this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
146 points (98.0% liked)

World News

32507 readers
779 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (27 children)

Trump absolutely will be worse, but yeah, that doesn't absolve Genocide-Joe of funding genocide

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (26 children)

No doubt he would be on a lot of topics. My comment was just mocking all those people that kept insisting people who cared about Palestine (primarily Arab-Americans) should vote for Harris simply because Trump is worse. It was such a hollow and shitty endorsement given all the escalations Israel has gotten away with the past 14 months.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (25 children)

Voting is not an endorsement. We had the choice between a candidate that was bad for Palestine, and a candidate that was even worse for Palestine.

It's a pretty simple argument that someone who cares about Palestine should vote for the less bad candidate.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We had two candidates that were both pro-Palestinian genocide.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They were not equally pro genocide. Kamala said that she wanted a cease fire, and Trump wanted Israel to finish the job. These are not the same, one is clearly better.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

She wanted a ceasefire, but keep sending them arms unconditionally.

Regardless, lite genocide is still genocide.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So might as well let the worst one win then? If there's going to be a genocide, might as well be a good one? Gross.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

No matter who won, Palestinians are being genocide. There is no "worse one" here. Genocide is genocide.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Right, so a genocide that kills 1 million Palestinians is the same as a genocide that kills 2 million Palestinians, for example?

Just because two things share a characteristic, doesn't make them the same. One genocide can absolutely be worse than another. You are completely lacking nuance and reason.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Tell the families who are dead and asked to vote FOR genocide that they lack nuance when they refuse to support either of the people who want their people genocide.

At what point does genocide cross the line for you?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What does it mean to cross the line? Does it mean that you just give up and stop trying to use your vote to push the world toward the better future than the worse future? Then never.

If I can choose between a better world or a worse world, I'll choose the better world every time. I won't sit on my hands while the fascists choose the worst one, and it's despicable that you did.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

At what level of genocide do you say "I can't support this"?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I never claimed to support genocide. I claimed that it is better to vote for the better option of the two. You are moving the goal posts.

I'll make it simple for you by reframing my position, as a simple syllogism so maybe you'll stay on topic:

Premise one: Kamala's policy on Palestine (and pretty much every other policy) was better than Trump's.

You've asserted without evidence that Kamala's policy is the same as Trump's. That is factually false. They may be close, but they are not the same. Even if Kamala lied about her policy and continued Biden's policy of providing unconditional resourcing, it is still better than Trump's policy of providing even more unconditional resources.

Premise two: If one is presented with only two options, and one of those options will be selected no matter what, one should select the better option.

You have not provided any refutation to this point whatsoever.

Premise three: No one other than Kamala or Trump could have won the election

You've also not refuted this in any way

Conclusion: Because Kamala's policies made her the better option of the two options, and one of them would certainly become president, one should have voted for Kamala.

Unless you are able to refute the accuracy of the premises or show that the conclusion does not follow from those premises, you have nothing to stand on.

Whether or not you can "support this" is irrelevant. Whether or not it "crosses a line" is irrelevant. Voting is not endorsement, nor is it support of a candidate or all their positions. It is one of your few ways to peacefully influence the direction of the country. You want a viable party that is anti-genocide? Me too. That option didn't exist. Go run for office. Go make that party. In the meantime, stop rolling over for the fascists and letting them get their way.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

I never claimed to support genocide. I claimed that it is better to vote for the better option of the two

I voted for Harris too.

However, none of that discounts that she was pro-genocide, just like Trump. And it's hardly reasonable to ask families of people your genociding to vote for you.

load more comments (23 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)