25
Why do Democrat supporters keep forgetting atrocities committed by their leaders? (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
96 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Whenever I talk to any Democrat supporters, they by-default cheer their Presidents and then I've to remind them of their leader's illegal wars and war crimes. They condemn those acts and they go back to their cheerleading role - Why do they keep forgetting atrocities committed by their leaders? Why do they accept war criminals as their leader?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (18 children)

Well. It was on the ballot. It just wasn't likely to win because it wasn't an issue considered important by the two major parties. You could have voted PSL or Green or one of the other parties, as over three million people did in the last election.

Besides, by that logic, Israeli aggression wasn't on the ballot either! Do you think Harris would have stopped Israel from starting war with Iran? The war with Iran was already beginning in 2024 before Trump even got into office. Maybe it would have taken a different form, maybe it wouldn't have happened this year, but Israel was going to attack Iran and the US was going to follow.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [+] -12 points 3 months ago (17 children)

    I don't think Harris would have bombed Iran.

    But hey, it is better to do something that feels good than something which affects change, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 15 points 3 months ago (15 children)

    There was already an economic war on Iran, which was already killing people and destabilizing their government. Harris would have waited a few more years for the economic war to collapse Iran's government and turn it into a situation similar to Syria, and only then would have started bombing. By then, Iran might not have been able to exert control over traffic through Hormuz.

    Harris would have been a better manager of the empire. Instead, we got Trump, who is on track to lose to Iran.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 3 months ago (14 children)

    Ahh, so you're an accelerationist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 12 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    I don't think you know what that means.

    Accelerationism would mean voting for Harris because she'd be a better manager of the empire.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    No. Wanting Trump to win is accelerationist because he's going to cause the empire to fall faster due to incompetence.

    You aren't angry at Democrats for war crimes, you're angry at them because they are better at governing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 8 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    Accelerationism would mean accelerating the growth of the empire to bring about its collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, so, voting for the best imperial managers to keep growing the empire. That means voting for Democrats, they're better imperial governors. They're better at doing war crimes and getting away with it.

    What I want is for the empire to lose. That's not accelerationism. That's revolutionary defeatism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] -5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    No. It means picking the person who will accelerate into whatever calamity which will cause a collapse.

    I feel like there is a lot of revisionism of the definition because the definition is inconvenient to the opposing argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 11 points 3 months ago

    You're the one doing revisionism, completely overlooking the part of accelerationism where they seek to accelerate development.

    Accelerationists believe that capitalism is a progressive self-revolutionizing force that is rapidly creating the conditions for its own obsolescence, and so we just need to develop capitalism more and more until it revolutionizes itself away. It views free trade as a system that breaks down nationalities, automation as a system that breaks down class antagonisms, and technological singularity as the ultimate end point of capitalism where profit and private property cease to exist. We enter an age of post-scarcity and transhumanism and algorithmic government i.e. the end of history. Capitalism collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.

    This is a really bad idea because unchecked capitalist development is creating conditions for human extinction. Maybe if there weren't ecological limits the accelerationists would be right in the long-run, but in the real world we're running into the limits to growth and capitalist development has put us on the path towards the collapse of civilization rather than merely the collapse of capitalism.

    This is all in contrast to revolutionary defeatism, which predates accelerationism by almost 100 years. It is the recognition that the workers do not benefit from capitalist wars, that instead, workers should seek the defeat of their own capitalist governments. If the empire loses, the world wins. There's no interest in developing the empire further to create the conditions for its collapse, there's only interest in seeing it collapse. That's like saying anyone who wants to end capitalism is an accelerationist. It's nonsense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 7 points 3 months ago*

    I feel like there is a lot of revisionism of the definition because the definition is inconvenient to the opposing argument.

    Read this out loud into a reflective surface as many times as it takes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 8 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Emotions aside, is their assessment of events incorrect? Harris is a more sane war hawk, recognizing that doesn't make you an accelerationist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] -4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    An accelerationist is picking someone who will collapse the empire due to incompetence and destroying American institutions. Between Trump and Harris, I don't see Harris causing a collapse of American institutions like Trump.

    Also, in regards to Iran, Trump has been far more antagonistic than Biden and Democrats in general were. The Biden administration at least needed a false flag attack to support Israel and a lot of the opposition came from Democrats. Trump got rid of Obama's multilateral nuclear treaty and has participated in Israeli attacks where Israel was the aggressor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    I think for many Accelerationism is speaking towards the capital transformations of society,
    not the decline of empire. Even so, Trump is the accelerationist choice

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] -3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Still applies more to Trump than Biden or Harris, given Trump's open corruption feeding into crony capitalism.

    Like I've said before, it feels like the term is being changed because the argument behind how I'm using it is hard to refuse, so the choice is to try to redefine the word rather than discuss the argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •