Asklemmy @lemmy.ml dependencyinjection @discuss.tchncs.de 1mo ago

Why are so many Pro-Palestine (I am pro-Palestine and anti-genocide) Americans refusing to vote for Harris due to her stance on Israel?

As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.

Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.

I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.

Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.

Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.

Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.

518

You're viewing a single thread.

518 comments

Remember that in online spaces (and IRL in reality), there are astro-turf/sock puppet accounts that will make claims to sway public opinions.
- Good point. Although, I would question whether Lemmy is such a place as we really don’t have the numbers to warrant the effort, imo.
  
  We get drug spam and stock spam, no reason to expect that political spam is any less likely.
  
  Lemmy has a huge amount of hardcore lefty's. If you can get them to not vote, and especially if you can get them to tell their friends not to vote, that is a big win.
  
  Astroturfing/sockpuppeting is dirty cheap to do, so no reason not to try.
  
  You do see some users here that will post continously on about a certain topic repeatedly, with no other opinions. They might be legit, but I have my suspicions.
  
  "Hardcore lefties" have a very different understanding of the value of their vote, which is to say, it means very little.
  
  Have you deigned to ask them questions?
  
  I disagree - it feels like Lemmy is seeing the same kind of shills that 4chan saw in the last several elections. These bad actors are trying to sway dems to vote third party or not vote at all "in protest" across many small and large online spaces.
  
  Are the shills in the room with us right now?
  
  Yes, in fact I see one now.
  
  Interesting. What am I shilling for? What are my real opinions? What are the fake ones I'm presenting?
  
  Your real opinions are the ones I like, and your fake opinions are the ones I don’t. It’s not rocket surgery.
  
  Obviously a huge genocide isn't enough for you - you clearly want Every Palestinian to be killed or imprisoned when Trump is elected. And not just the ones in Gaza, if I were a Palestinian in the US, I'd be terrified of that madman winning, and I'd do everything I could to support Harris like my life depended on it (because it very well might)
  
  More generally you are trying to convince us that the genocide is the only important issue in the world, and that it's somehow worth not supporting someone who is in all ways (not just all other) the far better of the two electable candidates.
  
  Obviously a huge genocide isn't enough for you - you clearly want Every Palestinian to be killed or imprisoned when Trump is elected.
  
  Please do your best to act in good faith and not lie about me.
  
  And not just the ones in Gaza, if I were a Palestinian in the US, I'd be terrified of that madman winning, and I'd do everything I could to support Harris like my life depended on it (because it very well might)
  
  No, that is what you, a non-Palestinian, believe you get to decide for Palestinians, people who have lost half or more of their family in the last year. The Palestinian diaspira, generally speaking, rejects Biden and Harris.
  
  However, you have not answered my questions.
  
  More generally you are trying to convince us that the genocide is the only important issue in the world, and that it's somehow worth not supporting someone who is in all ways (not just all other) the far better of the two electable candidates.
  
  Now you are downplaying the magnitude of genocide. Never again means never again for anyone, not just when it is politically convenient for you.
  
  Welp, looks like you didn't answer my questions. Maybe next time, right?
  
  To be lies or even bad faith, I'd have to not actually believe what I wrote. And I very much believe what I wrote.
  
  The Palestinian diaspira [sic], generally speaking, rejects Biden and Harris.
  
  Do they now? (A small sample. Some of those are about the ones still in Gaza, but I don't think that detracts from the point.)
  
  However, you have not answered my questions.
  
  Fine. Here are your questions and my genuine answers.
  
  What am I shilling for?
  
  I think you are likely a shill for Donald Trump. I don't assume it's directly, as in I don't assume you are being paid by the GOP or a super PAC, but wouldn't be surprised if someone was paying you.
  
  What are my real opinions?
  
  Hard to say. At best (unlikely) I think you have been very strongly misled into thinking that's somehow what's best for the country, or even the world. Otherwise I think you know fully what you are doing and the damage it may cause and you are fine with that. This is what I believe based on the comments I've seen from you.
  
  What are the fake ones I'm presenting?
  
  That you care about the genocide. I think you are using it as a wedge to try to divide and mute the Democrat vote.
  
  Now you are downplaying the magnitude of genocide.
  
  Not at all. That was the first thing I addressed: if Harris loses it will be so much worse in Gaza and elsewhere.
  
  To be lies or even bad faith, I'd have to not actually believe what I wrote. And I very much believe what I wrote.
  
  Given that you simply made up some bullshit, telling me that you actually really believe it would mean you have basically no grasp on reality. You can't tell the difference between your imagination and what's real, allegedly.
  
  Personally, I think you do know the difference.
  
  Do
  
  A handful of somewhat misleadingly presented quotes from people selected through an unstated process. Literally no context for who most of them are. Many if the quotes have little to do with what you are talkjng about. And then a series of unsourced narratives about what people are thinking.
  
  This is an incoherent read that follows a particular propaganda style but mostly comes across as incompetent.
  
  they
  
  "An informal canvasing in Gaza".
  
  This follows the same style but by a more competent writer. It is timed for the "honeymoon" period PR push for Harris.
  
  now?
  
  Democrats organized a letter from a handful of people, some of which were Pslestinian Americans. Amazing. The article does not even link the letter. Here is the link. Note that they included "Progressive Democrats" and "Community Leaders". Perhaps you are unfamiliar with tokenizing PR strategies. If you look into the signatories, you will find an array of Democratic Party functionaries either working for the Party itself, an elected official of the party, or someone at the top of a Democratic Party - associated NGO. Far from a representation of community, this is the usual suspects in a PR push from party formations. They do this for all kinds of things.
  
  It is like this is your first time learning about journalism and PR.
  
  I think you are likely a shill for Donald Trump. I don't assume it's directly, as in I don't assume you are being paid by the GOP or a super PAC, but wouldn't be surprised if someone was paying you.
  
  Ahahahahahaha
  
  Hard to say.
  
  Then by definition I am not a shill.
  
  That you care about the genocide. I think you are using it as a wedge to try to divide and mute the Democrat vote.
  
  I work against the genocide and have for over a year, doing organizing work. Folks like yourself have been excysing and normalizing genocide because your team is doing it.
  
  So, wrong on all counts. Damn, did you know that words mean things and pulling things out of your as isn't knowledge?
  
  Not at all. That was the first thing I addressed: if Harris loses it will be so much worse in Gaza and elsewhere.
  
  You did literally diwnplay the genocide, trying to say it is just one issue among many and that I'm being silly to make such a big deal out of it.
  
  Begone, liar for genocide.
  
  telling me that you actually really believe it would mean you have basically no grasp on reality. You can't tell the difference between your imagination and what's real, allegedly.
  
  I could very well be wrong about you, but I was led there by the evidence of your comments. Don't want to be thought of as a shill, then don't act like one.
  
  [Responses to links]
  
  It is like this is your first time learning about journalism and PR.
  
  Eh. I don't usually involve myself with threads like this, so I am indeed much less experienced arguing them and finding good sources. It's certainly not my job. Anyway, this was in response to you saying that the Palestinians 'generally' disregard Biden/Harris, I think that is still questionable. And even if the majority do, way over half the US is failing to vote for their own interests (because non-voting counts) so that unfortunately would not be too surprising.
  
  Ahahahahahaha
  
  Nice comeback.
  
  Hard to say.
  
  Then by definition I am not a shill.
  
  You think my inability to know what you Really believe (as opposed to what you write) makes you not a shill? Sorry, I'm not able to follow that logic.
  
  I work against the genocide and have for over a year, doing organizing work. Folks like yourself have been excysing and normalizing genocide because your team is doing it.
  
  My team is not great on this count, but the other team (and yes there are only two this election) is so much worse that's it's not even funny.
  
  Trying to convince people to not vote for the only candidate that has a very slight chance of not supporting Israel as much really bothers me. It's not ideal, but there is no better example I've seen of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
  
  Begone, liar for genocide.
  
  Same.
  
  It's literally the worst crime in the world.
  
  Davidgro out here trying to minimize the literal worst crime in the world for political reasons.
  
  I agree. Genocide is the worst crime in the world.
  
  Which is why I voted for Kamala Harris, to help keep Donald Trump from winning.
  
  Do you disagree with my choice? If so, how would you vote in the US presidential election of 2024 to minimize the genocide in Gaza?
  
  Genocide is currently happening with the full support and speed of the US government.
  
  Without resorting to platitudes, or general statements, what specific actions do you think Biden is taking to limit things?
  
  Without resorting to platitudes, or general statements, what specific actions do you think Trump will take that will worsen the already existing systemic rape, torture, and murder of the Palestinian people?
  
  There is no harm minimization for genocide.
  
  People that believe there is have forgotten all historical lessons.
  
  Please read this Nazi Era poem and consider its meaning:
  
  First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
  
  Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. The absurdity here is believing someone willing to commit genocide against others will protect whatever out group you want to protect that you believe (probably accurately) Trump will go after.
  
  The battle against fascism has already been lost. There is no reform possible from within to fix it.
  
  So all hope is lost and we should just give up and let the full direct fascist win. Got it.
  
  It is not currently such a place. I’ve yet to hear a Lemmy admin say otherwise.
  
  Edit to add: Russiagate conspiracy theorists want it to be true so they can simply dismiss voices that contradict their beliefs.
  
  I've seen cryptospam, drugspam, generic adspam on here. Why would a political astroturfspam be a conspiracy theory?
  
  It does exist. It just doesn’t currently exist here, and Russian/Chinese/Iranian bots 1) hardly exist at all and 2) so far have had virtually no effect.
  
