A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
Hey does Pepperidge farms remember all the fucking morons on Lemmy urging not to vote for Harris because she was allegedly complicit in genocide? I sure as shit do.
Know what's gonna be objectively worse, 100% regardless of the veracity those allegations? The reality that they helped forge instead.
I still can't get over how they were essentially presented with a simplified version of the trolley problem and chose to not pull the lever.
By their own narrative that "the democrats are complicit in a genocide in Gaza", they were aware that Palestinians were metaphorically tied to both tracks, yet decided to not pull the lever when America itself and every marginalized person living within was also on the track the trolley barreled towards.
I suspected that many of the accounts were Russian plants or Trump supporters trying to divide the Democrat vote. Most of the time when I checked account age they were made either that day or the day before.
I know that Lemmy is new and all but still was sus.
I haven't gone back to accounts to see if they are still active. I suspect that they aren't.
Calling it simplified does a disservice of the real world impacts of the "trolley" - especially since unlike a thought experiment - this trolley problem is physically constructed by people to achieve imperialistic goals - so expending energy blaming random lemmings for this - instead of figuring out who built, maintains and presents the trolley as the only option and how to dismantle it seems useless.
I believe we should avoid infighting and actually organize to do something so we don't have to choose if we pull the lever or not every 4 years (if there even is another election..)
The point was to pressure the Dems into giving up on genocide. You wanna talk about "pepperidge farm remembers", I got one for ya
Remember when the Dems thought they could win while actively telling people who were anti genocide to go fuck themselves?
Hey, what's weirder? Not voting for someone committing genocide, or being unwilling to stop committing a genocide even if it costs you the election?
How does it feel that the only thing that Harris had to do was say "I will stop weapons to Israel" and she would of won?
You can't keep blaming the voters when the strategy was at fault. They knew they would lose votes. They thought they could court the centrists and liberal Republicans to make up for it. They were so fucking wrong. And somehow it's not their own fault for having the worst campaign strategy known to man.
Like, Christ. Y'all ain't ever gonna stop trying to blame leftists. You'll be up against the wall with leftists fighting for your life and you'll still be like "can't believe you didn't vote Harris". I can't believe Harris threw away the election over the continued genocide of palastinians. That's fucking crazy. Is that not crazy to you? You don't find it fucking insane that the Dems would rather a fascist state than stop actively committing a genocide? Cause that's the fucking Gambit they ran and look where we are.
Look. I'm pissed. Your pissed. But we are just people with no power. Same with all those voters you wanna complain about. All we have is the ability to yell and vote. And while I voted for Harris out of fucking fear, I cannot blame the people who yelled "I will not vote for you if you keep committing genocide" and were fucking CALLED ON THAT SHIT. What kind of monster gambles with their own base over a fucking genocide?
As a fellow reluctant Harris voter, what upsets me the most is that the numbers people have run shows that no, actually, genocide was not the deciding factor in this election, which is kind of an indictment of America itself, but regardless, I'm sick of leftists being blamed when all the ones I know STILL voted Harris and the data shows that it wasn't leftist that didn't turn out, it was centrists. Harris didn't have a voter base. Sure, some dems turned out, but she didn't actually inspire people to vote, and that's basically the only way dems win.
It's because she has no message. All she could promise voters was stuff like "I'll give you a little bit of money to help you get a house." She was all flash and no substance.
*for first time homebuyers who have rented for at least 2 years without a late payment
Because there's nothing that makes a proposal more popular than adding means-testing.
She had a message, it was "more of the same"; when asked what she would do differently from Biden her response wasn't "Fuck this guy who spent the last 4 years doing fuckall, I would have defended abortion rights, appointed an AG who would have put Trump in prison and gone after Manchin and Sinoma, and any republican, a head of the DEA who would have unscheduled cannabis, etc", she said the difference was that she would appoint a republican to the cabinet.
That promise for housing gets misquoted as well as what she actually offered was:
First generation homebuyers who no one in their family has ever owned a house, after paying rent in a government approved rental firm for 2 years could get up to $25,000. And stated starter homes would cost between $300,000 and $800,000 dollars depending on location.
She did have a point to ask Congress to pass legislation to slow people buying more than 50 single family homes.
