Lemmy dot world users are now saying anyone who doesn't want to support a genocide denier "hates America" which, well, yeah
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
92 points (96.0% liked)
chat
8167 readers
219 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I hate America
Death to America, of course.
Agreed. There's no interpretation that doesn't suggest a worldview completely removed from reality except naked bad faith.
But the simplest explanation, if they're saying it in good faith, is they don't think genocidal extermination is a disqualifying "flaw" and are annoyed that people are holding it against Harris.
How did we go from 0 delegates, Neera Tanden, and mocking the Khive to this ghoul being crowned and annointed? Chomsky may be the world's most correct man.
Agreed. There's no interpretation that doesn't suggest a worldview completely removed from reality except naked bad faith.
This may or may not represent bad faith on their part but I think I can understand a worldview that makes it make sense. It's an extremely undergraduate academia worldview where you're given the grading rubric for an essay before you write it. Kamala has a paragraph on her website about [insert issue] that means she should get full points for it. Very much along the lines of "liberal box checking" being a thing I may or may not have mentioned out loud in previous situations.
I can... uhh... "understand" isn't the right word but I've seen Dems behave like that many times. Their candidate says something preposterous and libs treat it like it has already been accomplished while ignoring that the dem in question created the problem in the first place and zealously defended the problem right up until they started running.
Can you talk more about liberal box checking?
Can you talk more about liberal box checking?
Sure. It's basically the individual requirement of the grading rubric. When liberals are working for a cause they have a secondary interest in, they're less concerned with the actual outcomes of their policies than they are being able to claim credit for an accomplishment in that arena. So while they're focusing on the interests of capital, they also make sure to 'check a box' for each constituency that got them into office. In an infrastructure bill that gives billions away to oil companies while opening up even more land for exploitation, they'll 'check the box' for environmentalists by giving them electric car subsidies. And once a box is checked, there's no need to return to that entire topic. Obamacare checked the health care box for decades. If it weren't for Bernie, you would never have heard democrats mention it in our lifetimes again.
Gotcha that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for explaining.
I'm kind of seeing that with libs excusing genocide. "She said she wants a ceasefire" and, like you said, box tipped. No need to 25th amendment Biden and actually stop it. She said she would do it several months from now so it's settled.
Just further proof that the democrats are tired of being held to a standard of decency and are openly envious of the Republicans and their orgy of cruelty
I think they absorbed a lot of republican voters who were embarrassed by Trump in his term. Possibly only in the pundit/donor/political sphere & not really enough to do anything but vindicate all of their worst decisions and inclinations
I think the 2020 election was the conservative wing of the party's backlash against the progressive wing. From the concerted effort to derail Bernie and Biden's nomination largely on the votes of red state democrats (irregularities aside), and the progressive messaging notwithstanding, Biden's win was the old guard asserting dominance. They knew they'd face Trump again and were planning to capitalize on all the space to their right flank from the beginning. The fact that that's created conditions for NeverTrumpers and Hillary campaign dead-enders to thrive is probably more a consequence than a driver imho.
San Francisco liberals want classier Trump.
I unironically fear that the conservative rebrand from dopey, overweight oil tycoons and shit to “sexier” tech CEOs and the know it alls is going to be the lynchpin needed for a good amount of democrats to jump ship.
How many American liberals that if you put them in a “sexier” culture like France would flock to the National Front party?
kamala has to be perfect all the time which is why she's perfectly pro genocide
So much more ghoulish when that is the exact line used to both sides the palestinian genocide. The "perfect victim" or "spotless resistance" is a common tactic used to silence BY THE KIND OF PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT HARRIS! The gall that they would turn it around to cudgel those speak against her...
Having standards is what prevents the election from being reduced to Trump vs Blue Trump. Demonizing the concept of having standards ensures that Trump's policies will win no matter what
guyssss we need to save democracy guys!!!!!! we need to save the world by electing warmongering genociders!!!!! im gonna vooooooooooooooote!!!!!! 
blueMAGA brain. just swapped HUNTER'S LAPTOP out for STOLE NUCLEAR SECRETS
We should allow her to do a little genocide, as a treat.
https://lemmy.ml/post/21850844/14586738
I've said some incredibly cruel, bad faith things in political discussions but I'm struggling to recall ever telling someone asking for an end to a genocide that they were a foreign spy trying to sabotage the ascension of the god-queen.
