this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
705 points (84.5% liked)
Political Humor
820 readers
2 users here now
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, we're done.
Harris/Biden: show unconditional support to fascist leader of Israel during his genocide of Palestinians.
You: That's not fascism, that's liberalism.
Sure.
Voters aren't obligated to vote, candidates are supposed to earn votes by showing their ideas and policies are worth supporting.
So where's the benefit in supporting a genocide?
Keep letting them march us right and condescending to a base of voters who are telling you what they want/expect because you have some imagined notion of moral superiority you think you have for supporting the lesser evil. Keep ignoring everything I'm telling you and how this looks to voters like myself, and acting like no, no, you know best.
Oh, so we're not actually having a discussion, we're ignoring our opponent and throwing easy-to-understand rhetoric because it's safe and comfortable and familiar?
I didn't want to write another 11 paragraphs that you'd just complain about.
You can't see fascism for what it is, when it's standing in front of you, and still act like you are morally superior to anyone.
Got it, drag. You do you, still waiting for you to say anything of note beyond "choosing not to choose is the worstest choice." You got anything else?
Anything about how supporting a genocide unconditionally despite public outcry isn't fascism? Or is that a branch of liberalism I'm unfamiliar with? Hence diet-fascism and fascism, from before, in one of the many pages of comments I wrote.
Complaining that Biden isn't a liberal because he's bad is silly. Liberalism is bad. Drag wrote three paragraphs about things that actually matter, and half a sentence on a nitpick. You decided this conversation was actually going to be about drag's nitpick. Whatever, you're right about the nitpick, drag doesn't care. Do you want to prove that you understand why drag made drag's point, or do you want to take the option drag explained earlier in which you change the subject to simple material issues we both fully understand because you don't know what drag means by "choice is inevitable"?
I'm doing my best to be civil, especially considering the last time you and I spoke, you called me a fascist nazi Trump supporter who wanted drag and drag's friends all dead, despite me also being LGBTQ, a veteran, and having voted for Harris.
So no, I'm not debating your supposed enlightened imagined moral superiority because you only see the binary of "choice: liberalism (diet fascism) or fascism." I get it "choice is inevitable," "by choosing not to choose, you've made a choice," "I am so very enlightened because I passed an introductory college course on philosophy."
We get it, drag, you're arguing that the choice of not choosing is the worst choice because you've not supported the least worst choice, and therefore de facto supported the worst choice. That's your argument, right, with some lengthy and convulated nonsense about the morality around the choices that are thrust into our lap and the unfairness of life and the responsibility on the individual (the individual voters, of course, not the individuals unconditionally supporting s genocide) to make the least-bad choice no matter what.
Did I get it? That's your argument in a nutshell, right, which is why the Democrats and their party leadership are absolved of all wrongdoing and all of the blame and guilt belongs at the feet of those who didn't vote? Or does this apply to third parties too? We'll just assume it does.
Life isn't like that, and drag can keep doubling down on those who didn't vote being the most guilty, or drag can understand that that is just further disenfranchising a large demographic of non-voters that the Democrats clearly need to turn out for them. And drag doesn't get to cherry pick which policies they support of their candidate, you support them and all of their ideals.
So they stayed home, that's their choice, and there's no guilt in that. But keep blaming them, like I said before, I'm sure that's winning people over to your morally just and superior cause.
You have correctly understood drag's reason for believing what drag believes. Now, drag has a hypothesis as to what rebuttal you just offered, but it's quite bewildering, so please be patient as drag asks: Is your rebuttal of the idea of the necessity of choice, that if we believed people to be responsible for the choices they don't make, then we would have to believe the Democrats are absolved of guilt?
Because what?
Wait.... wait wait wait.... okay, drag is starting to understand your point of view, drag hopes. You're saying we can't believe voters have any blame for the results of the election, because that would mean the Democrats can't have any blame. Because blame is a finite resource and must be carefully rationed?
No. Blame is an infinite resource. Two people can both be 100% to blame for the same thing. The Democrats and the voters can both be bad. Drag thinks drag understands why you keep insisting drag thinks the Dems are good now. It's because drag is blaming two different groups, and you think that's impossible, so you assume drag is lying and actually only blaming the voters. Isn't it?
I have repeatedly been talking about non-voters: those who stayed home.
Blame the repub voters, sure, I guess, and there's no reason to blame dem voters.
But don't blame non-voters for failing to be won over by a centrist platform that shows an unconditional backing of a fascist authoritarian and his genocide. Blame it on the DNC, Harris, and Biden. They made the choice to not actively support a genocide, or chose not to support a slow march to fascism versus a fast one, or whatever other nonsense reason you think justifies your world view.
Now understand mine: the liberals have told the left/progressive side since 2016 that it's both their fault, and that if they get their support in 2020, they'll be willing to start supporting progressive policies.
The voting base took a vocal stand on genocide, to reiterate, genocide, demanding their party move left on the issue. With Democracy on the line, and years of bad political capital with their progressive/left voting base, the DNC opted to continue unconditional support for genocide. Being perpetuated by a fascist leader, who worked with their fascist opponent during the campaign.
They didn't ask for $40/hr minimum wage, they didn't demand free puppies for everyone or some unrealistic ideal. They wanted compromise on genocide, and the DNC said no. The DNC waved off a good chunk of their voting base and were surprised when they actually took a stand.
Non voters didn't have a choice, like you keep saying. They had opposite sides of the same coin, and as I pointed out above when talking about how their pundits are screaming about wokism and trans people and the left side of the party, are blaming anyone but themselves.
If they acknowledged their own faults, sure, I'd entertain your argument. Or if it was something like M4A being a significant wedge issue for voters or something, sure, because it's not genocide. But they, and you, keep doubling down on unquestioned support of the least evil being the only correct choice.
I'm saying that's wrong, those who abstained from voting for either are at least cleansed of actively supporting a genocide, regardless of whatever their actual individual reason was. And acting like choosing the least evil makes you right is exactly the liberal condescension non voters are tired of.
It assumes that your moral definition of the world is the only correct one, arguing for the greater good (which I would argue should have come from the DNC not supporting a genocide unconditionally first) while dismissing an individual's own definition. To assume your position is to assume that your world view, and er go, your interpretation of the world, is the only correct one.
Like I said, Democracy was on the line, so why couldn't the DNC compromise one policy for their voting base? They compromised on fracking, didn't show support for M4A, showed support for continuing border security as is, etc. So why not genocide? Why was that a line in the sand for them despite vocal opposition from their voting base?
Drag got it yet? You're not morally superior for supporting a genocide, and that's only one of many reasons someone may have chosen not to support either candidate. And they're all valid, but the blame doesn't go to them. It goes to the DNC who thought it better to turn right and try to win moderates as the Republican-lite candidate instead of tapping into 60% of the voting base that doesn't vote. It goes to the DNC who couldn't ensure that "did Biden drop out" wasn't going to be one of the most searched things on election day with better messaging during the campaign.
But no, let's keep blaming them, and insulting and condescending and acting superior to them, the non voter, because they didn't understand Democracy was on the line and wouldn't compromise for the greater good. I understand you want to assign them blame, but that needs to be directed back at the DNC. So two-fold blame on the DNC for drag.