This was lost to her wealthy advisors telling her to not go through with these plans as they would impact the investment opportunities of housing.
She barely even got to flash before the DNC tried to reign in anything that might change things.
It's also obvious that Trump and BB were coordinating during the election to ensure Biden couldn't get a ceasefire deal in place in order to harm him politically. But as soon as Trump takes the office they just agree to a ceasefire no problem (as if that hadn't been the plan all along) aaaaaaand then Trump goes off about finishing the job and annexing the whole west bank for the US. What a fucking surprise.
'allegedly'
The mental gymnastics will only intensify as these fucking crypto-nazis get to distance themselves from their beliefs and actions of just a few months ago.
Cool, we remember - now what? What do we materially do now to resist that isn't just blaming non-voters online?
I remember the BBC manufacturing consent for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris complicity genocide as well.
Interesting that such a fucked system exists that could allow the 50/50 chance that who wins an election could singlehandedly decide if everything is fascism and genocide or not, with what appears to be no real checks of power in place.
And you choose to blame those who have nearly no control over said system.
Lemmy is also a tiny community relative to other similar communities online. Lenmy is also not even just people in the US. You also don't know how many of those posts were trolls or bots.
It sure seems to me that the larger system and set of choices are completely fucked to begin with and gives the "people" next to no options or say in much of anything.
But yes. If Lemmy people had not slammed Harris.... then... something might have been..... different?
Honestly not sure why it hasn't been suggested that the 'no vote' bullshit was a tactic to get Repubs the win. Sure as hell worked and didn't do anything to solve the issue, as we can blatantly see now.
Wasn't the idea to get the Democrats to explicitly state they were a anti genocide and promise policies to back that up?
Alright new atrocity from Israel just dropped, who should we blame:
All of the above, plus:
Clearly it's the leftists, they personally didn't vote or voted third party or voted for Trump or whatever we need to say to deflect blame, and they did it in every swing state! It's their fault, not the candidate!
This is sort of strawmanning some of the criticism. Leftists who held up nonvoting as some kind of magic bullet for gaza definitely seem like they are dumber than rocks for thinking nonvoting is the same as strategic voting.
However, There's a bunch of like consultants and dem strategists that have clung to this to scapegoat these people as though there wasn't a long chain of massive errors dems and their braindead consultants weren't heavily involved in.
At the end of the day just stop listening to "not voting is a moral stance" people and put fires under the real culprits: lying republican media and apathetic democrat politicians
How about the lemmy people who actively campaigned for trump and attacked anyone for Biden because Biden was anti Palestine. Those people can go fuck themselves. Its a guarantee they swayed votes to trump based on lies.
Which Lemmy voter actively campaigned for Trump?
They mean people who didn't campaign for Harris hard enough. It's the obvious next step from "if you didn't vote for Harris you voted for Trump"; "if you didn't actively campaign for Harris you actively campaigned for Trump".
To be fair to the BBC, they're 'supposed' to report the facts without judgement. How successful they are at that is debated endlessly, you can find anyone of any political flavour who will swear blind the BBC is 'obviously' biased against 'them'. They can't win no matter what they do.
The problem for the BBC is that not all stories have equally valid opposing views but they are forced to treat both sides equally at all times.. So as the world drifts further and further to insanity, their reporting makes crazy positions seem legitimate as they have to be aired alongside more mainstream views.
It worked OK when the world was fairly stable and political positions were close together. It doesn't work when political positions are so polarised and extreme.
Case in point: Brexit. The BBC really struggled in challenging extreme positions and outright lies during the brexit campaign.
Unfortunately though I'm not sure there is much alternative. Its fat from perfect but provably the best a public service broadcaster can try to do. At least it tries to provide the facts so people can make up their own minds - that in itself remains laudable.
One of the newsreaders said after leaving that they could easily find 60 economists willing to say brexit would be disastrous, and 1 saying it would be good. Come the show, they'd present one of each to demonstrate balance, but it was very lopsided. Before he went mental, they had Graham Linehan and his wife on a current affairs show to tall about the stress of getting an abortion in Ireland. The producers were then lambasted for not having a pro-abortion person on.
