this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
146 points (98.0% liked)
World News
32507 readers
1277 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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?
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.
At what level of genocide do you say "I can't support this"?
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.
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.