  The reason people are seeing $evil_country bots everywhere is because our own government and our own corporate media tell us they are everywhere, not because they are everywhere. The propaganda is coming from inside the house. They’ve spent the last seven years and who knows how much money trying to convince us of. They’re trying to manufacture our consent to censorship.
  
  They tell us what opinions are $evil_dictator talking points so we know what opinions to dismiss out of hand, and to see the people & organizations that express those opinions as malevolent foreign agents, so we never listen to them again. They’re training us to do some of the censoring for them.
  
  The first step is to understand the media and propaganda.
  
  I linked upthread about this specific propaganda campaign, but since people don’t click links, I’ll copypasta myself.
  
  IT Pro: Cambridge Analytica models were exaggerated and ineffective, [UK Information Commissioner’s Office] claims
  
  Wall Street Journal: Mueller Doesn’t Find Trump Campaign Conspired With Russia
  
  Jacobin: Democrats and Mainstream Media Were the Real Kremlin Assets
  
  Washington Post: FEC fines DNC, Clinton for violating rules in funding Steele dossier
  
  Washington Post: Russian trolls on Twitter had little influence on 2016 voters
  
  Jacobin: It Turns Out Hillary Clinton, Not Russian Bots, Lost the 2016 Election
  
  Matt Taibbi: Move Over, Jayson Blair: Meet Hamilton 68, the New King of Media Fraud The Twitter Files reveal that one of the most common news sources of the Trump era was a scam, making ordinary American political conversations look like Russian spywork
  
  Jacobin: Why the Twitter Files Are in Fact a Big Deal On the Left, there’s been a temptation to dismiss the revelations about Twitter’s internal censorship system that have emerged from the so-called Twitter Files project. But that would be a mistake: the news is important and the details are alarming.
  
  MSNBC Repeats Hamilton 68 Lies 279 Times in 11 Minutes
  
  Jeff Gerth at Columbia Journalism Review on Russiagate: Editor's Note | Part one | Part two | Part three | Part four
  
  Matt Taibbi: WMD, Part II: CIA "Cooked The Intelligence" To Hide That Russia Favored Clinton, Not Trump In 2016
  
  Chris Hedges: Why Russiagate Won’t Go Away
  
  takes no effort with modern technology
- yeah, mostly CIA and Israeli bots/paid posters. all of reddit is astroturfed. All social media is controlled by the feds as well. Look into the twitter leaks to see how they do it. Mintpressnews also has great articles about feds in censorship positions in all these social media companies ranging from Facebook to TikTok (100% CIA controlled btw).
  
  Is there any evidence of these CIA/Israeli bots / paid posters?
  
  If somebody makes a pro-Israel post, maybe they just genuinely support Israel (I wouldn't say that's my view currently - I think both Israel and Hamas are wrong because both have killed civilians).
  
  Edit: your downvotes aren't evidence.
  
  Who has killed more civilians?
  
  By multiple orders of magnitude?
  
  This is like "Man, I don't like the sun and light bulbs, they're both so bright."
  
  Ideally I don't think any civilian deaths should happen, so they're both wrong. I'm not going to say Hamas is somehow better because they killed fewer people. To me that seems like saying "oh you didn't kill too many people, that's fine then". Which would be completely wrong in my view.
  
  They also don't have systemized rape and torture camps paid for with your taxes.
  
  By any quantitative value system, Hamas commits less evil than the state of Israel
  
  Comparing them is as useful as comparing the relative brightness between the sun and a lightbulb. The two sides are not comparable. One is committing genocide. Trying to gloss over that fact is propaganda trying to cover up the fact that we're paying for the weapons doing the killing.
  
  Yeah I'm not into the whole "let's excuse Hamas" thing. In my view killing civilians is bad, which is why I think both Hamas and the Israeli government are bad. Neither should kill civilians at all - not 1, not 100, not 1,000, etc.
  
  Good job responding to something I didn't say to try and discredit what I did.
  
  Don't think that goes unnoticed.
  
  I'm not excusing Hamas. The fact that you read what I did says that you are either responding in bad faith, didn't read my response very carefully, or are stupid. I'll go with the middle one to be generous.
  
  I don't excuse Hamas. I don't control Hamas, and much more importantly, I don't pay for the weapons that Hamas use.
  
  I pay, or rather my country pays, for the weapons that Israel uses to bomb apartment building, schools, and hospitals.
  
  Hamas has killed somewhere between 1000-2000 civilians in this conflict, and that is being generous because we know that a large number of causalities were from Israel enacting the Hannibal directive and intentionally killing their own to keep them from being made prisoners (If Israel gets to grab 11,400 West Bank civilians without trial or due process and call them prisoners, then Hamas gets to do the same). Furthermore, if we count anyone who was in the IDF or the IDF's military reserves as active military, then the number of civilians goes WAAAAY down. Remember that the IDF considers the trashmen, police, and hospital administrators as active combatants with Hamas affiliation. So, once again, if that is the standard that Israel is setting then it applies to all parties, including Israelis.
  
  Israel, by all best estimates, has killed somewhere between 100,000-200,000 civilians. That is between 5% - 10% of the ENTIRE POPULATION OF GAZA. In all honesty, the number is probably higher.
  
  That is completely ignoring the systemized rape and torture camps that Israel has set up, and the Israeli media discovered. Also, something that there is no evidence that Hamas has set up.
  
  Acting like those two numbers are equivalent, or pointing out that Israel is quantitatively a minimum of 2 orders of magnitude worse, or that the two sides are the same is either stupidity, or evil. Take your pick.
  
  None of this is justifying Hamas. It is pointing out how much more fantastically, cartoonishly fucking evil the Israeli government is.
  
  You should ask yourself why you view the above as justifying Hamas. You might discover something.
  
  I’m not excusing Hamas. The fact that you read what I did says that you are either responding in bad faith
  
  The fact that you seem so upset with me saying that killing civilians is bad no matter who does it implies to me that you think it's fine when some people do it. Or that it's fine as long as they don't kill too many people.
  
  You're extremely stupid.
  
  I'm upset that you want to equate ~1000 to ~150000. And it is extremely stupid to think that it won't be noticed that you think pointing out the disparity between those numbers is the same thing as defending Hamas. Why is that? You still didn't answer that. Almost like you're afraid to address that. At least have the courage of your beliefs.
  
  By the standard of 'civilians have been killed' every country ever involved in a war is equally evil, which is occipitally not true.
  
  "Killing is fine as long as your numbers aren't too high"
  
  It's just a dumb take isn't it.
  
  Edit: you'll try to say "that's not what I'm saying" but it's what you're suggesting, by saying that Hamas are somehow more moral. What I'm suggesting is that maybe they're both bad. Also, if Hamas had the same amount of weaponry that Israel has, do we really think Hamas would hold back?
  
  I think the ICJ was correct to want to bring the leaders of Israel and Hamas to trial for war crimes. I don't think it makes sense to give one side a pass, or say they're better, when both have killed many innocent people who didn't deserve death.
- There are, but not on Lemmy, because Lemmy is still much too small to bother with.
  
  Lemmy being small makes astroturfers seem like an actual minority even when they aren't. It's actually way worse here than on Reddit.
  
  Funny, good one
  
  Are you a Lemmy sock puppetry expert? Because I am.
  
  Which Lemmy admins are saying there are astro-turf/sock puppet accounts? Because I haven’t heard any.
  
  There is the occasional spammer or corpo shill, who is quickly dealt with, and that’s about it.
  
  Are you a Lemmy sock puppetry expert? Because I am.
  
  Oh wow, a real sock puppetry expert! That's so amazing, can I have your autograph to show to my children?
  
  Buddy, I admin lemmy.ml. I do know a thing or two about the Lemmyverse.
  
  Oh, that certainly explains your answers.
  
  Go ask admins of other instances then.
  
  Spoken like someone that has never been an admin of anything.
  
  There are ways to observe sock puppets solely from metadata that the admins have access to without even looking at the content of the posts.
  
  The admins are literally one of the few groups that can actually, quantitatively, state that there are few sock puppets.
- Yeah like all of these people out here telling me to vote for genociders. There's no way that real humans would think so little of Palestinian lives, right?
  
  Right?
  
  And who, of those who aren't mathematically precluded by the flawed system we are currently stuck with from having a chance at winning, can you vote for that isn't about to help Isreal with their genocide? Trump is even more favorable towards that policy than Biden is, and while Harris isn't Biden, it seems hard to imagine she'd be much worse than current administration on that issue. One of the reasons to vote for Harris is because, despite all her administration would likely do there, having her in office would almost certainly result in fewer Palestinian deaths than Trump would.
  
  Suppose you have two buttons. If you press one, it kills someone. If you press the second, it kills two people. If you don't press the first button, someone else is eagerly waiting who will press the second. Whoever has placed the buttons here, has enough power that neither the buttons nor the other person are within your personal ability to harm at the moment, and you have neither the time nor the popularity to amass enough people to change this before the other guy pushes the "kill two people" button. Your only options are to press one or press neither and allow the second be pressed. If your answer to this scenario is "I press neither button, because pressing the first kills someone, don't you care about people's lives!?", then you are not choosing morality, you are choosing selfishness, because you care more about the notion that your hands will be clean than about the net life saved if you press the button that kills fewer people. In fact, the blood is as much on your hands by inaction if you decide to reject your choice, as it would be had you killed the additional victim yourself.
  
  You know how you can trick a stupid fucking child into doing what you want by presenting them a false choice of two alternatives you're happy with? "Do you want to go to bed now or after one more show?"
  
  So what are the other choices?
  
  Just because you can't stop something doesn't mean you have to participate in it. But if you wanted to do something about it: these weapons come from this country and they have to get there in trucks traveling on roads to ports that load them on ships. And it's not like there's not a value to making genocide come with electoral consequences...
  
  Not voting is a choice. You can't not participate in politics.
  
  You can chose not to vote for a party actively committing the literal worst crime in the world.
  
  No you can't. Because we live under a system where one of them is going to be in power after the election, and every possible voter shares equal responsibility in the outcome.
  
  We either live in a democracy where all votes matter, or we live in an oligarchy where we get to choose from choices presented to us.
  
  Did you vote for Harris in the primary?
  
  Was Biden illegally the only candidate on the ballot in some States where there were other contenders in the primary that met the requirements to be on the ballot?
  
  I'm not morally responsible for things outside of my control in the same way as I'm not responsible for the sins of my father.
  
  You want to try and make an argument that shove responsibility for a genocide that you're fine with being complicit in, you're going to need more than 2 sentences.
  
  But if you wanted to do something about it: these weapons come from this country and they have to get there in trucks traveling on roads to ports that load them on ships.
  
  We are discussing voting, though. That's a bit tangential, because you can vote or not vote and still commit acts of... resistance...
  
  And it's not like there's not a value to making genocide come with electoral consequences...
  
  If you otherwise would have voted Dem against the Republicans, who are as bad or worse when it comes to the specific issue you're punishing the Dems for, you are hurting one group committing genocide by helping one who commits and wants to commit even more genocide.
  
  All under the mistaken belief that by refusing to vote for the group you would otherwise vote for, you will get them to move Left. But if the Dems lose to the VERY right wing party, if the voting shows that Americans favor more right-leaning policies, they would move to gain the votes of the people who actually voted.
  
  The reality is, refusing to vote is still a choice. As long as you are an adult who can legally vote in the US election, you are partly responsible for the results of the election. You don't get to wash your hands of it. Choosing to abstain because you don't want to partipate out of moral self-righteousness is saying your soapbox is more important than the lives affected by your choices, from the Palestinians to the Ukrainians, immigrants to LGBTQ. Nobody is more important than your ability to say "I didn't vote for a party that commit genocide."
  
  All under the mistaken belief that by refusing to vote for the group you would otherwise vote for, you will get them to move Left.
  
  Don't project your dumb shit on me
  
  The reality is, refusing to vote is still a choice.
  
  wooooooooow no shiiiiiiiiiit
  
  You mean I'm exercising agency right now? You don't saaaaaaaayyyyyyy.
  
  Choosing to abstain because you don’t want to partipate out of moral self-righteousness
  
  Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds. "Virtue signalling" you say?
  
  You're a nazi. You're giving material support to the perpetrators of a genocide. You're trash. Diminishing basic morality as a vice just like any other fucking 8chan fascist. Trash.
  
  Smirking fucking nazi invoking "the lives affected by your choices" and "washing your hands" like the worst crime in history isn't hanging behind you as you say that shit.
  
  You're fucking trash.
  
  TheDoozer@lemmy.world is not a Nazi, silly. They're a liberal, and liberals are good, dontcha know?
  
  Because morality is defined by what you believe, not your actions, so of course they're good. Actively participating in a genocide doesn't make them evil because they believe the right things.
  
  grab a stapler, open it so its flat, and staple your dads pecker to the side of his pant leg while he's standing there telling you to go to bed.. While he's screaming and getting first aid you can continue to watch tv.
  
  The difference is that there are real, material differences between the actions the candidates take. It's not a fair choice, but it isn't false either, and choosing not to go along won't give you a better outcome
  
  The difference is that there are real, material differences between the actions the candidates take.
  
  NO THERE FUCKING AREN'T. And if you believe that, you completely went to brunch when Trump left office and don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
  
  I can say the same about you. Putting "no there aren't" in all caps and adding profanity and personal insults doesn't make it more true, but it does make people remember that a block button exists for the kind of person that uses things as disgusting as a genocide as an opportunity to troll. I do not think that anyone who both has paid any attention to the past 8 years and is arguing in good faith can possibly support that conclusion.
  
  Deeply maddening watching people who materially support genocide complaining about people "playing the genocide card"
  
  And you think there's a difference between you and the fascist party?
  
  You're literally simping FOR THE WORST CRIME IT IS POSSIBLE TO COMMIT!
  
  It's not a card.
  
  It's obvious you would use the same style arguments as a Democrat in the 1880s.
  
