cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/21396569
Moira Donegan
Mon 14 Oct 2024 06.07 EDT
She won't. She never will. That's America's spoiled baby. Both parties are Zionists. haven't you heard her weasely "I'll ensure there is peace and a two states solution" which means "I will absolutely do nothing but send more money weapons to Israel"?
The "two-state solution" has always been a comprador-negotiated position to establish Bantustans and the Zionists won't even implement that because they are too bust doing land grabs and genocide.
The only liberatory solution is a single state without apartheid.
They've purposefully keep trying to make the two state solution impossible. I hope it bites them one day, making a one-state solution where everyone can live in there peacefully and equally the only option.
So long as the resistance fights it is certainly backfiring in that way. Though I forgot to mention that Zionist settlers never really planned to establish two states, they wanted an expansionist status quo and are getting it. But if they ever actually advocated for two states and worked on it, it would be as Bantustans. Zionists could never tolerate Palestinians as equal neighbors on "their" land.
even if she did, which she won't, at this point it's probably too little too late tbh. I hope all the moderate republicans she courted were worth it.
If Kamala wants to be the First Ever FEMALE US President while ALSO Saving us from the Second Coming of Hitler all she has to do is Denounce Genocide?
Well we had a Good Run!
Nah, it's too late for that. She could do a 180 on everything she said she supports but we all know it's election year politics and that none of it is true.
Nah, she also has to promise not to continue enabling this genocide. Obviously an absolute no-go.
Time already ran out. Her opportunity to performatively appeal to the voters that consider Palestinians to be people (PS if you vote for Harris that is not you) was at the DNC and she snubbed them and then insulted them by having an Israeli speak.
I think Palestinians are people and don't deserve a genocide, and I am voting for Harris
These are incompatible statements.
No, it is true regsr of that. But the single issue is genocide, which is why you decided to be euphemistic about it.
”Nuh-uh!”
Do you find this to be an effective debate tactic?
You provided a nonsensical one-liner with no supporting logic. Telling you that it's wrong is sufficient, yes. I did not invite you to expound on it because you were already adopting defensive posturing.
Case in point: you just invented a quote and then conveniently ignored the other point I made. Let me remind you: the alleged single issue is genocide and I surmise you are reticent to speak openly about it because you know just how awful your dismissiveness of it will sound. But rather than confront such an inconsistency, liberals will paper over it. If they didn't do that, they might cease being liberals.
You should not support genociders.
And I was making a general statement, not referencing you specifically.
My response works either way and I didn't assume you meant me specifically. I am not sure what you are even referring to here. I made no references to myself.
More bad-faith assumptions and disinformation, now coming directly from you.
We are now having discourse about something you have apparently imagined and how I am various bad things in this imaginary scenario. Please return to reality and engage with what I actually say rather than making up quotes and ignoring half of what I say.
Not liking my comment doesn’t make me wrong
I think we may need to go to square 1 on discursive thought. I did not say or imply that not liking what you said means you are wrong. You are using an informal fallacy known as a straw man, which is where a person replies to an allegation by staying or implying something that was not said on the other person's behalf because it is easier to contend with.
This is a fancy way of telling you to stop relying on making things up. I have never implied what you alleged. Please do your best to stick to what I actually say instead of using bad faith posturing.
and the “conclusions” you draw are obvious proof that you’re in no position to criticize the “logic” of others
Then deny them. What was I wrong about? What was bad logic?
And I don’t need your permission to comment here.
I didn't imply that you did. That's 2 straw men already in just this comment.
If you’re too scared of your comments being scrutinized, perhaps you should post your comments on the wall of a toilet stall rather than to a public forum.
I would not consider this series of inventions and clichés to be scrutiny. At the moment there is a struggle to get you to respond to what I actually said instead of making things up. I will be excited when I finally get some scrutiny!
That was your point. I summarized.
It was about the same length as my original sentence. The purpose of the misquote was to mock because you'd like to imagine me as like an obstinate child than acknowledge your own fear of even saying the word genocide - as you are complicit in one. No need for you to try explaining, it was obvious.
Again, of you don’t like being scrutinized, don’t post in a public forum.
Yet again you have skipped over the other point I made. Isn't it getting conspicuous!?
It’s cute how you blame others for your own actions, even when you have to make the reasons up by pretending to be psychic and reading my mind.
I don't know what this is referring to. What did I do that I blamed others for?
And I don't need to be a psychic, just aware of tropes and behaviors. Notice that you are already confirming several of them accidentally!
Yet, somehow, you still act like this is a rational position…
What is the position I present as rational? That you should be against genocide? That you should work against genociders? Personally, I thought that would work as a shared baseline. I think the barrier is a set of chauvinistic talking points handed to you by the political class as well as a learned helplessness. And obviously an approach to discourse that is so defensive it permits repeatedly inventing things from whole cloth.
Whether you regret being called out as so, remarkably wrong or not, I can’t say, but you don’t get to do over just cause you lost an argument.
I haven't lost an argument here and am not attempting any kind of "do-over". Please do your best to reply to what I actually say rather than making things up.
You’re arguing in clear, bad faith
No, I am being forthright and honest.
and you’re using disinformation to do it
Such as?
If you regret what you said, just delete your comments.
Please reply to the things I actually say, such as the entirety of my last comment that you just ignored.
Pure word salad with no relation to what I said.
Please do your best to engage with what I say in good faith. If you cannot formulate a coherent response it is okay for you to take a break or simply not reply.
I can't fix the word salad for you, nor is it my fault that you are now behaving this way. Please do your best to engage in good faith.
Blaming me for your behavior Is irrational and bad faith.
I don't have any behavior requiring blame, my behaviot is good. I advocate against genocide, for example. I have never "blamed" you for what I am doing. I would commend you if you opposed genocide and responded germanely.
Unfortunately, at this point you are just repeating phrases in word salads.
Lying about what happened here
I have not lied at any point. Feel free to tell me what I have said that is even incorrect. This would fly in the face of your current behavior so I won't hold my breath.
just because I pointed out the flaws in your argument is also irrational.
I don't believe this conversion has ever gotten to the point of anyone making any arguments. I think the closest thing to an argument was the "this is complex" reference but rather than defend it you fell apart.
I will take this to mean you have no reply. I accept your surrender and will gladly ignore the inevitable bad faith response.
The other candidate will put you in prison for that wrong think and send EVEN MORE aid.
Or straight up fucking kill you: https://feddit.uk/post/18652620
You should not support Hitler just because you think Goebbels is worse. You should work against both genociders, not be an advocate for one.
We need STAR instead of FPTP so everyone can vote their conscience.
Bourgeois democracy is incapable of substantially opposing capitalism, the capitalists will just pull a capital strike and hire thugs and PR people etc etc. Countries that voted in socialists found themselves, and particularly their left parties, under terrorist attacks and faced coups. Some outright banned anticapitalist parties. If you do not organize and arm yourselves, you will simply get murdered en masse.
But if alternative voting systems inspire you, I do encourage you to get involved IRL in organizing efforts. This will teach you a subset of organizing skills that are more widely applicable. You will get to see the patterns of your opponents, too. Of our opponents.
But I also recommend reading widely and critically, to challenge yourself with the material histories of left organizing and, even more importantly, its failures. Who fought us. Who won. What is GLADIO. Who is Suharto. What happened to Allende and why. What happened to the pan-Africanists, the pan-Arabs. Why is the US left so anemic? Why are the European "communist" parties so liberal? Etc etc.
Gonna be hard to work against anything when you've been executed for knowing a trans person and not reporting them.
Hitler talked about helping the "Volk" while supporting the system that kept them subservient to capital. The analogy here is not exact, but Democrat politicians are not exactly real trans advocates even if individuals sometimes are. He'll they allow big, loud transphobes to have plenty of voice in their party, they are courtkng Republicans, lauding endorsements from reactionary war criminals. As in the UK, trans people are on th3 chopping block of this faux-progressive party and it is extraparty advocacy that really keeps things afloat.
