“Wow, I don’t understand how you can defend the guy who doesn’t want to commit genocide in the US, and is less gung-ho about the ongoing genocide in Gaza than the opposition?”
It’s weird. I know, I should apparently support all genocide, everywhere, as often as possible, to be a good leftist according to these new standards, but for some reason, I keep gravitating towards the “Let’s not start up death camps in the US and run sorties over the West Bank and ensure as many Ukrainians are murdered as possible” option.
Very strange, I know, seemingly incomprehensible to the Very Serious Leftist Brigade here on Lemmy.
What’s strange is that the totally-different-and-very-cool party keeps finding themselves in situations wherein they’re totally forced into committing atrocities themselves, but end up being OK because somehow there’s someone worse right behind them
And it’s never actually their fault because there’s just too many people who support their totally unavoidable atrocities and if they don’t do them they’ll lose to the totally-worse-and-different monster party
And the people who totally oppose the atrocities have no choice but to support the party conducting the atrocities because if they don’t, more atrocities will be done by the totally different and bad party and maybe actually against them and not the faceless foreigners they can forget about
What’s strange is that the totally-different-and-very-cool party keeps finding themselves in situations wherein they’re totally forced into committing atrocities themselves, but end up being OK because somehow there’s someone worse right behind them
Yes, definitely, what’s going on is the Democratic Party decided to commit atrocities out of the blue. This definitely isn’t a long-standing US policy that was, until very recently, widely supported on all sides of the electorate. Wow, it’s a good thing politics are something simple that Manicheans with short attention spans can learn by half-paying attention to news reels for a month, otherwise we’d really be fucked, wouldn’t we?
And it’s never actually their fault because there’s just too many people who support their totally unavoidable atrocities and if they don’t do them they’ll lose to the totally-worse-and-different monster party
This definitely isn’t a long-standing US policy that was, until very recently, widely supported on all sides of the electorate.
I’m sorry, do you think that candidates for election should be supporting opinions that the majority opposes? Is that where we’re at? The point of democracy is to reflect the will of the people; if you don’t like the will of the people, it’s your job, as a dissenter, to try to change it. The idea that candidates in a democratic system should be running on platforms that say “To hell with what the people think” is some really absurd Soviet style shite.
The point of democracy is to reflect the will of the people; if you don’t like the will of the people, it’s your job, as a dissenter, to try to change it.
Oh my god were so close buddy, let’s bring it home
What’s the correct course of action for dissenters? I’m doubting that it’s whipping votes for the candidate you’re dissenting against but you seem like an expert so I’ll ask you
The idea that candidates in a democratic system should be running on platforms that say “To hell with what the people think” is some really absurd Soviet style shite.
So you’re saying supporting the Palestinian genocide is the will of the people, and as such Biden should continue doing it? Is that the real take here? Was the disgust with genocide the fake indignation I thought it was?
What’s the correct course of action for dissenters?
Protest, for one. Which is ongoing.
I’m doubting that it’s whipping votes for the candidate you’re dissenting against but you seem like an expert so I’ll ask you
Haven’t we already been over this? Limited choices, mass support, lesser evil, all that jazz?
So you’re saying supporting the Palestinian genocide is the will of the people, and as such Biden should continue doing it? Is that the real take here? Was the disgust with genocide the fake indignation I thought it was?
No, I’m saying that support for the Palestinian genocide remains widespread, and thus the idea that a politician with a realistic-but-narrow-shot at being elected should suddenly, and without consultation of popular opinion, reverse the stance, or else you’ll vote for the one who wants MORE genocide, is deeply unserious at best. As voters in the minority, we cannot realistically expect our opinions to be represented by candidates who must win the vote of the majority.
I would be deeply upset at the prospect of voting for someone who thought that gay rights didn’t matter, but if you ask me who to vote for in 1948, I’m sure as shit not going to make any decision that puts Strom Thurmond in office no matter how badly I want to make a protest vote.
“Wow, I don’t understand how you can defend the guy who doesn’t want to commit genocide in the US, and is less gung-ho about the ongoing genocide in Gaza than the opposition?”
It’s weird. I know, I should apparently support all genocide, everywhere, as often as possible, to be a good leftist according to these new standards, but for some reason, I keep gravitating towards the “Let’s not start up death camps in the US and run sorties over the West Bank and ensure as many Ukrainians are murdered as possible” option.
Very strange, I know, seemingly incomprehensible to the Very Serious Leftist Brigade here on Lemmy.
What’s strange is that the totally-different-and-very-cool party keeps finding themselves in situations wherein they’re totally forced into committing atrocities themselves, but end up being OK because somehow there’s someone worse right behind them
And it’s never actually their fault because there’s just too many people who support their totally unavoidable atrocities and if they don’t do them they’ll lose to the totally-worse-and-different monster party
And the people who totally oppose the atrocities have no choice but to support the party conducting the atrocities because if they don’t, more atrocities will be done by the totally different and bad party and maybe actually against them and not the faceless foreigners they can forget about
So strange
Yes, definitely, what’s going on is the Democratic Party decided to commit atrocities out of the blue. This definitely isn’t a long-standing US policy that was, until very recently, widely supported on all sides of the electorate. Wow, it’s a good thing politics are something simple that Manicheans with short attention spans can learn by half-paying attention to news reels for a month, otherwise we’d really be fucked, wouldn’t we?
Sorry that the idea of democracy reflecting the opinions of the majority is so alien to you. I understand autocracy might be more your speed.
So it’s acceptable to support genocide as long as it’s a majority opinion? Are we morally relativistic now? It’s that what’s happening?
I’m sorry, do you think that candidates for election should be supporting opinions that the majority opposes? Is that where we’re at? The point of democracy is to reflect the will of the people; if you don’t like the will of the people, it’s your job, as a dissenter, to try to change it. The idea that candidates in a democratic system should be running on platforms that say “To hell with what the people think” is some really absurd Soviet style shite.
Oh my god were so close buddy, let’s bring it home
What’s the correct course of action for dissenters? I’m doubting that it’s whipping votes for the candidate you’re dissenting against but you seem like an expert so I’ll ask you
So you’re saying supporting the Palestinian genocide is the will of the people, and as such Biden should continue doing it? Is that the real take here? Was the disgust with genocide the fake indignation I thought it was?
Protest, for one. Which is ongoing.
Haven’t we already been over this? Limited choices, mass support, lesser evil, all that jazz?
No, I’m saying that support for the Palestinian genocide remains widespread, and thus the idea that a politician with a realistic-but-narrow-shot at being elected should suddenly, and without consultation of popular opinion, reverse the stance, or else you’ll vote for the one who wants MORE genocide, is deeply unserious at best. As voters in the minority, we cannot realistically expect our opinions to be represented by candidates who must win the vote of the majority.
I would be deeply upset at the prospect of voting for someone who thought that gay rights didn’t matter, but if you ask me who to vote for in 1948, I’m sure as shit not going to make any decision that puts Strom Thurmond in office no matter how badly I want to make a protest vote.