  I am not simping for anything. I firmly believe Trump would be far worse for genocide (he has literally said that he thinks Israel should "finish the job" with regards to the war in Palestine, and when he was president, he was incredibly supportive of Netanyahu, and proposed a "peace plan" that was actually just carving up Palestine into a bunch of little pieces that could never constitute a viable state and giving Israel control of the paths between, effectively wishing to formalize Israeli control of the entire region) The only reason anyone can suggest he wouldnt be without getting laughed out of the room is that he happened to get lucky enough to not have the current escalation of Israel's genocide happen during the time when he was president. From my point of view, any action that brings him closer to getting back in power is asking to throw gasoline on a genocidal fire, and saying that one's motive for doing so is being against genocide is sickening in the kind of way that it would be if you saw someone suggest that Hitler should have won ww2 because of all the evil stuff that Winston Churchill was responsible for. Consider for a second what people making your argument look like, from that lens.
  
  Fucking press the goddamn enter button. Do you have any idea how painful quoting you to respond on a phone is?
  
  proposed a "peace plan" that was actually just carving up Palestine into a bunch of little pieces that could never constitute a viable state and giving Israel control of the paths between, effectively wishing to formalize Israeli control of the entire region)
  
  What do you think the situation is now?
  
  From my point of view, any action that brings him closer to getting back in power is asking to throw gasoline on a genocidal fire,
  
  What practical changes do you think that Trump will make that could speed things up?
  
  What actions do you actually think Biden is taking to slow things down.
  
  From my point of view, any action that brings him closer to getting back in power is asking to throw gasoline on a genocidal fire, and saying that one's motive for doing so is being against genocide is sickening in the kind of way that it would be if you saw someone suggest that Hitler should have won ww2 because of all the evil stuff that Winston Churchill was responsible for. Consider for a second what people making your argument look like, from that lens.
  
  This is the wrong analogy.
  
  The analogy that you are arguing is to vote for Gregor Strasser as an moderating influence on the Nazi Party.
  
  Consider for a second what people like making your argument look like, from that lens.
  
  I'm impressed you are aware of the intentional genocide of 4 million Indians caused by Churchill. I am not impressed by your apparent lack of awareness of other lessons from that same time period.
  
  I'm also not impressed by people that believe they can protect their outgroup by backing someone happy committing genocide.
  
  The Democratic party has long signaled it would be happy to throw out the T to protect the LGB. Those that think it would stop there need to re-read this poem:
  
  First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
  
  There is quite a lot Trump could do to speed things up. He could, for one thing, send American troops to assist Israel on the ground; I have concern that he might do such, because Israel has increasingly been dragging other countries in the region into this, notably Iran, and Trump pursued a policy towards that country during his term in office that very well could have led to war had things gone slightly worse. Given his support for Netanyahu, whose government has itself been tempting fate of late by engaging in back and forth missile strikes, and his disregard for the consequences of attacks against Iran, I have serious fears that he might give Israel a green light to pursue a full scale war with that country, by promising to commit US forces in the event of such a thing.
  
  At a lesser degree, he also could simply increase US military aid to Israel beyond the current level, and end what efforts (insufficient by a country mile but still better than their absence would be) have been made by the US to convince Israel to limit its actions, such as the recent threats to cut some of its military aid if Israel does not allow more food aid across Gaza. He appears to actively dislike Muslim populations, as seen by his efforts as president to ban travelers from Muslim majority countries, so it strikes me as rather unlikely that he would do anything, even something basic like that, to assist a Muslim majority country like Palestine against the wishes of one of his allies.
  
  Also for the record, I do not think that I am simply protecting "my outgroup" in opposing him. I am of the view that he, (or more importantly, the fascistic movement that he has grown around him, of which Trump himself is the leader, but which may persist even after he is gone), presents an existential threat not just to myself and those whom I know, but to you, to everyone in the country, to everyone in the numerous countries who he seems actively hostile to (including but not limited to Palestine as I have said, and Iran, as I was saying earlier, and Ukraine), and to a lesser extent, to the future of every single person on this planet. That may sound a bit extreme, but we are talking about making a narcissistic old man showing signs of mental decline and known for lashing out at things that anger him the commander in chief of a nuclear armed state, we are talking about putting someone who does not seem to believe in climate change at the head of the world's largest economy at a time when getting carbon emissions down is critical to keeping the planet livable in the future, and we are talking about putting the country with the world's largest military budget in the hands of a person who idealizes fascists, has attempted to maintain power despite a previous election loss, and has a following composed to a large degree of racists and religious zealots.
  
  I am not saying that I worry about what Trump will do as hyperbole, or to justify what the current dem administration has done in arming Israel while it bombs and shoots civilians, I am saying that I worry about what he will do, because thinking about it quite literally keeps me up at night and has quite literally given me actual panic attacks within recent weeks upon seeing the prevalence of his support in polls and among my coworkers.
  
