I'm sure Vance was lying, but if these were anything like the Presidential debates, there would definitely be a strong Democrat bias. You can't possibly think that Walz didn't get fact checked because he was a perfect little angel with flawlessly honest rhetoric, right?
Disclaimer: I didn't watch very much of the debate because, as others said, it was boring, but Harris sure as shit lied in her debate.
My argument is that voting does not diminish any of those actions.
Of course it doesn't diminish other action, which is why I never said such a thing.
But not voting does nothing but increase the chance of a worse outcome overall both in relation to the genocide of palastinians
Democrats love to say that Orange Man will do genocide but more. There is no evidence for this, as Biden has already given his unconditional support to Israel in their extermination efforts, even to the point of using executive authority to circumvent Congress twice early in the effort. Biden has already put his full weight behind it, usually has the full support of Congress, and is willing to circumvent Congress when that's not the case.
The only demonstrable difference is how they talk about it and how the media chooses to characterize it. Like with Obama and the border, expect a lot more reporting on the devastation in Gaza if Trump wins, but don't labor under the delusion that it's because circumstances changed. There were already kids in cages at the border; There were already kids crucified on rebar on the side of a ruined building in Gaza.
[Also, just since this is the second time you wrote it that way, I'll point out that in English they are called Palestinians with an e as that second vowel]
and the harm that would come domestically to other at risk folk.
So, beyond just using minorities as a prop to cover for supporting Democrats, there are still a few other problems I have with this:
They aren't having 2000-pound bombs dropped on them. They aren't having their ambulances blasted of the street and their journalists shot in the head. The magnitude of harm here is different.
From a long-term perspective, the purpose of not voting for Dems is to create a left opposition. This wouldn't just help Palestinians, it would help all marginalized people the US impacts.
Pledging unending fealty to the Democrats likewise has consequences. Democrats have already taken up Trump's 2020 border policy and, while paying lipservice to vaguely progressive things, they have been drifting further and further right because the logic that leftists must vote for them so long as they are at least an inch to the left of Republicans means that they have no reason to move to the left for the sake of leftists. They already own the leftists, what the hell would they make concessions for? So we must do something to force concessions out of them, as all concessions are won.
Terms like “it legitimizes electoral politics” or similar are nice self justifications for ignoring that choice,
It's a good thing I never said that either, then. What I did say is that voting for Kamala legitimizes Kamala, which is also something Kamala will say, just like Joe has said. My position, and the position of any decent Marxist, is to vote third party, because that's the only way to generate a coherent message that a certain platform has elements that a substantial segment of the population demands.
You know, the thing that always tells me that someone is whipped by the Democrats is how they purport to hate the Democrats and what they are doing and are purely seeking a "pragmatic" solution, but then go "Please, please, please, vote for Kamala" without inquiring into other details like if the person they are talking to lives in a contested state. If you were really serious about opposition to the reactionary policies of the Democrats and we were talking about voting, it seems like the very first thing to investigate even assuming you were correct about everything you've said because cutting down the popular vote winnings in favor of non-genocidal third parties is absolutely, obviously correct.
So don't worry, I'll vote for someone, but you'll never get me to support the claim that ending genocide is off the table or that the Palestinian people should be seen as sacrificial lambs who need to die for the sake of Americans.
what’s opposing nationalisation and public ownership is and always has been purely ideological
It's private interests seeking to maintain their own profits. The ideology is downstream of that.
That is plainly not what I said, and again your insinuation is “Oh, you think genocide is unacceptable? Go die for it while I do nothing” because you are happy to embrace genocidal ghouls as long as they aren't orange. Stop excreting shut-up lines like a fucking middle schooler.
Incidentally: https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/28/middleeast/gaza-students-thank-columbia-protests-intl-latam/index.html
You see communists on lemmy argue constantly that political action can and must extend far past voting, this isn't the own you think it is, though your position of "Oh, you think genocide is unacceptable? Go die for it while I do nothing" has been noted as your not at all convenient conservative position.
I hope so
I was lazy picking Wikipedia when everyone knows it's got an American brainrot problem. That's entirely my fault.
It is true that "conservative opposition to liberalism" is a thing that has exist and currently exists, but the issue is that "conservative" is a relative term, it refers not to an absolute ideological tendency (like liberalism does) but to the necessarily relative value of seeking to conserve the current order of things. This is relative because the order of things can be different, and that changes the question of if you want to conserve it (conservative), go back to some past state, real or imagined (reactionary), or advance to some future state of greater development (progressive).
So when liberal revolutionaries set the west on fire, conservatives were in conflict with them because the conservatives were trying to preserve the feudal/aristocratic/monarchic order that the liberals opposed. Now that the liberals in the west are no longer revolutionaries but overwhelmingly the establishment and without any serious contest, the acting of promoting liberalism over other ideologies is conservative and the old position of promoting a feudal/aristocratic/monarchic order is reactionary. The rise of neoliberalism, in particular, represents the overwhelming historical victory of liberalism over both reactionary and progressive forces ("There is no alternative," the perfect conservative slogan).
Of course, a political ideology can be a mix of conservative and reactionary or conservative and progressive (I'll let you decide on reactionary/progressive), and I'd say that former pair is pretty important for understanding the ideology of the Republicans, but don't let that exaggerate in your mind the piddling degree to which the latter pair applies to Democrats.
Is that a better explanation? Whether this is how you personally want to use the words or not, this will help you understand how socialists use them.
There are certainly criticisms to be made of it, but characterizing them as "the bad guys" in a conflict with Israel because they do [thing Israel has been known for for decades] is either sarcasm or rank stupidity
Generally, the people posting this sort of thing also support land back or some variant of it, and will be on the side of the indigenous population in any dispute with western colonizers.
You could be clearer next time by adding an /s
luv 2 sneer at minorities being genocided when those minorities wouldn't vote for someone killing their family. Seems like a cool thing for an Ally and Progressive to do.
The conditional is right there