this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
1171 points (95.0% liked)
Political Memes
4587 readers
4107 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When that conversation is about genocide and the enabling of such? Hopefully not.
Not directly, but accusing everyone on the left of not really caring about the genocide and instead just using it as a pretense to attack Biden for the sake of attacking Biden IS indirectly calling me a cynical liar.
Sure, just mount your imaginary High Road High Horse and ride away when you don't have an answer to legitimate criticism of your dismissive rhetoric, baseless accusations, and obvious deflection 🙄
I'm a progressive leftie and care about genocide too but it's not a magic shield that suddenly grants all my arguments immunity from criticism and also imposes on me the justification to insult everyone that disagrees with me personally. That's just called being a dick.
Suuure you are! All that talk about the left in third person and automatic defending of the conservative neoliberal Biden was just something I imagined! 🙄
Holy gigantic strawman, Batman!
You can criticize my arguments all you want, but if you're not only wrong but also arguing from a place of insulting and belittling prejudice and reflexive apologia, then you should expect to be criticized right back and yes, insulted for your obviously bad takes.
I may or may not have been right about you not really caring about the genocide, but the fact is that you're acting like it by pretending that Biden's willing participation in it is a non-issue and that anyone who criticizes him for that has an ulterior motive of "just not liking him no matter what" or whatever you imagine to silence that nagging "could I be wrong about Biden?" voice in the back of your mind.
I want lefties to be politically effective, but right now all we care about is empty rhetoric. You're the prime example of that. Instead of being concerned with engaging and constructing good arguments, you spent half the time criticizing my motivations. Because that's all we are amounting right now is living up to the meme of 'hot' air and no substance. So we come with asinine statements like:
and the moment someone points how stupid this is you went straight to
WHY YOU LOVE GENOCIDE??!????!!!
We gotta do better (and i don't care if this sounds like tone policing). I'm sick of the fake moral indignation. I want people to start thinking about being politically effective and actually changing the discourse towards what can be accomplished.
In what world is "stop providing weapons and political cover for a genocide" empty rhetoric?? Do you think reasonable demands automatically become unreasonable or "empty" if the recipient is stubborn enough? Or are you arguing either in bad faith or with very little thought?
First you claim that I and everyone else on the left only have empty rhetoric and then you complain that I don't construct more versions of an argument that's self-evident. Pick a lane to be wrong in, please.
As for your motivations, the only reasons why I ever touched on them was to try and make sense of why you'd ever make such nonsensical arguments in spite of seemingly being capable of reason.
Besides, you complain a lot about me having the audacity to question your motivations after yourself claiming that everyone on the left only criticizes the US participation in the ongoing genocide to dunk on Biden 🙄
No need to refer to yourself in the third person. You're sounding plenty pompous and self-important already.
Biden should just pause Israel because Obama was able to reverse Cuba
Another ridiculous strawman. I never said anything resembling that and you know it.
Again, I did not. Do you want me to leave you and your army of strawman alone so you can have your argument without me interrupting?
Nah, Neoliberals like you and Biden DO love yourselves some policing..
There you go accusing me of faking it again. That's still false and also hugely hypocritical given how much you're complaining about ME questioning YOUR motivations 🤦
And I want apparatchiks like yourself to stop pretending that everything that your Dear Leader actively chooses not to do is automatically impossible.
Giving up on your principles the moment the authority figures from your "team" resist isn't being effective. It's being needlessly submissive and demanding that others follow your meek example is authoritarian bullshit.
more vacuous shit:
are you a highschooler? Because that would explain a lot....
Again with the Alex Jones style out of context quoting bullshit. Go yell about gay frogs if you want to imitate that fundamentally dishonest blowhard.
here is an example of your empty rhetoric:
give me a fucking break.
Those are all taken out of context and make perfect sense WITH context. This is Faux News level distortion if not downright Alex Jones lunacy 🙄
no. its just you morally loading every statement so that you can grandstand. And you do it in almost every thread I've seen you in. Try, as an exercise, to sometime engage with someone's arguments (just one time) without invoking any pejorative or dramatic virtuous invocations. You might find a new world is waiting for you- a wold where dialog can flow and thoughts can be exchanged. I'll be waiting for you there when you're ready.
Nope. I sometimes use grand words for accuracy or emphasis, but never disingenuously like you're doing right now. Grandstanding is EMPTY posturing, not emphatically saying true and important things.
Since you obviously don't know the difference, here's a short primer:
When a Republican says that they're being silenced by the government during a prime time TV appearance to promote their new book, that's grandstanding.
When a progressive who doesn't take corporate PAC money emphatically says that billionaires and their corporations have too much power over society, that's not grandstanding.
Do you understand it now or do you need me to find a video explaining it with puppets?
I do that every time. I only get snide and sarcastic about it once it's clear that the other person is not engaging in good faith and/or ignoring something I already explained because it doesn't fit their narrative.
And there's some more of that hypocrisy from the same person who excused ME of grandstanding just a few sentences earlier 🤦
Are you SURE you're not a Republican? Even the worst neoliberals usually aren't THAT blatantly hypocritical..
I'm not the one constantly loading every phrase with all the virtuous condemnation diarrhea because I can actually engage with arguments without attacking the character of the author.
Attack the idea-not the people.
That would have been a LOT easier to take seriously if it hadn't been appended to a comment consisting entirely of baseless personal attacks 😂
Also, at no point did I fucking defend Biden. I just called out your stupid analogy about Cuba. Seems like you just had all the insults ready to deploy and were never interested in the argument.
Saying that the awful things he does by choice is actually necessary things that he doesn't like doing and would stop if he could IS defending him.
As is repeatedly trying to deflect to a completely different topic.
Let me bend it in neon for you one last time:
My analogy was NOT about Cuba. It was about the fact that presidents have the power to change longstanding foreign policy, contrary to what the person I was replying to was implying.
Secondarily (that means later and less importantly), it was a comparison of one president who sometimes had the guts to go against tradition and the will of rich and powerful pressure groups and one who doesn't.
Thank goodness it wasn't my argument.
correct. And my response was...? Let me restate it because maybe it wasn't clear:
What a president can do and what a president ought to do in changing policy are two different things and bringing up the fact that change was able to occur in a place with low stakes (cuba: very low stakes) is not equivalent to the policy change that needs to occur in Israel (very high stakes). It's not apples to apples, is it?