Work locally to support trans people. Build mutual aid networks, build groups that do direct action, make unions pro-trans, protect events that normalize being trans. Kamala Harris isn't doing shot for trans people except appropriation and a smile while yelling you that the naked transohkbia rampant in the party and everyday life is just the price you pay for freedom: or else.
You are correct.
and I would prefer to keep gays, trans, and women alive while we work at the local level in the meantime.
Voting for Kid Killer Kamala ain't doing that. And there is no meantime, organizing requires your help right now.
Oh so you think i should vote for Trump who will kill them himself?
You should vote for neither and should spend your efforts and time thinking about this to work against them and for our mutual liberation.
Ahhh, there it is. A Trump supporter in disguise.
Btw, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
I wont be replying again, feel free to have the final word.
Given that I oppose Trump and am not voting for him, it requires a bit of dishonesty and mental gymnastics to call me a Trump supporter.
Please do your best to engage in good faith and directly address what I say. Sometimes we internalize the logic of our oppressors and this can lead to incorrect actions and prevent having the right positions and coherent solidarity with others. I think that is what is happening here.
Simple question: Who do you think would be better for the country as president? Neither isn't an option, because one is happening, no matter what. Equally bad isn't an option either, as no 2 people are completely identical. It doesn't matter is objectively false, as they will do things differently, and those differences are not equivalent.
The fact is actively telling Kamala supporters not to vote is indirectly voting for Trump, and vice versa, whether you yourself turn up or not.
If you truly believe it doesn't matter, there's no reason to tell anyone to not vote, as voting and doing the other actions you recommend are not mutually exclusive.
Simple question: Who do you think would be better for the country as president?
There is no meaningful discrimination within one's power to predict. Appropriating manic cop genocidal neoliberal jingoist suit vs. uncivil blowhard racist uncle geriatric con man. Is oppression better when it is packaged with a smile and a pander? What if we remove the pander and just point at the other candidate and say, "or else". Have you considered whether this question is a sufficient look at political action, with your pro-genocide vote filtered down as support for A or B genociders chosen for you by capitalist parties and their donors and subject to the electoral college such that if you are in 90% of states, including the most populous ones, it makes no difference in the outcome outside of you saying, "that's right I don't think of Palestinians as human"? Have you thought that thought? Or are you too busy explaining lazy high school civics like nobody's ever heard of the two party system?
Neither isn't an option, because one is happening, no matter what.
Cool well I'm voting for neither so account for that in your simplistkc game theory framework. I expect to see your homework in Game Theory 1}%, module 1: Baby's First Electoralism in by Thursday by midnight EST.
Equally bad isn't an option either, as no 2 people are completely identical.
Cool so you can quantity them? Normalized to 1 with a minimum if 0, what are their scores? Is it in the real numbers, rationals, fixed digits I.E. integers plus modulo a factor of 10? Us dummies need to know!
It doesn't matter is objectively false, as they will do things differently, and those differences are not equivalent.
O oracle, lend me your sight! Will the polite manic neoliberal that receives absolutely zero opposition from you be worse than the McDonald's Toy version of a memory of a whisper of Huckster George Wallace that you walk through town in a police-samctioned parade? Tell us!
The fact is actively telling Kamala supporters not to vote is indirectly voting for Trump, and vice versa, whether you yourself turn up or not.
Thank you for acknowledging that not voting for Trump is a vote for Kamala Harris so the previous questions are moot.
If you truly believe it doesn't matter, there's no reason to tell anyone to not vote, as voting and doing the other actions you recommend are not mutually exclusive.
Your vote matters in that you may normalize genocide with it. I would ask that you be a person that is against genocide and that you don't vote for it. And then that you recognize you are not sharing wisdom but tired and old talking points that do not justify your descension and that you should care a bit more about brown people than being snarky in a Reddit clone that exists solely because your app mind-for-tif got taken away.
Incidentally, you are from an Australian instance. Kindly go work in solidarity with aboriginal groups against your rampantly racist society and your imperialist AUKUS-promoting US subject state instead of advocating for American genociders.
