-77
Is it too much to ask to demand an end to genocide? (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
95 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

After a day and several replies from people. I've come to the conclusion that people here are ok with their party and leaders supporting genocide and they attack the questioners (instead of their party leaders) who criticize those who support genocide. Critical thinking is scarce here.

I'm shameful of humanity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago* (4 children)

tldr: you only want to understand things you already understand.

"I'm really clever and have thought through my decision really carefully so anyone who disagrees with that decision must be really ignorant because for some reason it's literally impossible for rational people to just disagree about something and discuss it."

your misplaced confidence in assumptions and ignorance is literally what I'm telling you to throw away.

as I stated at least three times in the previous comment, you can disagree with whatever you want.

voting is democratic, you get to vote for whoever you want to.

in the specific situation we're talking about, voting against Harris is a selfish and short-sighted toddler terror tactic as espoused by you and others in this thread.

I answered all of your questions fully and with context.

which one do you need more clarification on?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    which one do you need more clarification on?

    Same ones as before.

    Why is denying Kamala our vote a "toddler terror tactic" and not just the normal democratic process of exchanging votes for policy changes?

    In what way do we democratically influence parties to shift policy other than ransoming our votes?

    If we vote anyway, then ask them to change policy, what incentive do they have to do so, since they already have our vote?

    If we vote anyway, how do they know we've not voted because we agree with their genocide and so consider more arms?

    (And, not a question, but a clarification - the ICC have a case against Israel for genocide. Are you seriously suggesting that an active arrest warrant for genocide doesn't change anything about this situation to any meaningful extent?)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    "Same ones as before."

    proceeds to ask different questions.

    "Why is denying Kamala our vote a "toddler terror tactic" and not just the normal democratic process of exchanging votes for policy changes?"

    because according to your beliefs, you have no reason not to vote for Harris except that you want people to pay attention to you.

    If you are against genocide, not voting for Harris will not achieve what you want.

    you are still not understanding that the US does not have the power over the Palestinian genocide you believe they have.

    you voting for Harris does not mean Netanyahu or the IDF stops bombing Palestine, especially with her her primary opponent so supportive of Israel.

    again, as I mentioned earlier you are shooting yourself in the foot with this "strategic tantrum".

    "In what way do we democratically influence parties to shift policy other than ransoming our votes?"

    protests. letters to senators and other politicians. political parties and go talk to people in the real world.

    actions make a difference.

    "If we vote anyway, then ask them to change policy, what incentive do they have to do so, since they already have our vote?"

    because people matter. and politicians are often influenced by popular actions.

    Even if they don't listen, would you rather have Harris in the White House or Trump?

    again, you think that all of these issues are the same issue.

    they are not at all.

    The presidential election is completely separate from how you feel about Palestine.

    you can protest the Palestinian genocide and vote for Harris because those are two separate events.

    vote for progressive policy and fight against the oppression of the Palestinian people.

    you assert you can only believe in everything or nothing.

    this is a false dichotomy

    "And, not a question, but a clarification - the ICC have a case against Israel for genocide. Are you seriously suggesting that an active arrest warrant for genocide doesn't change anything about this situation to any meaningful extent?)"

    this is going to shock you, but this is a question.

    also no.

    also a discrete event.

    try to unstick your mind.

    everything is connected, but not everything is the same.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    you have no reason not to vote for Harris except that you want people to pay attention to you.

    Yes. I want the Democrats to pay attention to me and change their policy. I'm asking why that is not the normal function of democracy.

    you are still not understanding that the US does not have the power over the Palestinian genocide you believe they have.

    Still at it then? This is why I gave you the paper. Me disagreeing with you about a conclusion is not equivalent to me not understanding. Whether America can influence Israel in this matter is not an established fact like the shape of the earth or 2+2=4. It's an opinion. People disagreeing with you haven't failed to understand something, they disagree.

    protests. letters to senators and other politicians. political parties and go talk to people in the real world.

    And why would politicians take any notice if we're going to vote for them anyway?

    politicians are often influenced by popular actions.

    Yes, because they think they'll lose/gain votes. But your advice has us eliminate that motive. They now can be assured of our votes no matter what policies they propose or implement.

    would you rather have Harris in the White House or Trump?

    False dichotomy. I'd rather have Harris with a stricter policy on arms sales to Israel. I believe that's achievable. That you don't is not a fact, it's an opinion, I disagree with it, I don't fail to understand it. Really, if you can't grasp the basic distinction between theories and the facts on which they're based then I don't know how we can proceed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    "I want the Democrats to pay attention to me and change their policy"

    terrorizing the civil rights of others and threats against society isn't going to give you the attention you want from who you want to pay attention.

    "i'm asking why that is not the normal function of democracy."

    because selfishness and terror threats lose trust. if you're willing to sacrifice the rights of everybody else to get what you want, your vote can't be trusted.

    "They now can be assured of our votes no matter what policies they propose or implement."

    nobody can be assured of you vote because selfishness and terror threats are inherently untrustworthy. If you're willing to sacrifice the rights of everybody else to get what you want, your vote can't be trusted.

    "False dichotomy"

    I used this word correctly, you copied it and used it for an incorrect example.

    Harris or Trump The 2024 US presidential election is not a false dichotomy.

    One of those two is going to win the presidential election.

    that is an actual dichotomy.

    "Really, if you can't grasp the basic distinction between theories and the facts on which they're based then I don't know how we can proceed."

    you sure don't.

    I understand the difference vetween theory and practice, you are conflating them as you have mistaken each tree for a forest.

    You're stuck in a fish bowl.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent