll strive to create an office to ease the pain"
part of his platform is to use FPIC to return land equitably to tribes, as well as issue various reparations. It's hard to get any more clear than that. Cornel West has always meant exactly what he says.
Just FYI, there are some really unfortunate but good reasons why tribal land has no equity and is unable to be used as collateral. For something to have value, there needs to be an interested seller and an interested buyer - but if reservation land is sold, it leaves the hands of the tribe and just becomes regular old white people land. We'd like tribal members to have access to that equity to use as collateral for debt... but we also don't want to disintegrate the reservations. There are good reasons for tribal land to be non-transferable, and we really shouldn't change that - however, there have been proposals for the government issuing uncollateralized loans as a form of reparations that are extremely interesting.
He just pledged more money so they can keep bombing kids. I'm not in the US but it's the same deal here in the UK. I'm not gonna vote for a guy who is trampling on my rights just to avoid the guy who does it a bit more, I'm gonna vote for who I want. We have first past the post voting here which makes my vote "wasted" but voting for the slightly less evil guy isn't the way to fix it.
I would agree with this if not for the fact that you live in an absolute farce of a democracy where voting for a third party is nothing but a protest vote. Which seems fine to do in a state that will vote majority democrat anyway, but plain irresponsible in one that won't.
Discouraging people from voting 3rd party only ever hurts Democrats and liberal candidates. We're not just electing the president, which is where most of the 3rd parties appear, we're voting for everything. Telling people in battleground states that voting for "their guy" is pointless will stop the liberal and progressive people that support Cornel and Stein from going to vote. Those people vote Democrat down-ballot.
I think it depends on how people/voters see the particular conflict. When Bush jr put a genocide on the Taliban, he had a lot of support. When Obama put one on ISIS, he had a lot of support. When Biden stopped US support for genocides in Yemen or Rwanda, voters didn't really seem to care one way or another.
When did Biden interfere with the Rwandan genocide, famously known for global inaction as the Hutus killed nearly 1 million Tutsis? Fuck off with this transparently bad faith talking point.
it was a bad, wrong, evil thing that happened when the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was not a genocide. Same with how Obama handled drone strikes, well, everywhere in the region. I did not have the context that you unintentionally referenced the wrong events and it was the simplest point to address. I apologize for leveraging that accusation
I think it's weird you're downplaying these other genocides to defend taking a stronger position on Gaza
The Lancet estimates 2,5% of the Iraq population killed because of the US invasion between 2003-2006. They're nearing 1,5% in the Gaza strip (but it's slowing down). So I would think it's weird to say it's normal people are protesting the Gaza one so much while not really caring about the Iraq one, back in the day.
(Sorry I hope I'm somewhat exagerating but I also hope you see my point)
What you're hoping nobody looks up is that the Lancet decided most deaths during that period were attributable to the invasion. Even gang and tribal violence. In the breakdowns they only say ~180,000 deaths were due to coalition actions. Which is in line with most other studies.
So that's about 4,600 deaths a month. Altogether 0.6 percent of the population. Per month? 0.017%
Now let's do Gaza. We hit 30,000 deaths in how many months? 5? Hell let's give them 6. That's 5,000 people a month in a county a tenth of Iraq's size. Literally 2.3 million people. 1.3 percent of the population, double the coalition numbers from Iraq.
And that's before the hospitals were too destroyed to keep counting deaths. Before we've tallied the death toll of Israel's man made famine. Before we've dug the bodies out from under the rubble.
Don't try to whataboutism this with bullshit numbers. It's not a good argument even when the US actually did something. But trying to make it up too? You deserve to be laughed out of here.
Why would you want to include every single death in Gaza and then coldly say 450.000 excess deaths (read that number again) in Iraq 'don't really count'?
Because the coalition didn't encourage the civil war in Iraq and they pumped as much aid into Iraq as they could by air, land, and sea.
Israel is doing the exact opposite. They want people to fight Hamas. They are restricting aid. They are preventing civilians from leaving the combat area.
Everyone wants to forget that in 2004 the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds fought mercilessly over territory. It's why their constitution is set up to have a leader from each faction.
Lmao I'm sorry. You think the US committed genocide in Afghanistan and Syria? I must have missed the part where we carpet bombed them and withheld food.
So now we're pulling out the propaganda pieces. This would be the first time I've ever heard of the US bombing civilians excavating Raqqa. That's just not corroborated anywhere. Even Amnesty International blames ISIS for holding the civilians there. They also put the civilian death toll at 1,500, which is a bloody miracle if there were 25,000 civilians being held hostage in the city.
The closest thing I could find is a relief web article saying the US didn't help civilians evacuate. Which isn't surprising because that's not something that happens unless you're the defending military. And then it's usually actually the police and first responders anyways.
And I'm not surprised 80 percent of the city was destroyed. The only enemy left were the ISIS fighters that had mentally prepared themselves to die fighting. They weren't going to let a single inch of ground go uncontested.
Edit to add - You still haven't explained how that would be a genocide either though. There was a massive evacuation of civilians before the siege started. It's a city of 500k-750k people.
