lmao, I checked my last month of posts in this community, let's go over them, shall we?
For those who are wondering but don't want to go down through, it's 1/18 pro-Biden posts, in the past 30 days. How strange that a tankie would make such an easily disproven lie! Totally unheard of! /s
Anti-genocide (this one)
"Based leftist president tells coup leader to fuck off"
Pro-ranked choice
"SCOTUS is fucked"
"FORM UNIONS"
"Fetishization of Russian politics is incredibly transparent and you shouldn't fall for it"
Anti Ukrainian genocide
Anti Ukrainian genocide
An ACTUAL pro-Biden post [That's 1 so far, for those counting]
"Trump speaks like a particularly troubled third grader"
"Capitalism is fucked"
"Trump speaking on history is fucking bizarre"
"Not everything bad is fascism; some things are bad but NOT fascism"
Criticism of China's anti-LGBT policies
Anti-genocide
"Why do right-wingers always have anime profile pics"
"The ongoing genocides in the world are bad - yes, all of them. Israeli, Russian, Sudanese, Chinese, all of them. All. Of. Them. None of them should have anyone playing apologetics for them. Genocide is bad. Genocide. Is. Bad. No, it is not 'a complex situation', that moniker was surrendered when the genocide kicked up. There is NO justification for genocide."
Oh joy... I guess watching liberals pearl-clutching themselves into supporting colonialist genocide is going to be the dominant spectacle on this community until the hammer drops in November.
I guess watching liberals pearl-clutching themselves into supporting colonialist genocide
...didn't you understand?
So-called "conservatives" are liberals, Clyde. So-called "conservatives" buy into the exact same pro-capitalist, pro-colonialist ideology of liberalism that you buy into, Clyde.
The only difference between the people you call "liberals" and the people you call "conservatives" are that the latter is further along the "liberal-to-fascist" pipeline than you are.
The only difference between the people you call “liberals” and the people you call “conservatives” are that the latter is further along the “liberal-to-fascist” pipeline than you are.
For me to believe that, the fascists pipeline would only make aesthetic differences while you're traveling inside.
Outside of shitty Israeli propaganda, no-one thinks Israel is under the threat of genocide.
And who think that Israel is committing one? The rest of the fucking world.
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. We may be surprised at the people we find in heaven.
"What the fuck are you smoking" is an ad hominem designed to distract from my undeniably true point, specifically: that both sides are similar in using unfair allegations of defending genocide to dismiss more nuanced beliefs of the other side.
Outside of shitty Israeli propaganda, no-one thinks Israel is under the threat of genocide.
This is called a motte-and-bailey fallacy. You're taking my point implying that both sides accuse the other of defending genocide and then wanna say I'm suggesting Israel is under threat of genocide. These are different things. You use a different thing because if you were to address the actual point, which again is undeniably true, you would have a very hard time.
To be clear, the "genocide" Israel supporters (unfairly) accuse others of defending is the Hamas attack on Israel, where Hamas killed unarmed civilians at close range, proudly recording it on video. I don't mean to imply you can't figure that out on your own, but you kinda forced me to point it out.
And if you say "but people who are protesting Israel aren't defending Hamas attacking Israeli civilians, but are defending the right of the Palestinian civilians to remain alive", then you understand completely. Now try swapping the relevant ethno-religious tribes.
You don't understand what tbe words "ad hominem" or "genocide"
Mean.
You're a little kid larping a philosopher. Badly.
To be clear, the "genocide" Israel supporters (unfairly) accuse others of defending is the Hamas attack on Israel, where Hamas killed unarmed civilians at close range, proudly recording it on video
In a highly charged ruling in January, the court ordered Israel to do everything in its power to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza
Again, you don't seem to understand what "genocide" means.
It's not "both sides". "Both sides" do not have cases in the ICC about being accused of genocide. Both sides do not have convictions from the ICC that they need to do all the can to stop genocidal actions being undertaken.
