415
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/5259804

Oh my fucking god lmaooo

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

Stop letting perfection be the enemy of good.

So in this case you think supporting a genocide is a good option?

[-] [email protected] -3 points 2 weeks ago

Do you think a guarantee of MORE genocide is less good than the level of genocide already going on?

If there were a real option where "no genocide" was on the table, people would take it. Do something to make such a choice possible. Hint: It's not allowing fascism to take over.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

There's so much wrong with what you just said, that I don't even have time to point out all the problems because I have to watch the next episode of Muderbot. But I will spare the time to point out there have been many times in the past several decades when democrats had the option to spurn their sponsors in the military industrial complex and not warmonger, but not a single one of those times did they choose the humane option and just not.

Anyone who thinks that politicians that are bought and paid for by the corporate war machine are just going to stop murdering kids is either incredibly naive, or an idiot. I'll let you decide which of the two you are.

[-] [email protected] -5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Anyone who thinks that politicians that are bought and paid for by the corporate war machine are just going to stop murdering kids is either incredibly naive, or an idiot. I'll let you decide which of the two you are.

I agree. So why is the argument from your side of the table just apathy? Doing nothing isn't going to solve anything, and the only options available ATM are nothing but limiting how much damage is done or accelerating/increasing the damage. Do you have any actionable solutions to get a secret third option, besides "hurr durr, I am not voting because both choices are bad?" Because not understanding the concept of a "lesser evil" when no other choice is available is far more naive.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

Oh, so six million people can turn out to protest a dictator, but liberals can't be bothered to do the same when it's to stop a genocide? What the actual fuck, dude? So the only fucking time you'll get off your lazy liberal ass to do anything is when it impacts you specifically? What a horrible person you are.

But hey, at least you can pat yourself on the back for voting for the lesser evil. What a shit take. I think that's enough from you. Thank you, do not come again.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Less genocide? What does that even mean?! You can't systematically murder a people to a greater or lesser degree. There is no "good" way to support a genocide. Just don't support genocide. It's actually fairly easy to do.

It’s not allowing fascism to take over.

So the people who happily funded and supported a fascist ethnostate committing a genocide and who continue to do so are going to stop fascism? Right, got it. That makes perfect sense.

this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2025
415 points (91.9% liked)

The Democratic National Convention™ of Libjerk

176 readers
5 users here now

Dunking on Liberals from a leftist, anti-capitalist perspective.

Dems keep working with trump to approve his picks, but what they won't accept is that if you sit down at a table with nazis, the only thing that's changed is the number of nazis at the table. @[email protected]

Rules:

We allow posts about liberal behavior even off fedi, shitposts, and rational, leftist discussion.

Sister community: [email protected]

Inspired by [email protected]

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS