Libs can’t help constantly telling on themselves by trivializing genocide to a mere personal preference.
“Take this gun Timmy, now do you want to murder these 10 people or those 11 people?”
“But I don’t want to murder anyone.”
“Fine then. If you’re going to be a child about this, I’ll murder the 11 people myself.”
Suddenly makes it a lot more clear that Timmy is the reasonable and sane one when you don’t trivialize mass murder into dinner preferences. But then, that would require seeing Palestinians as human beings.
You’re behaving as if Kamala would have fundamentally changed federal laws protecting free speech the way the Trump admin has. She wouldn’t have, nor would she have enacted Project 2025 in the way the Trump admin has.
Bottom line: not voting for Kamala was shooting yourself in the foot if you actually give a shit about protesting against Israel.
In that case, would you rather have a candidate that does nothing but pay lip service to your cause, or a candidate that actively donates your resources to destroy it?
Tough choice, I’m sure.
I do not feel bad about facetiously trivialising an argument about death and bloodshed into one about dinner in order to highlight the ridiculousness of the logic used.
In that case, would you rather have a candidate that does nothing but pay lip service to your cause, or a candidate that actively donates your resources to destroy it?
Huh? Are we pretending that we live in a fantasy world where the Biden administration didn’t bypass congress to send Israel more weapons? Because here in reality, both candidates objectively fell into the second category.
I do not feel bad about facetiously trivialising an argument about death and bloodshed into one about dinner in order to highlight the ridiculousness of the logic used.
The logic only looks ridiculous if you trivialize the stakes. You can make any logic look “ridiculous” if you compare it to something completely different.
No, the logic looks ridiculous when you try to bOtH sIdEs the two parties. Newsflash, there is more going on in the world besides the Israel Palestine conflict. Do you think Harris would have ended USAid? What about the Iran war?
The funding cuts to USAid alone are estimated to have lead to ~5-10x more deaths than anything in Gaza. Where is your outrage about that? Stop your bullshit.
I don’t agree with this oversimplified, utilitarian framework you’re using. “Lesser Evilism” is a specific philosophical and political framework, and one that is very naive and unexamined.
If a party is willing to screw over Palestinians today, then who will they screw over tomorrow? Trans people? Immigrants? Will you apply the same “lesser evilist” logic as minority groups get dropped off, one-by-one? This is exactly how the ruling class divides and conquers, and so long as that’s the state of things, no one’s rights could ever be secure.
Standing up for the lives of Palestinians is not only about Palestinians, it is about solidarity. Solidarity is a strategic decision to establish that no one will be abandoned and sold out, that we will not abandon the little guy just for the sake of securing an election. It is only through a foundation of solidarity that we will be able to build a successful movement that’s worth fighting for. To abandon Palestine would also mean abandoning those who are trying to build such a movement, causing it to fracture and strengthening the ruling class.
You can blame me for the ruling class’s actions all you want. If the only means I have to stop something they’re doing is to fracture the working class and side with a genocidiare, then I simply don’t consider that an option that’s available to me, and from my perspective, I don’t have any means to stop it. Except by working towards a future where ordinary people can unite with solidarity and take power back.
Suppose I had a suitcase nuke, and I could stop Trump from cutting USAID by setting it off in the middle of DC. Suppose that, when it’s all said and done, I’d have saved more lives than I’d taken. If I say that setting off a nuclear weapon in a city full of innocent people is simply not on the table for me, that I refuse to even consider it, does that make me a bad person, a reprehensible monster? Am I responsible for all the people who died from Trump’s cuts, because I didn’t kill a city full of innocents to stop it? Surely not. But then, if I refuse to support the destruction of Gaza in an effort to stop the cuts, how is that any different?
Lesser Evilism is a moral framework and a political strategy, but it is not sound or defensible when it’s identified as such and examined. But it generally isn’t, and is instead presented as “common sense” or “just rational.” Really, it’s just a vacuous rhetorical device used to justify tribalism.
There’s a stark difference in your example and the reality from November 2022. In that world the only realistic choice was between voting for Harris or Trump as president, and given those two choices, there was an absolutely objectively better choice. That is unless you have the mindset of “just tear it all down”, in which case, you reek of hypocrisy. All the harm you think Harris would have done, Trump has done and so so much more.
All that being said, I sure hope to %insert_deity_here% that Harris doesn’t run again in 2028, or if she does, she gets destroyed in the primaries.
there was an absolutely objectively better choice.