You genocide defenders make me fucking sick. Grow some balls and question your brainwashing.
Ad hominem = attacking the person rather than the argument. Like "you're a little kid..." The fact that you feel the need to accuse someone you've never seen of being a kid instead of pointing out what's actually wrong with what I'm saying should be seen as evidence that you are desperately flailing, pathetically grasping for straws to build an argument from when you clearly have nothing. Instead, it's getting upvoted, for some reason.
Everything else you say is completely and absolutely non-responsive, internet tropes in place of argument. You completely ignore the whole point of my argument, which is that you replaced my argument with another argument and argued against that instead, and proceeded to argue against an argument that was never made in the exact way I described.
Forget Israel and Palestine, the fact that this illogical Trumpian debate tactic shit is getting upvoted is the new thing that disturbs me. We're truly fucked as a species.
Yes, "rather than". Do you know what those words mean?
It doesn't mean the same as "in addition to", does it?
"Everything else you say is completely..."
You are the one pulling an ad hominem, not me. You ignore my answer to your "argument" and go on to attack my person. Your entire argument is "without the context of the site we're on, no-one could know what this is referring to", as if this was some sort of "both sides" bullshit, which you claim to despise.
It's not. Everyone knows Israel is genociding Palestine and not a single reasonable person would argue that Palestine is trying to genocide Israel.
During the day-long discussion, speakers were near-unanimous in demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and warning against the catastrophic consequences of Israel’s assault on Rafah, where more than 1.5 million have congregated. Many underscored that while the adopted resolution represents the first step towards fulfilling the international community’s obligations to Palestine, ensuring its full UN membership is imperative.
Israel's assault on Rafah.
Fuck your equivocating teenage propaganda bullshit.
You are the one pulling an ad hominem, not me. You ignore my answer to your “argument” and go on to attack my person.
No I didn't, everything was specific to your argument. I said nothing about you. As for your argument, well I guess I'm glad that I'm promoted to teenager now.
Your entire argument is “without the context of the site we’re on, no-one could know what this is referring to”, as if this was some sort of “both sides” bullshit, which you claim to despise.
But the argument I'm making is that both sides are guilty of claiming the other side is defending genocide not that both sides are guilty of committing genocide right now. The argument that one side is defending genocide is bad faith, as other than a few extremists nobody on either side is actually defending genocide.
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” Gallant says following an assessment at the IDF Southern Command in Beersheba.
“We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly,” he adds.
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — Accused of committing genocide against Palestinians, Israel insisted at the United Nations' highest court Friday that its war in Gaza was a legitimate defense of its people and that it was Hamas militants who were guilty of genocide.
More than 23,000 people in Gaza have been killed during Israel’s military campaign, according to the Health Ministry in the Hamas-run territory. That toll does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. Nearly 85% of Gaza’s people have been driven their homes, a quarter of the enclave’s residents face starvation, and much of northern Gaza has been reduced to rubble.
... this amounts to genocide and is part of decades of Israeli oppression of Palestinians.
“The scale of destruction in Gaza, the targeting of family homes and civilians, the war being a war on children, all make clear that genocidal intent is both understood and has been put into practice. The articulated intent is the destruction of Palestinian life,” said lawyer Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, adding that several leading politicians had made dehumanizing comments about people in Gaza.
You still aren't addressing the point they were making. They weren't claiming either side to be ethically, morally, or objectively correct. They were simply stating that both sides of the conflict have claimed the other is attempting a genocide of their own side.
You are trying to argue the objective facts of the situation, poorly at that, not the propaganda. They were commenting on the propaganda, not the facts.
The point is that him demanding there's "both sides" to this is true as much as it would be true that "both sides claim the other has false science" when arguing Flat Earthers.
It's disingenious and bad faith to pretend there are "both sides" to this. There aren't.
I can show you thousands of pages and people talking about Israel committing genocide on Palestine.