Like this is just the face of evil. And after literal decades of throwing "Soviet genocides" in our face as evidence we're iredeemable monsters. And they just never cared at all. Every accusation is a confession. They made up Soviet and Chinese genocides because they thought it levelled the field and would rob us of moral high ground. They never thought genocide was bad or cared about their imaginary victims.
Wow, the comments on that are getting even worse since you commented.
One of them linked unironically right back to the OP without a trace of critical thinking about what that top-level comment on OP was saying.
Another one did a double genocide theory style "Which of the 4 ongoing genocides would that be then?"
I think we can all agree there are NOT four distinct events going on that deserve the label of genocide alongside the Holocaust and Rwandan genocide. 
Claiming otherwise diminishes the Holocaust. Shouldn't we be able to call that antisemitic? 
It's more than just diminishing the holocaust. It's trying to find a way to continue using it (in this case by inappropriately invoking its memory) as a means to promote capital. It's absolutely antisemitic.
Acknowleding that the us is leading multiple genocides (thought they might be a xinjiang/ukraine genocide truther) as some kind of gotcha is just... i don't really have a word for that.
I can confidentaly define four ongoing US lead genocides right now
-
of Palestinians
-
of Yemenis
-
of Trans people
That the US is committing genocide against trans people right now is controversial due to misunderstandings of the term but the actions of the US government are a textbook example if you go by the text of the Genocide convention.
And
- of Indigenous Americans
The thing with defining genocide is, for it to matter, you have to recognize it, define it, and stop it before it becomes Rwanda or the Shoah. We often think of genocide only in terms of genocides that have been successfully completed.
It's also important to recognize, as with Trans people in the US, that a genocide does not require active mass killing to be genocide. The Genocide Convention recognizes processes other than murder as genocide, focusing on genocide as an attempt to exterminate a group based on essential characteristics whether that is done by direct killing or by suppression and dismantling of the group. This includes inflicting severe mental harm as well as sterilization and kidnapping children, and genocide scholars today recognize methods and processes beyond was is defined in the original Genocide Convention.
That's part of what makes double-holocaust myths so pernicious and dangerous - it blurs the lines and obscures the actual methods and purpose of the crime of genocide.
I think we're seeing right now the purpose of invented genocide narratives in Ukraine, Tibet, and Xinjiang. NATOstan created these fake genocides in order to create moral equivalency between its crimes and "in bad country" enemy nations. People of NATO can tell themselves "everyone does it" and believe that genocide is just 21st century realpolitik if they believe that their absolutely depraved fictive enemies are doing the same thing. "Every accusation is a confession".
Link to UN genocide convention
That's at least a fair and well reasoned argument as to where you might get such a number, and by no means was I intending to downplay the evil of the U.S.
I'll be honest that I thought the indigenous American genocide has already been successfully completed. Is it still ongoing?
I also only have a vague idea about Yemen. Could you provide some resources on where to get some decent information on it?
There are ~2 million indigenous Americans scattered around the country from many different tribes, nations, and ethnic groups. The us is still using a lot of it's old colonial systems, for example the "blood quantum" system, intended to exterminate indigenous Americans as a distinct culture. Indigenous Americans are also trapped in conditions of extreme poverty due to both historic and contemporary policies that are de facto social murder. It's a big, awful, complex issue due to how many different groups of indigenous people their are, the us's patchwork of quasi-independent states, and all sorts of other stuff but if you stand back far enough it's genocide.
For Yemen, you'd want to look at the US/Saudi war against the Houthis that started back during Obama/Biden. The Saudis couldn't win a fist fight with a drunk card board box let alone fight Ansarallah on the ground. So they went with extermination by destroying food, water, and medical infrastructure to spread disease and starvation. It's the quickest way to murder huge numbers of people, especially children.
I saw someone in another thread cite a list of ongoing genocides that included North Korea. When I asked who they're even meant to be genociding, they did not respond, but another user answered, "Themselves."
Okay I don't want to go melt my brain, what are the four they're talking about? Palestine and then what. Ukraine? Uyghurs? Tigray?
That seems like a plausible list. Those would be the most prominent real and fake genocides that would be recognizable to most online people.
So is that comm not actually for memes or they have just a completely different definition of a meme?
Well the original meaning of "meme" is a piece of self-propagating information that behaves like a biological gene... or like a virus.
Oh well then that comm is perfect at spreading it from othet places
The server returned this error:
couldnt_find_post. This may be useful for admins and developers to diagnose and fix the error
Owned.