President-elect Donald Trump’s promise could lead to a 60-day cease-fire, allowing Israel to suspend hostilities until military support resumes under the new administration.
They think they get to wipe their hands of it because they “didn’t participate”, refusing to concede that said choice still counts as their participation. Through ignorance, cruelty, and/or privilege, they’ll blame everyone else for the state of the world while refusing to do their part.
Howard Zinn - you can’t be neutral on a moving train. The Enlightened Centrists ™ always look like suuuuuch dipshits when they talk about “both sides”.
Howard Zinn would not support the genocide of Palestinians nor voting for genociders, nor is withholding a vote neutrality. Zinn was forcefully against the War on Vietnam before it was acceptable in liberal academic circkes and drew a hard line on it.
How’s your conscience now??? Still feeling good about your decision?
Yes.
Trump is an irredeemably evil genocidal psychopath who deserves eternal torture in the deepest circle of hell. That fact does not make me wish that I had voted for a different irredeemably evil genocidal psychopath who deserves eternal torture in the deepest circle of hell. The fact that Trump is horrible was never in dispute.
But it means your vote could have helped bring the victory to someone less genocidal.
I know Harris is not a pro-Palestine person, but she’s someone we could have talked to and could have felt the pressure of her voters. At the very least she doesn’t support the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza, unlike Trump, who couldn’t give less of a shit about Palestinians and is happy if Israel leveled them down
P.S. I don’t want to make you feel guilty. The political system the US people live in is a shit. I’m just disappointed that maybe she could have had a chance of winning if people didn’t abstain.
she’s someone we could have talked to and could have felt the pressure of her voters.
No, she absolutely isn’t.
Politicians are never more receptive to voters’ concerns than just before an election. Once they have people’s votes, they tend to shift further in the direction of interests groups and the establishment. Like, for example, on the campaign trail, Obama promised to end mass surveillance and protect whistleblowers, but once he was in office, he did the opposite. Harris on the campaign trail, after the widespread campus protests, was the most pro-Palestine she would ever be, which is to say not even the slightest bit and completely unconditionally supportive of material aid to Israel.
It used to be that politicians would promise to do good things on the campaign trail, and then usually not follow through. But now they don’t even have to promise anything, because people will just project whatever views and values they hold onto whichever candidate they like regardless of anything they say or do.
Harris and Biden are unconditionally supportive of everything Israel does. Short of direct involvement of the US military, it’s not really possible for Trump to be meaningfully worse than that.
Harris and Biden are unconditionally supportive of everything Israel does. Short of direct involvement of the US military, it’s not really possible for Trump to be meaningfully worse than that.
Remind me of this genocide-downplaying take in three months or so, please.
Right, I don’t deny that Harris was less evil on other issues, but I do not subscribe to the ideology of lesser-evilism. Just because one side is more evil doesn’t mean that the other side is worth supporting when they’re both irredeemably evil genocidal psychopaths who deserve eternal torture in the deepest circle of hell. Lesser-evilism doesn’t make sense from either a moral or strategic standpoint.
There’s a social experiment that’s been studied where the researchers give two people $100 to split, but the first person makes one offer on how to split it, and if the second person doesn’t agree, then neither of them get anything. If lesser-evilism was correct, then what would happen is that the first person would offer a $99-$1 split and the second person would accept, because $1 is a lesser evil than $0. But that’s not what actually happens. The reality is that most people have a certain minimum threshold, somewhere around $70-$30, and below that they’ll tell the other person to get fucked.
This is not really an irrational behavior, though it may appear so in the context of the experiment. For example, if the experiment were repeated multiple times with the same participants, than accepting the $1 means that you will only ever be offered $1 in future negotiations because you’ve shown you’ll accept it.
In reality, I’m pretty sure that lesser-evilists understand this concept on some level. It’s just that either their minimum threshold does not preclude the genocide of foreigners in far away countries, or they convince themselves that the democrats aren’t actually as bad about that as they are. But for me, I do recognize that Harris is a complete monster, and I also place value on Palestinian lives, so I said no to the $99-$1 offer and now I have $0 which I fully anticipated and have no regrets over. Maybe next time they’ll come back with a reasonable offer that doesn’t include genocide.
What pisses me off is you don’t even understand the place of privilege from which you speak. It’s such disgusting selfish egotistical mentality to think that if a candidate doesn’t represent your exact desires, that you think you can wash your hands of the whole thing and absolve yourself your part in the system.
The world is not designed to cater to your personal sensibilities.
Meanwhile, as you abstain and wait literally forever for a candidate that you don’t have to pinch your nose to vote for, you are proudly throwing away your ability to impact change for the better.
Basically you’re saying if you can’t have ice cream for dinner then we should go ahead and burn down the grocery store.
I loved having people arguing with me and saying “At least my conscience is clear.”
How’s your conscience now??? Still feeling good about your decision?
They think they get to wipe their hands of it because they “didn’t participate”, refusing to concede that said choice still counts as their participation. Through ignorance, cruelty, and/or privilege, they’ll blame everyone else for the state of the world while refusing to do their part.