  I do not think the democrats are actually "willing to throw out trans people" the way you seem to suggest at the end there. I dont even think that they are happy with what their "ally" in Israel is doing. I think they are a fragile "everything that isn't the R's" alliance of much of the right and what passes for the left here that includes both LGBT people and their allies, and conservative types who never wanted them in their party in the first place but arent quite extreme enough for the republicans, who are sort of mashed together in a broad coalition that as a result has no real collectively agreed upon ideology and doesn't have the guts to rock the boat by withholding military aid to a country traditionally seen as an ally, even though that country really deserves to have that aid cut right now. Their vague compromises of positions do not really align with mine on many if not most things, especially economic and foreign policy, and I resent that they stay just barely to the left of the republicans to get the support of the left while offering it little but scraps. I do not like them, except maybe a few on the leftmost edge. But we (or at least I, I guess I've just assumed you were probably also American if youre invested in our election but I guess with our international influence that doesnt actually mean much) live under a system that guarantees that if they dont win, Trump will, and when he and his cult look so startlingly similar to the fascists of history, just before they succeed in subverting the systems that constrained them, not voting for them is a luxury that I do not think that I or any of us in this country really have.
  
  And who, of those who aren't mathematically precluded by the flawed system we are currently stuck with from having a chance at winning, can you vote for that isn't about to help Isreal with their genocide?
  
  When you are offered two candidates and both support genocide, including one being an active part of the current one, you can say, "no, never again means never again" and work against both rather than pretending you now have to support genocide.
  
  Trump is even more favorable towards that policy than Biden is, and while Harris isn't Biden, it seems hard to imagine she'd be much worse than current administration on that issue.
  
  You should believe your lying eyes and see that Biden has gotten your consent for genocide, with Harris helping. The genocide has only ramped up as the election draws close.
  
  There is not worse that can be done. It is full, unequivocal support for basically anything Israel wants for genocide including the weapons and supplies on which they depend to carry out this genocide. If anything, Dems are more effective at this kind of thing, as they secure European support and offer better stipulations to the Israelis around when to escalate and when to play it a little cooler.
  
  Though your electoral logic is seld-defeating anyways. Your consent for the lesser evil keeps you politically anemic and unable to have solidarity with those who need it. You make yourself subservient.
  
  One of the reasons to vote for Harris is because, despite all her administration would likely do there, having her in office would almost certainly result in fewer Palestinian deaths than Trump would.
  
  This is a fantasy.
  
  Suppose you have two buttons.
  
  I am not interested in childish metaphors.
  
  If you reject the lesser evil, and all options possible to you are evil, then you by inaction support the greater evil, which, by definition, makes you evil. "Working against both", when evil is inherit in all means by which you might do that work, is a fantasy you tell yourself to justify sabotaging efforts to limit the damage by practicing and encouraging what effective amounts to surrendering one of the few levers of power that you have any limited ability to pull.
  
  I already addressed your lesser evilism logic. If you want to continue this conversation you will need to respond to what I say and not dither and repeat yourself.
  
  I am repeating myself because the notion that the least evil option available is the best one, that the lesser evil if you will is preferable to the more evil one, is axiomatic, that is, it's a basis one takes when constructing a moral framework, not a consequence of one that can be reasoned through. If you do not agree with someone's moral axioms, then there is simply nothing to debate, you and they are simply operating under mutually incompatible definitions for what is and is not the right thing to do. Restating that in a slightly different way is a way of testing if the axioms we are operating under are truly different, in which case further argument is pointless, or if we merely misunderstood eachother the first time around.
  
  Your problem is one of timeframes.
  
  You might, though I personally don't think so, be right on a single election time frame.
  
  They're definitely right on a timescale spanning multiple elections.
  
  Right now, you are forced to vote for someone committing genocide because people kept choosing the lesser evil in previous general elections, and the party cheats in the primaries.
  
  The situation you're in, right now, disproves your argument.
  
  I await your response to what I said. I'm not interesting in watching you masturbate.
  
  You came to the wrong thread then
  
  You live in a fantasy and sabotage real effort to limit damage in the real world. You are responsible because you can’t swallow your pride. How incredibly selfish of you.
  
  “You are responsible because you can’t swallow your pride. How incredibly selfish of you.”
  
  you guys need to be a bit subtle in the gaslighting effort. where was all this anger for her supporting innocent kids being burned alive. go shout at her rallies to stop being a genocidal two faced hack. else you all are trolls trivialising an ongoing genocide and enabling future ones.
  
  The effort to limit damage in the real world like advocating for a genocider?
  
  Also, please do your best to act in good faith and not make things up about people.
  
  Right now, you have 2 real choices. Every other choice is an effort to change your future choices. You want to push the democrats more left, and so do most of their voters… However your choices right now to effect the genocide are to either vote for someone that’s supporting the genocide or someone who cheers on and suggests more genocide faster. By abstaining, you’re putting yourself in the middle of the choice, which is potentially a worse outcome for Palestinians than making an upsetting choice.
  