That doesn’t matter. Like I said, I do not believe in Lesser Evilism. Lesser Evilism tells us to betray our allies if we see an advantage and I don’t believe that’s a viable long-term strategy.
That is unless you have the mindset of “just tear it all down”, in which case, you reek of hypocrisy
Neither part of that is accurate. There is nothing hypocritical in opposing the state and opposing the state doesn’t necessarily mean “just tear it all down.”
Policy is determined by the balance of power between classes. Who’s in charge is a secondary concern. When FDR implemented the New Deal, that could only get past the political establishment in Congress (and was only something he considered doing, as he was also from the political establishment) because the economic crisis of the Depression had weakened them, and there was a fear of collective action, even revolution. That is why the New Deal policies continued regardless of which party was in power.
Conditions shifted after things like the AFL/CIO purging communists, which weakened the power of organized labor. At that point, the ruling class was able to start destroying them through anti-union and neoliberal policies, because they couldn’t fight back. Although Reagan is the face of that, the shift began under Carter and would be upheld under Clinton. It was the material conditions and the relative strength and organization of the classes which determined both the bipartisan creation of the New Deal and the bipartisan destruction of it.
When The Black Panthers started giving free breakfasts to kids, the government did everything they could to stop it, destroying the food, spreading misinformation that it was poisoned, etc. But eventually they realized that as long as children were going hungry, it wasn’t going to be possible to convince or propagandize families to keep them away from free food. So the government instead stopped the Panthers by implementing its own free breakfast program. Decades later, with the Panthers no longer around, the government’s free breakfasts have disappeared. Once again, it’s not a question of who held office and what they wanted, but of the relative power and organization of the classes.
None of those examples required “tearing it all down,” although in some cases the threat of that existed. It would be naive to pin all one’s hopes on some great revolution, but that doesn’t mean that there’s nothing to be gained from strengthening ourselves and shifting the balance of power, while working towards a future where that threat is a little less inconceivable.
I am not against supporting cooperative elements within the state, but that is always secondary to class conflict. I’m not going to allow my positions to be defined along the lines of electoral politics, unless doing so is not toxic to the non-electoral approach. Therefore, it’s not just about who’s the lesser evil, but about whether endorsing someone is going to disrupt efforts at building solidarity.
“Do you want to go to the pizza place or the burger restaurant, Timmy?”
“I don’t want either! I want macaroni and cheese!”
“Macaroni and cheese is not an option, Timmy, now pick from what’s available or I’m deciding for you.”
“No! I’m not picking!”
“Okay, we’re going to the pizza place then.”
(1 hour later) “This pizza sucks! It’s all the burger place’s fault for not appealing to me hard enough by serving macaroni and cheese.”
Libs can’t help constantly telling on themselves by trivializing genocide to a mere personal preference.
“Take this gun Timmy, now do you want to murder these 10 people or those 11 people?”
“But I don’t want to murder anyone.”
“Fine then. If you’re going to be a child about this, I’ll murder the 11 people myself.”
Suddenly makes it a lot more clear that Timmy is the reasonable and sane one when you don’t trivialize mass murder into dinner preferences. But then, that would require seeing Palestinians as human beings.
You’re behaving as if Kamala would have fundamentally changed federal laws protecting free speech the way the Trump admin has. She wouldn’t have, nor would she have enacted Project 2025 in the way the Trump admin has.
Bottom line: not voting for Kamala was shooting yourself in the foot if you actually give a shit about protesting against Israel.
ShitLibs having actual morals instead of just vibes challenge: impossible
Oh, you’re talking about Palestine.
In that case, would you rather have a candidate that does nothing but pay lip service to your cause, or a candidate that actively donates your resources to destroy it?
Tough choice, I’m sure.
I do not feel bad about facetiously trivialising an argument about death and bloodshed into one about dinner in order to highlight the ridiculousness of the logic used.
Huh? Are we pretending that we live in a fantasy world where the Biden administration didn’t bypass congress to send Israel more weapons? Because here in reality, both candidates objectively fell into the second category.
The logic only looks ridiculous if you trivialize the stakes. You can make any logic look “ridiculous” if you compare it to something completely different.
No, the logic looks ridiculous when you try to bOtH sIdEs the two parties. Newsflash, there is more going on in the world besides the Israel Palestine conflict. Do you think Harris would have ended USAid? What about the Iran war?
The funding cuts to USAid alone are estimated to have lead to ~5-10x more deaths than anything in Gaza. Where is your outrage about that? Stop your bullshit.
I don’t agree with this oversimplified, utilitarian framework you’re using. “Lesser Evilism” is a specific philosophical and political framework, and one that is very naive and unexamined.
If a party is willing to screw over Palestinians today, then who will they screw over tomorrow? Trans people? Immigrants? Will you apply the same “lesser evilist” logic as minority groups get dropped off, one-by-one? This is exactly how the ruling class divides and conquers, and so long as that’s the state of things, no one’s rights could ever be secure.
Standing up for the lives of Palestinians is not only about Palestinians, it is about solidarity. Solidarity is a strategic decision to establish that no one will be abandoned and sold out, that we will not abandon the little guy just for the sake of securing an election. It is only through a foundation of solidarity that we will be able to build a successful movement that’s worth fighting for. To abandon Palestine would also mean abandoning those who are trying to build such a movement, causing it to fracture and strengthening the ruling class.
You can blame me for the ruling class’s actions all you want. If the only means I have to stop something they’re doing is to fracture the working class and side with a genocidiare, then I simply don’t consider that an option that’s available to me, and from my perspective, I don’t have any means to stop it. Except by working towards a future where ordinary people can unite with solidarity and take power back.
Suppose I had a suitcase nuke, and I could stop Trump from cutting USAID by setting it off in the middle of DC. Suppose that, when it’s all said and done, I’d have saved more lives than I’d taken. If I say that setting off a nuclear weapon in a city full of innocent people is simply not on the table for me, that I refuse to even consider it, does that make me a bad person, a reprehensible monster? Am I responsible for all the people who died from Trump’s cuts, because I didn’t kill a city full of innocents to stop it? Surely not. But then, if I refuse to support the destruction of Gaza in an effort to stop the cuts, how is that any different?
Lesser Evilism is a moral framework and a political strategy, but it is not sound or defensible when it’s identified as such and examined. But it generally isn’t, and is instead presented as “common sense” or “just rational.” Really, it’s just a vacuous rhetorical device used to justify tribalism.
There’s a stark difference in your example and the reality from November 2022. In that world the only realistic choice was between voting for Harris or Trump as president, and given those two choices, there was an absolutely objectively better choice. That is unless you have the mindset of “just tear it all down”, in which case, you reek of hypocrisy. All the harm you think Harris would have done, Trump has done and so so much more.
All that being said, I sure hope to %insert_deity_here% that Harris doesn’t run again in 2028, or if she does, she gets destroyed in the primaries.
That doesn’t matter. Like I said, I do not believe in Lesser Evilism. Lesser Evilism tells us to betray our allies if we see an advantage and I don’t believe that’s a viable long-term strategy.
Neither part of that is accurate. There is nothing hypocritical in opposing the state and opposing the state doesn’t necessarily mean “just tear it all down.”
Policy is determined by the balance of power between classes. Who’s in charge is a secondary concern. When FDR implemented the New Deal, that could only get past the political establishment in Congress (and was only something he considered doing, as he was also from the political establishment) because the economic crisis of the Depression had weakened them, and there was a fear of collective action, even revolution. That is why the New Deal policies continued regardless of which party was in power.
Conditions shifted after things like the AFL/CIO purging communists, which weakened the power of organized labor. At that point, the ruling class was able to start destroying them through anti-union and neoliberal policies, because they couldn’t fight back. Although Reagan is the face of that, the shift began under Carter and would be upheld under Clinton. It was the material conditions and the relative strength and organization of the classes which determined both the bipartisan creation of the New Deal and the bipartisan destruction of it.
When The Black Panthers started giving free breakfasts to kids, the government did everything they could to stop it, destroying the food, spreading misinformation that it was poisoned, etc. But eventually they realized that as long as children were going hungry, it wasn’t going to be possible to convince or propagandize families to keep them away from free food. So the government instead stopped the Panthers by implementing its own free breakfast program. Decades later, with the Panthers no longer around, the government’s free breakfasts have disappeared. Once again, it’s not a question of who held office and what they wanted, but of the relative power and organization of the classes.
None of those examples required “tearing it all down,” although in some cases the threat of that existed. It would be naive to pin all one’s hopes on some great revolution, but that doesn’t mean that there’s nothing to be gained from strengthening ourselves and shifting the balance of power, while working towards a future where that threat is a little less inconceivable.
I am not against supporting cooperative elements within the state, but that is always secondary to class conflict. I’m not going to allow my positions to be defined along the lines of electoral politics, unless doing so is not toxic to the non-electoral approach. Therefore, it’s not just about who’s the lesser evil, but about whether endorsing someone is going to disrupt efforts at building solidarity.