Can you show me a single page where anyone says that PALESTINE is committing trying to commit genocide?
Hint: google "palestine genocide" and "israel genocide" and tell me just how many links concern Palestinians being the victims of a genocide and how many there are saying they're committing one?
Yes, Israel loves to yell about "Hamas is trying to kill us" but Hamas isn't Palestine and an attack on a country doesn't qualify as genocide. Not to even mention how hypocritical it is of Israel to accuse Hamas of a genocide in the current situation when they're fervently trying to deny the genocide they're committing in broad daylight. Almost as ironic as you saying my arguing is poor. Thanks for the laughs, lol.
You acting that childish — proudly — is honestly making me sad in real life.
The implication of the first comment of this thread is that there are "both sides" to this. There aren't. Who exactly is saying "Palestine is committing a genocide on Israelis?"
Trying to pretend both sides are in any way "as bad" is exactly the type of shitty propaganda Israel keeps pushing. The same type of rhetoric the Nazis used. It's so fucking ironic that Jewish people are now committing the heinous crimes they were the victims of 100 years ago.
it's not controversial, what is controversial is what is being defined as genocide. Classic mischaracterization.
Now i'm not going to get into the immediate debate about whether or not this is an active genocide or not, because frankly, not my fucking problem.
what i will get into is the commonly accepted definition of genocide, which is in past tense. It's also commonly used to specifically denote a certain ethnicity, which considering that israel is indiscriminately bombing, i'm not sure how much that applies. I feel like considering palestinian an ethnicity would be like considering a US state to be an ethnicity as well. Though i'm sure there is historical merit to that statement, the complexities of it are not something i'm intimately familiar with so i won't say much on it.
Regardless, I think palestine is realistically entitled to it's own nation, i see no reason for it not to be. Israel, arguably is also entitled to it's own nation, i see no reason for it not to be either.
It'd be cool if israel and hamas stopped committing war crimes, but considering that this is a war in the middle east, i don't know when that will happen.
I have no idea how you could possibly think this supports your position on things.
If Major Kira was living under a government that offered no alternative to genocide, she'd take up a phaser and start killing government officials, you know, like she literally did, in the show. She'd never condone someone who supported genocide, even if it meant resorting to violent opposition instead.
"Justifying genocide is when you oppose genocide, and the more you oppose it, the more you justify it" - Very Serious Lemmings
Alternatively, "The prospect of an eventual violent revolution justifies genocide" - Very Serious Lemmings
Or more realistically, "I think that the prospect of virtue signaling without affecting government policy justifies genocide, because that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside" - Very Serious Lemmings
“Justifying genocide is when you oppose genocide, and the more you oppose it, the more you justify it” - Very Serious Lemmings
"Opposing genocide is when you vote for someone doing a genocide and the harder you post about supporting them the more you oppose it" - Very Serious Lemmings 🤡
It's very funny to me that you received friendly fire because people on your side saw a simple "genocide is bad" meme and just assumed it was about them. You'd think that would lead to introspection but what do I know lol.
It's very funny to me that you received friendly fire because people on your side saw a simple "genocide is bad" meme and just assumed it was about them.
I think it's more that OP has made numerous comments in this thread arguing that we should vote for Biden.
OP's vibe seems to be "Yes, I really really really do oppose genocide... but the responsible thing is to vote for Biden, and people who won't support him are the true genocide enablers."
“Opposing genocide is when you vote for someone doing a genocide and the harder you post about supporting them the more you oppose it” - Very Serious Lemmings 🤡
Ah, the good old "Thoughts and prayers to LGBT folk who are going to be genocided in the US under a Trump regime", how classy. You're literally just endorsing fascism with extra steps, but I'm sure we'll have great fun in the camps together when you say "AT LEAST I DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATS"
The democrats aren't going to coerce me into voting for genocide no matter how many far-right politicians they fund and support to threaten me. After all:
Yes, obviously. I’m not voting for either of the options that intensify genocide.
The classic "I'm going to uproot the tracks!" answer to the trolley problem, while sitting by and doing nothing of the sort. A fascist's best friend. :)
The trolley problem is a thought experiment, intentionally contrived to remove any alternatives to the two options. It isn’t applicable to real life.
Yes, as we all know, in real life, all outcomes are possible, which is why the only possible moral route is to Thoughts And Prayers your way to a total and untarnished victory.
I've seen two interesting spins on the trolley problem recently.
"Just blow up the trolley." This is actually a very apt description of accelerationism. Blowing up the trolley doesn't stop the forward momentum -- it just turns the trolley barrelling towards the trapped people into a fiery wreckage barreling towards the trapped people. Plus if there's people on the trolley... Yeah.
"Untie the trapped people while other people push back and stop the trolley". This is once again rather emblematic, this time of blind idealism. The idea that if we get enough people, then we can stop the trolley,
sounds good on paper and makes you feel nice. But it ignores the reality that people cannot hold back a trolley like that. It just isn't possible for the necessary number of people to simultaneously push back against it.
Not to mention, the whole point of the trolley problem is that the trolley is a metaphor for an unstoppable event that is impossible to avoid. It's nice to think we could dismantle it, but we can't.
The trolley problem is a philosophy 101 thought experiment. It's not an absolute guideline for philosophy.
As a side note, even if it was, there are many people who disagree with pulling the lever, like the whole branch of Deontology, for example. It's bizarre that everyone on here assumes that everyone else on here has to be operating under the exact same moral framework, and if you disagree you're either an idiot or a Russian bot. The idea that anyone could ever draw a red line against a particular action just, you know, organically is treated as totally alien.
In real life, things are never as simple as in a philosophical thought experiment. There's incomplete information, there's multiple actors, there's long term factors affecting cause and effect. Let's look at some ways in which an individual's choice on who to vote for in an election differ from the trolley problem:
You don't have full control of the trolley. Instead, there are millions of other people who collectively decide which track the trolley will go down.
There are more than two tracks. Some of them might be unlikely to be chosen, but they still exist.
There are people who have engineered the situation to be the way it is, who have the ability to change it, and who can benefit depending on what choice you make.
The trolley problem will be repeated, over and over again, indefinitely. Depending on which track it goes down, it could influence the number of people on the tracks in the future.
There's uncertainty involved in everything. You don't know the exact number of people on each track, you don't know what all the other actors are going to do, you don't know how the people engineering the situation will behave, etc.
If you make the necessary changes to the hypothetical to make it actually reflect reality, it is so convoluted that it's no longer recognizable as a trolley problem and the choice becomes a lot less clear. There are plenty of Consequentialists who would agree with pulling the lever in the context of the hypothetical, because of all the constraints imposed in the hypothetical, but who would, in real life, say that you should consider every possible alternative and carefully consider the consequences before condemning one person to death to save five.
Don't derive your moral philosophy, or political philosophy, from random memes and thought experiments. Read.
Oh, look. Another hopeful leader for the resistance when the red hats take over. Like we ain't got a million of those lying around somewhere. Have fun getting caught and thrown in a camp.
That's the part these fucks don't understand. Accusing me of supporting genocide because I'm voting against a fascist doesn't make me question if I'm secretly pro-genocide and I don't even know it, it makes me question if they are a real person engaging me seriously or just more bad faith online accounts.
I'm not accusing you of supporting genocide for voting against a fascist, I'm also voting against a fascist. I'm accusing you of supporting genocide for voting for a candidate that supports genocide. There's nothing "secret" about it, it's your openly expressed position.
And do you understand that under the current American electoral system, any action other than voting for Biden will directly assist Trump in getting into power?
No, because that's not true. The only thing that assists Trump getting into power is voting for Trump. Voting third party provides the exact same assistance to Trump as it does to Biden: 0.