  That is the reality of the situation. By refusing to make an unpalatable choice, you’re helping to make a far worse outcome reality.
  
  Right now, you have 2 real choices. Every other choice is an effort to change your future choices.
  
  Does one of those choices include voting for PSL? Because that's what I'm doing. Or is that not "real"? What if I write it in extra dark ink?
  
  You want to push the democrats more left
  
  Remember, I said no more fibbing. Were you never taught that lying was wrong?
  
  and so do most of their voters…
  
  Maybe that believe that in their hearts but they do the exact opposite of what they should be doing to achieve that all the time.
  
  However your choices right now to effect the genocide are to either vote for someone that’s supporting the genocide or someone who cheers on and suggests more genocide faster.
  
  Hmm PSL isn't doing either sorry buddy looks like I managed to reach through the ether and do something other than vote for genociders.
  
  PS the candidate you are defending is currently an active part of the genocide.
  
  By abstaining
  
  Remember, no fibbing!
  
  you’re putting yourself in the middle of the choice, which is potentially a worse outcome for Palestinians than making an upsetting choice.
  
  Actually I am simply not voting for either genocidal candidate and spend my time doing meaningful work against it. And sometimes reminding liberals that they should not support genocide, since apparently they need to be told that.
  
  That is the reality of the situation. By refusing to make an unpalatable choice, you’re helping to make a far worse outcome reality.
  
  There is no worse outcome than genocide.
  
  I genuinely have a death wish for all of you white supremacist motherfuckers that keep trying to frame being against genocide as a selfish cause. A lot of people are coming out of the closet as fucking nazis right now.
  
  Tbf as a citizen, youll still have to live with the comsequences of your inaction, and so will the generations after you. So it depends how republican you are I guess :) do you abdicate social responsibility?
  
  If both of them support genocide, but one also supports banning abortion, the ethical choice is to vote for the one that won’t ban abortion.
  
  If you’d rather wait until a candidate arrives that agrees with you on every issue, that’s fine, but you’ll probably never vote, and in the meantime, by not voting, supporting whichever candidate you like less.
  
  While there’s no honor in the presidency, there is honor in doing what you can to reduce harm, and if you can’t reduce harm to the Palestinians, at least you can reduce harm to American women and girls.
  
  Never again means never again for anyone.
  
  Trying to lesser evil genocide makes you complicit.
  
  Repeat after me: "I am against genocide and will not vote for genociders".
  
  So you hate women and don’t want them to have bodily autonomy? You see how that sounds? It’s the same logic as your argument.
  
  In what way is that the same logic as my argument? I am not voting for misogynists.
  
  The elected leaders of Palestine don't care about Palestinian lives, I'm not sure why you'd be surprised that others don't.
  
  The comprador government of the West Bank is just that, compradors. You should care about the people who live under a comprador government, yes.
  
  The government of Gaza is led by those taking direct militant action against their genocidal settler colonial invaders. They fight and die alongside their people.
  
  I never said I didn't care. In fact I care very much.
  
  Hamas is a terrorist organization. Lets not pretend that they're some force of good.
  
  I never said I didn't care. In fact I care very much.
  
  From Merriam Webster: "one" example: "you never know what will happen"
  
  Hamas is a terrorist organization. Lets not pretend that they're some force of good.
  
  Hamas is a Palestinian resistance organization against apartheid settlers that routinely use and used extensive terrorism. While the Zionist entity bombs residential blocks, schools, and refugee camps, the axis of resistance, which includes Hamas, focus on military targets and building if leverage for their own liberation.
  
  The term "terrorist" is used selectively and in a racist way. When the Western Imperialists like a resistance organization they call them freedom fighters. When they dislike them, they get called terrorists. The ANC, including Mandela, were similarly labelled terrorists in their own fight against apartheid. Similarly, the Americans supported apartheid in South Africa and its mainstream political adherents gladly adopted their white supremacist framing.
  
  In conclusion, there are two terrorist groups fighting, and the civilians of both groups are suffering for it.
  
  Sorry you're afraid to engage with what I said. You'll get the courage of your convictions someday. Might want to stop sharing your onions until then, sport.
  
  Pray tell, which elected leaders?
  
  They elected Hamas. Granted it was in 2005. I suppose I should have said the dictator leaders.
  
  They're both not elected anymore and a resistance organization. They were elected on a platform of not-exclusively-peaceful resistance (peaceful resistance inside Palestine and especially inside Gaza was render impossible by Israel by 2006-2007, so their resistance activities are now exclusively violent). Resistance activities are supported by the population of Gaza, even if many don't support Hamas specifically. If your point is that October 7th implies they don't care about Gazan lives, that's patently false. If that's not what you meant, then explain what you mean by "they don't care about Gazan lives".
- Fucking brain broken if you think the bots are on the side opposite entrenched power

518 comments