Howard Zinn - you can’t be neutral on a moving train. The Enlightened Centrists ™ always look like suuuuuch dipshits when they talk about “both sides”.
Howard Zinn would not support the genocide of Palestinians nor voting for genociders, nor is withholding a vote neutrality. Zinn was forcefully against the War on Vietnam before it was acceptable in liberal academic circkes and drew a hard line on it.
Have you read his books?
I have indeed read his books. I doubt he would have welcomed the idea of putting donvict in office because something something “Genocide Joe”.
There is a certain set of dumbasses that will say this kind of thing no matter what.
Yes.
Trump is an irredeemably evil genocidal psychopath who deserves eternal torture in the deepest circle of hell. That fact does not make me wish that I had voted for a different irredeemably evil genocidal psychopath who deserves eternal torture in the deepest circle of hell. The fact that Trump is horrible was never in dispute.
So Harris = Trump? Equal equal?
I’ll be there devil’s advocate here and say that this whole shit show started under Biden and Harris
Oh, I didn’t say that. Not all irredeemably evil genocidal psychopaths who deserve eternal torture in the deepest circle of hell are exactly as bad.
But it means your vote could have helped bring the victory to someone less genocidal.
I know Harris is not a pro-Palestine person, but she’s someone we could have talked to and could have felt the pressure of her voters. At the very least she doesn’t support the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza, unlike Trump, who couldn’t give less of a shit about Palestinians and is happy if Israel leveled them down
P.S. I don’t want to make you feel guilty. The political system the US people live in is a shit. I’m just disappointed that maybe she could have had a chance of winning if people didn’t abstain.
No, she absolutely isn’t.
Politicians are never more receptive to voters’ concerns than just before an election. Once they have people’s votes, they tend to shift further in the direction of interests groups and the establishment. Like, for example, on the campaign trail, Obama promised to end mass surveillance and protect whistleblowers, but once he was in office, he did the opposite. Harris on the campaign trail, after the widespread campus protests, was the most pro-Palestine she would ever be, which is to say not even the slightest bit and completely unconditionally supportive of material aid to Israel.
It used to be that politicians would promise to do good things on the campaign trail, and then usually not follow through. But now they don’t even have to promise anything, because people will just project whatever views and values they hold onto whichever candidate they like regardless of anything they say or do.
Harris and Biden are unconditionally supportive of everything Israel does. Short of direct involvement of the US military, it’s not really possible for Trump to be meaningfully worse than that.
Remind me of this genocide-downplaying take in three months or so, please.
Okay I understand your point. Unfortunately Palestinians are not the only targeted ones. We have
Harris said and has showed to support them. Trump vowed to destroy all of them.
Right, I don’t deny that Harris was less evil on other issues, but I do not subscribe to the ideology of lesser-evilism. Just because one side is more evil doesn’t mean that the other side is worth supporting when they’re both irredeemably evil genocidal psychopaths who deserve eternal torture in the deepest circle of hell. Lesser-evilism doesn’t make sense from either a moral or strategic standpoint.
There’s a social experiment that’s been studied where the researchers give two people $100 to split, but the first person makes one offer on how to split it, and if the second person doesn’t agree, then neither of them get anything. If lesser-evilism was correct, then what would happen is that the first person would offer a $99-$1 split and the second person would accept, because $1 is a lesser evil than $0. But that’s not what actually happens. The reality is that most people have a certain minimum threshold, somewhere around $70-$30, and below that they’ll tell the other person to get fucked.
This is not really an irrational behavior, though it may appear so in the context of the experiment. For example, if the experiment were repeated multiple times with the same participants, than accepting the $1 means that you will only ever be offered $1 in future negotiations because you’ve shown you’ll accept it.
In reality, I’m pretty sure that lesser-evilists understand this concept on some level. It’s just that either their minimum threshold does not preclude the genocide of foreigners in far away countries, or they convince themselves that the democrats aren’t actually as bad about that as they are. But for me, I do recognize that Harris is a complete monster, and I also place value on Palestinian lives, so I said no to the $99-$1 offer and now I have $0 which I fully anticipated and have no regrets over. Maybe next time they’ll come back with a reasonable offer that doesn’t include genocide.
Yeah, fuck the lives of American minorities, you have to make yourself feel good when you’re in the voting booth! 😊
What pisses me off is you don’t even understand the place of privilege from which you speak. It’s such disgusting selfish egotistical mentality to think that if a candidate doesn’t represent your exact desires, that you think you can wash your hands of the whole thing and absolve yourself your part in the system.
The world is not designed to cater to your personal sensibilities.
Meanwhile, as you abstain and wait literally forever for a candidate that you don’t have to pinch your nose to vote for, you are proudly throwing away your ability to impact change for the better.
Basically you’re saying if you can’t have ice cream for dinner then we should go ahead and burn down the grocery store.
You’re a child.
Feeling very good about my decision, yes.
Dirtier than Trump supporters