That this is a very poor excuse at propaganda because the BBC goes out of its way to use "loaded terms" when it comes to adversaries of the empire.
Here is an example from yesterday. https://youtu.be/34Ta0IcQi-E?t=85
Impartiality goes out of the window when the BBC needs to remind everyone that "the Palestinian health ministry is ran by Hamas which is designated as a terrorist organisation in America, the UK and Europe" every single time the death toll in Gaza is brought up as well.
Nah, I remember back when Corbyn was the leader of the Labour Party and the BBC gleefully participated in the campaign to slander him, including in a news program having as a background a large picture of him digitally altered to put a Soviet hood on his head.
I also remember countless "two side" discussions hosted by the BBC on things like worker rights or the Environment were they put a professional politician on the side against it facing a total amateur on the side for it.
The BBC's "two sides" has always been a multi-layered propaganda format, starting by the small detail that any social and political subject which is not ridiculously simple has more than 2 options to interpret and tackle it - in other words, more than 2 sides - and going into the above mentioned point that their supposedly open "giving equal voice to both sides" is actually controlled by their choice of the subject matter, who represents each side and even the interviewer's take on each side and accompanying materials (a typical example would be them reporting as event as "such and such happened" when the source is IDF versus "According to Hamas such and such happened" when the source is Hamas).
The BBC are very sophisticated in how they do it, but their output is heavily spinned and propagandistic.
I'm all for impartiality. But if a dude says "We should kill everyone who isn't like me!" You don't have to say "Before you judge, let's hear his side." You can start judging immediately.
See: More than 100 BBC staff accuse broadcaster of Israel bias in Gaza coverage
They're not trying to be fair, they're trying to be pro-israel.
It's not factual reporting when one side refuses to interact with the truth
Most legacy media is controlled by oligarchs and often is only mouth pieces for them.
So much for "never again," eh? More like "whenever we feel like it" if trends in global hegemony are any indication.
(sheer insanity has just been described in detail)
BBC Presenter (nods thoughtfully, shifts some papers)
"Alright, thanks. That was Charles Manson there, live from Narnia."
BBC Presenter (split-second later, brightly)
"And now an endangered frog species sees a new life on Mars! Our nature correspondent Jethro Tull with the latest.."
The BBC has been complicit in the last 16 months of genocide and for good reason.
Robbie Gibb, who is on the BBC's Board of Trustees, is also Editor of the Jewish Chronicle, a fanatically Zionist rag whose funding is hidden but suspected to be tied to the Israeli embassy.
Raffi Berg, BBC News online editor, is a former state department employee, fan of Netanyahu and has been described by one journalists as "This guy’s entire job is to water down everything that’s too critical of Israel”
More here:
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/bbc-civil-war-gaza-israel-biased-coverage
China really needs to start throwing their weight around on the global stage if they want to be anything more than a regional power.
China should be filling the vacuum on the global stage that the US is vacating.
China is just sitting back and letting the U.S. hang itself. They'll step up and step in once America is well and truly down for the count.
edit: autocorrect
Can't help but notice this. Turns out, the communist plot to destroy America was the billionaires we made along the way.
So the last and final attempt to steer the United States from fuelling genocide failed.
Still #Undecided?
We still litigating this?
The dems ran a deeply unpopular candidate on status quo in an election about how the status quo was hurting non-rich Americans. They shoved leftists out of the way in favor of more moderate and conservative leaning people trying to reach out to those that were already not going to vote for them.
I did vote, and I voted for Kamala; that vote wasn't an excited vote, but one in the hopes that she could win and we could inch another 4 years to a hopefully better candidate set. The amount of emails sent to both Biden and Kamala, and the amount of shitty responses about how its totally OK was deeply disheartening, but I still voted, even though it felt like nothing would change.
Those that didn't vote due to Gaza, which if memory serves was a small block, specifically stated they just wanted to be recognized. The campaign instead tried to go on Joe Rogan and "toured" with a Cheney.
There's not some crazy reason people stayed home. They stayed home because either choice felt like doom, and probably felt they didn't want to participate in either.
That's all without even getting into the amount of actual voter suppression in general.
But yea, blame those voters.