137
Also Democrats: Ve shall round up und eradicate ze undesirables from society!!! Ve shall put zem into ze camps and ve shall enslave them to benefit ze superior class!!!
https://fxtwitter.com/lastreetcare/status/1806869510483476829
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
137 points (92.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13541 readers
769 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And in the interim, what happens? Consider that the Republicans support this just as much, if not more than the Dems. Why reward them for that?
Refusing to cooperate with good cop is not a reward for bad cop. They are not opposed to each other. They are on one side that is against us. I say again that you have been fooled the oldest trick in the book.
I understand what you are trying to say, but refusing to cooperate with the 'good cop' absolutely is a reward for the bad cop as they have the same positions, but even more so. More violence in Gaza, more suppression of minorities, more rights stripped away, and a president who's made it clear they wish to be a dictator.
You don't understand shit liberal. There is one fascist party wearing two different colored ties. Both colors of nazi want the immediate extermination of all Palestinians. The limiting factor on the speed of that process is not American tie color it is the heroic resistance of the Palestinian people and their allies. If the blue nazis support for domestic minority rights were anything more than kayfabe they would recognize the supreme court for the fundamentaly illegitimate institution that it is and break its power with court packing, jurisdiction stripping and impeachments. As in Palestine the limiting factor on the oppression of American minorities is not the insincere handwringing of the soft nazi faction but the on the street resistance of those same minority groups.
Absolutely.
Maybe I'm insufficiently cynical, but I see that more as them just being woefully ineffectual, rather than a conspiracy. I recognise that the result is largely indistinguishable, but it means there is a chance to fix it given time and effort. Said effort would be strongly resisted unless it came from a large enough block of the electorate that doing so meant certainly losing your seat. Anything less than that is either ignorable, or if it does flip the seat, does so without presenting a lesson others can learn from.
Well, if we vote for the democrats anyway, we’re signaling to them that committing genocide won’t cost them votes. That it’s a free thing they can do as they please. Does that not seem like a dangerous precedent to establish? It erodes the very basis of their “lesser evil” to the Republicans. They should actually have to not be evil, and remember that. There has to be some sort of electoral cost to being incredibly psychopathic.
Why reward the democrats for being the best accomplices the republicans could ask for?
Why reward the Republicans for being worse?
Didn’t you say that politicians have to chase votes earlier? To shift their positions to attract voters? Why does that not apply here? Shouldn’t they be courting us by moving away from committing genocide? That would solve the issue cleanly.
Yes, they should, if a large enough proportion of the electorate make that case. I've been looking for up to date opinion polls on this, and rather appallingly most of them seems to show that there is a roughly equal split in those that think the israel's attacks are genocide and those who don't [1]. I'll be honest, I wasn't expecting that, I was expecting a huge majority on the "it's genocide" side but that could just be the polls I've found. If you have any more heartening results please do share them. Even amongst Dem voters the split isn't as lopsided as you'd expect, and without those numbers changing the direction of decades of US policy towards Israel isn't going to happen. Again, if the voters change their direction enough, politics will follow.
[1] Here's one poll I found, which is likely to be as biased as any other, but it at least gives an idea of the numbers.
Lol no they won't because the American Government funnels hundreds of millions of dollars to Israel, which gets put into places like AIPAC, which propagandize the public and have been doing so for decades. You are looking at the cart as if it is the horse, like a lunatic.
We literally can't have a legible conversation if you don't understand how consent is manufactured in the U S. Propaganda fucking works, that's why people spend billions of dollars on it.
I was trying to point out that the numbers of voters who think israel has gone "too far" isn't high enough to tip US policy at the moment, precisely because of the propaganda you describe. That number seems to be changing, albeit slowly, and we've already seen biden's tone change somewhat as that pressure changes.
Ah, here we go... the endless cyclical logic of the electoral hypothetical...
Don't make me tap the sign again:
OK, let's take that as a really simple analogy. You have only two choices in front of you: one city gets destroyed, or two cities get destroyed. Yes, it's the trolley problem all over again. You can obviously choose not to take part, but that increases the risk of both cites being destroyed, you can vote for both to be destroyed, or you can vote to destroy just one. It's a grim choice, with no good outcomes, but one is noticeably less bad than the other.
In reality the second bomb is aimed at things like minority rights, LGBTQ+ communities and even workers in general.
In reality there are myriad options that do not include waving a fucking banner supporting detonating a nuke. The only way you can begin to rationalise your arguement is by creating a hypothetical thought experiment in which there are only two possibilities and you can actually only pick one of them. And even within those completely silly parameters it's still contradictory, with no mechanism to change the hypothetical, hence 'the endless cyclical logic of the electoral hypothetical.'
OK, given the current reality of the upcoming election, what, in your personal opinion are the other options, and what do you think the outcomes of those would be?
I've stated these, noting their historical successes and failures, elesewhere in response to you, before you made this comment. You didn't engage, because you're not looking for an answer or to discuss anything tangible. Just to repeat your tired, concern-troll imaginary hypotheticals again and again and again...
As I said, I'm drowning in responses, and I've got to them out of order. I've seen your response to this elsewhere, but I'm talking about in this election, over the next few months, what are the options? Yes,the analogy was simple to the point of absurdity, but it wasn't me who brought it up.
I realise there is much that can be done over time, ranging from trying to swing the existing candidates further left via voter pressure to rather more revolutionary means, but I'm more focused on the next event. What happens in November? I perceive that trump would be a worse president, for the US and the world at large, than biden would. I realize that that's an arguable position, but all I've seen against it is people saying bidens bad. I'm not questioning that, he is, but that doesn't change the conclusion. Given that, from my point of view, there is only one reasonable course of action in the presidential election itself. Actions preceding that are more open, but anything that risks increasing the chance of trump getting in would be dangerous. I've mentioned elsewhere that down ticket votes are more of an insurance, so, to my mind, not voting still isn't the best course of action, but I can understand the other view point too.
You can vote for whoever you want.
But you're coming here asking for a magic bullet to a deeply ingrained problem, on an immediately short timeline, while also dismissing out of hand or waving away any option or arguement presented that doesn't fall within you own narrow acceptability of 'just vote for Biden because it's the lesser of two evils'.
It's not a good faith arguement. And I suspect you know that.
If you're just going to keep banging your head against this, looking for me or others who have engaged with you to say gosh you're right, we should get behind Biden then you're disappointed. Even aside for all the reasons that have been explained to you and you've mostly ignored to return to circular electoral logic, there's also the fact that many people here (myself included) aren't even American, so couldn't even if they wanted to.
If you're not just arguing for the sake of arguing, then I genuinely implore you to try and read, listen, and expand your horizons because your vision of what is possible and important is so narrow you couldn't slip a piece of paper through it.