I've linked you an article where you can learn about the US military 'shooting every boat they saw crossing the river'. I can imagine you haven't really heard about the details of the siege of Raqqa because, well, most people didn't want to know. There's a lot you can find though, same goes for sieges like Mosul or Fallujah: a final siege against a dug in enemy is never going to be pretty. White phosporous, thermobaric weapons, ... War crimes. It's either that or a lot more casualties for the attackers.
And regarding your final paragraph: Israel is encouraging massive evacuation of civilians as well. It's not like they're not letting anyone out of Rafah, it's just that Egypt is not letting any refugees through (unless they pay) which results in them running around in circles. But rest assured that they would not have let Raqqa 'of the hook' if those civilians hadn't left
Lmao no they aren't. They designated a tiny area, and they don't allow them to leave Gaza. Then they keep attacking into the area they forced them to move to. When you allow people to evacuate you do so to a non combat area.
And again. That's not corroborated anywhere. Groups like Amnesty International have no problem coming after the US.
You're also still not talking about the 95 percent of Raqqa that was evacuated. If that was a genocidal act they would not have been allowed to do so.
Since Oct. 7, Israeli authorities have continued to block Palestinians in Gaza from fleeing into neighboring Israel to seek even temporary refuge from the hostilities, in violation of international law.
No. Because Israel controls the border crossing. And even if they weren't it wouldn't absolve Israel of it's sins. Just like western countries accepting Jewish refugees would not have absolved Germany.
And I'm deeply uncomfortable thinking that giving a chance to the candidate that thinks Hitler is a great guy AND the USA should do some of the same things as Nazi Germany while he'll ALSO keep funding Nazi Germany, but even harder, is sane - let alone even a viable argument for those already opposed to the current choice already funding genocide.
Even the EU is learning how stupid Americans are and are making plans to not rely on it at all + make entry harder (next year you won't be able to travel to just countries here for extended stay easily anymore by passport alone for example). And dumbasses like you are proving there's a severe lack of critical thinking.
USA definitely deserved to lose that spot long ago, but NOT if it means China takes its place - don't think y'all are so special as to be the only world super power. Pre - Xi maybe, but Xi has made it clear they want to go the "world emperor" path and China would also be a terrible Steward. At least the USA doesn't kidnap foreign citizens / expats to make them disappear, or actively trying to annex loca countries anymore.
But we do know that Trump would do something similar (Khashoggi being a good example). The fact is the USA would still be a world leader because the existing economic and military connections it has wouldn't disappear overnight - the only difference is the world would be a worse place.
Although Biden is obviously a terrible candidate, it's just not even a contest that Trump is greatly, significantly worse. The Democrats are definitely seeing a "cry wolf" effect because although previous Republican candidates have indeed been terrible, none (aside from Bush Jr) have really threatened the power structure of the USA as much as Trump term 2 would.
If you still have doubts, read Project 2025. They are literally telling you they will turn the USA into a Christo-fascist autocracy.
Naw. We'd have the same headwinds China is facing. Yes support in developing countries would be buyable. However the EU, Canada, and Australia would move away from us. We'd feel that, right in the GDP. Our Asian allies would likely maintain a veneer of friendship to help ward off China but they would also be moving to not depend on us anymore.
People underestimate just how much power and money the US gets from it's alliances. So while yes, China is there, they wouldn't move to take our position. The world would just return to a mutli-polar system faster than it already is.
As to Trump vs Biden. I refer to my comment above. Genocide is a deal breaker no matter what party letter is next to your name.
The "if Trump wins" folks are angry at the implication that their vote is tacit support of genocide, but are fine with the implication that not voting for Biden is tacit support for Trump
I strongly suspect that most of the people on the left are also carrying all the signs on the right
And that the person writing the cartoon is planning move on to targeting the next-least-acceptable sign from the pile on the right, as soon as the one on the left is dealt with. This thing of slicing off segments of dissenting opinion to shut them down one at a time, in separation from their natural cohort of supporting allies, by driving wedges in between them, is fairly normal "advanced fascism from people who know how to get it done on the ground" tactics.
Yeah. I guess I should have paid more attention to the title -- applying it to a "single issue voter" (or, non-voter, I guess) who really is throwing all the stuff on the right in the garbage, in the (incorrect) belief that they're helping the Palestinians, when in reality they're just threatening to make things worse for literally everybody, makes sense.
I just don't think that's most of the people in the tents or carrying the signs. If they had constructed the cartoon to attack all the people on Lemmy who don't want to vote because Biden personally killed all those Gazans and loves that the war is happening, or whatever they are claiming is happening, then that makes sense. But attacking the protestors themselves seems wrong.
Yeah I think OP the artist is doing kind of a visual strawman here, as also mentioned by this person.
I don’t see evidence at all that any significant number of pro-Palestine individuals are single issue voters. Someone made a claim that 3% of democratic voters were single issue, but upon inquiry it turned out to be without source, and that the true number is less than 2% of all voters at the very absolute most.
As of now, I need more evidence to disprove my belief that this post is just an outrageously patronizing false generalization of the pro-Palestine movement.
Looks like there is a crystal clear direction Biden can take and win over a substantial amount of voters. I'm not sure blaming people protesting genocide for Biden's drop in approval ratings, rather than Biden himself for tanking them, will encourage anyone to vote for Biden.