But I'll tell you what - if not voting for someone counts as assisting them, then you can rest assured that Biden will have my assistance.
Despite the trolls accusing people here of justifying it- I do t see anyone here is doing that. I’m pretty sure they know this, and this is what makes it hard to call them out for what they are doing. It’s like arguing with Christians.
They just misinterpret your words, rewrite them using their English-to-Troll filter, and shout them back at you once they say essentially the opposite of what you’re saying.
Example:
ME: “of course I don’t support genocide. But not voting for Biden isn’t going to stop it, and Donald ‘finish the job’ Trump is going to be far worse on Palestine than Biden could ever be!”
TROLL: “See! You support gEnOciDe!”
Now, you could accuse me of doing exactly what I’m accusing them of, but I’d urge you to look through my recent comment history. Somewhere between yesterday and today- you can see this exact thing happening.
The point is. From what I can see, NO ONE here is supporting genocide. The ones in other communities that do, get banned pretty quickly. And anyone that is accusing people of it, are proving to everyone that they aren’t here to discuss things rationally- because they’re starting from a complete and total lack of rationale.
In a perfect world, that option would be viable. However, if you look around- and pay attention, it’s not. And it’s not even remotely close.
I’d be all over a third party option if there was even a small chance they’d succeed. But they can’t. And this isn’t an opinion. Vote third party and yeah- hate to say it but you are throwing away a vote. And it’s not a big stretch to understand how a non vote or a third party vote FACTUALLY benefits Trump.
I fucking hate that this is how it is, but I’d rather live in the real world than believe in my own reality.
You lost me when you lied about non-votes “fAcTuAlLy” benefitting trump. That is a blatant falsehood that assumes people would automatically vote for Biden instead. Your fear mongering and dishonesty won’t win over a single vote.
Nope, that isn’t how math works. A vote for the Green Party is equivalent to not voting at all. Lying about it and stamping your feet won’t change anyone’s opinion. Also you guys always assume the GP voters are a subset of democrats when in reality most of them are not. Most would not vote for democrats if their first choice were taken away.
They’re just a convenient excuse for you whenever Dems lose because it’s easier to blame them than to hold dem leadership accountable for their very obvious and repeated failures. And it’s surely easier than holding yourself accountable for constantly nominating weak candidates. I mean you all got handed fucking Obama and still fought tooth and nail against him in the primary because you’re so scared of even slightly rocking the boat. Dem voters are gigantic cowards and enablers
You will not shame people into voting for Biden, it’s actually insane to see you all trot out this failed tactic yet again
It’s pretty easy to tell by the way they write. The sort of pseudo-clever, meme-y, derivative Twitch-speak you’d hear among gamers and mgtow types, mixed with a feeble attempt to sound like a tankie
Yeah no one should take them seriously. I just feel bad for the real person I dismiss by accident who has legitimate criticisms and thinks the moral thing is to vote for who they like even if that person has 0% to win.
There are just too many trolls though to endlessly engage all of them though just in case some of them are engaging in good faith.
Yep, this is definitely Ten Forward. It's a bullshit dogwhistle designed to help Donald Trump get elected and do more genocide, so it can't be from Risa, it must be from the crappy one.
I'm on your side, man. I'm on here bitching on "BOTH SIDES" types all day long. I'm voting for Biden (or, on the off-chance he's replaced, whoever the fuck is put up as a viable alternative to Trump). Voting to intensify genocide, as with a vote for Trump or a failure to oppose Trump with one's vote, is never acceptable.
It's just that we also must accept, as citizens, that we bear a part of the responsibility of this mess, and at no point can we look back at this and say "Well, as the American people, our choice to tepidly support genocide wasn't THAT bad, or geopolitical concerns justified it"
Our choice is dogshit. Even if it was 100% reversed now, it would remain dogshit, albeit much less dogshit than continuing or intensifying it. And we have to square with that on our souls.
