I love how the propagandists just keep beating the same drum after the Biden administration has constructed a ceasefire deal which has received unanimous UN Security Council support, and did appear to be moving forward until about 14 hours ago. (Edit: It might still, that’s not over yet.)
It’s almost like if the US just turns its back on Israel, we’d lose our leverage to press a negotiated agreement, which would surely not end with Israel digging in their heels even further. (/s) It’s almost like geopolitics are - wait for it - complicated.
Second Edit: Let’s also not forget that Israel is a nuclear power. What do you think happens when Israel’s back is against the wall, they’re running out of conventional weapons, and Iran and/or other groups decide to take advantage?
It was unanimous because Russia abstained. Putin loves the refocus on Israel while he continues his genocidal war crimes in Ukraine under the US media radar.
For those who haven’t been keeping up, Russia has abducted 700,000 Ukrainian children to be raised as Russians in foster homes since the war began. It’s genocide on a scale 20 times larger than Palestine, and isn’t making national headlines in the US due to the focus on Israel.
The US formally declared this as genocide in the House of Representatives with a 390-9 vote in April by invoking the UN Genocide Convention, and the ICC has issued arrest warrants. Did you see any headlines about that?
Russia is also the largest investor in the sanctioned Iran economy that is directly funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
I was sceptical of this claim so I did some research - 700,000 is almost certainly too high, but other than that it’s disturbingly true:
The 700,000 number comes from a Russian parliamentarian in 2023, and refers to orphaned and abandoned children Russia has ‘protected’ from conflict zones in Ukraine. A later Russian report walked this back a bit, and claimed that most of this number were children accompanied by family voluntarily escaping the fighting by feeling into Russia.
Obviously we should be sceptical of what Russia says about this, but this is not the same number as the number of children abducted - not even Ukraine alleges it to be this high.
The number of children abducted and forcibly deported was officially reported by Kyev to be 19,000 to 20,000 at the time of the above claim based on the data (nearly 30,000 now). The real number is almost certainly higher - many Ukranian officials believe the actual amount is higher, with one saying it may be into the ‘hundreds of thousands’. A US report in 2022 estimates that Russia has “interrogated, detained, and forcibly deported… 260,000 children, from their homes to Russia”
Even if we take only the low amount that can be fairly positively stated as abductions, that’s nearly 30,000 children. Various reports have shown some of these children being given new Russian identities and false birth certificates, and being put up for adoption in Russia. Some have testified to being indoctrinated and shown pro-Kremlin propaganda.
This broadly constitutes Cultural Genocide - whether it technically is or not is for academics to argue over, because the legal definition of genocide is complicated and so much is unkown.
Whether or not you want to call it a Genocide, it is undeniably a War Crime. The ICC has issued arrest warrents for Putin and Russian Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova over this.
Regardless of the number, it was deemed genocide in a 390-9 vote in the House in April, by invoking the UN Genocide Convention.
When the US congress deems there to be a genocide, the truth is always the opposite of their conclusion. If the Holocaust was going on today, congress would rule unanimously there to be no genocide.
Lol at basically citing the CIA as your source.
I’m legit not trying to troll here, but I vaguely recall a news story last month where Biden said it’s not genocide. I forget if he was referring to Ukraine or Gaza, but either way I was kind of dumbfounded like wtf.
It becomes a game of semantics. “Genocide” is not just a loaded term but it has a definition you can argue against, without disagreeing on the scope of the atrocity. Arguing about whether it fits the definition is just a redirect so we’re not talking about the scale of the suffering
He was referring to Gaza. Its amazing the number of lies $12m buys
And you can’t even bring this up as an argument against the “gEnOciDe jOe” kids because it gets removed for “whataboutism” in almost every thread.
They have their agenda pretty locked down
And yet not a peep from these “Genocide Joe” people. They’re either Russian disinformation agents, or useful idiots.
I get what you’re saying, but I’m pretty damn sure you’re confusing Americans’ inability to focus on more than one issue at a time with the seemingly catch-all “bots!” thing.
Don’t attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to stupidity/ignorance/laziness.
Idk why you’re saying “not a peep” when it’s pretty much all we ever talk about in these parts.
No, what everyone here seems to talk about is how the President is supporting genocide, while failing to mention that Biden alone can’t do anything to fund Israel.
Where are you seeing any criticism towards the GOP? All I’m seeing are the same “Genocide Joe” and “Both Sides” people being the most vocal.
Yeah, given it’s a center stance and not remotely a partisan issue in this election it’s probably better not to talk about it outside of the context of supporting protests and spreading news about the conflict.
“The news is so focused on children trapped in a war zone but they’re ignoring the real issue we should be focusing on: children being safely transported out of a war zone.”
Russia is taking Ukrainian children, placing them in foster care, and putting them up for adoption to be raised as Russians. This is the definition of genocide.
Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts fall into five categories:
- Killing members of the group
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
“The news is so focused on children trapped in a war zone but they’re ignoring the real issue we should be focusing on: children being safely transported out of a war zone.”
Jesus fucking Christ. Imagine being so pro-genocide you make apologia for kidnapping literal children and ethnic cleansing.
What I’m learning from this is that libs are perfectly fine with children being left to die in an active war zone and are actively opposed to getting them to safety.
I’m absolutely voting for Biden and everyone should, because he is the best viable candidate on literally every issue, including Palestine.
That said, he has openly and loudly taken Israel’s side for months. As a result, he’s made himself an avatar for all the other US institutions that are openly against any criticism of Israel or support for Palestinians. Even if he has secretly been doing everything he can to stop the killing all this time—which I doubt—he had still fucked up massively when it come to avoiding the blowback from other groups’ attempts to crush anyone who speaks out, including agencies his administration controls.
Great work on the peace deal, fellas. I think we can treat ourselves to another 20 billion of bombs to Israel to celebrate.
Second Edit: Let’s also not forget that Israel is a nuclear power. What do you think happens when Israel’s back is against the wall, they’re running out of conventional weapons, and Iran and/or other groups decide to take advantage?*
Should we allow Russia to just run over Ukraine? They have the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth. Who knows what happens when their backs are against the wall.
Have the weapon shipments to Israel stopped?
No, neither has the money
Israel’s pack is against the wall against… Hamas?
They managed to push those bastards back, before they’ve destroyed the Gaza strip.
Against Iran. Which is Hamas’ big brother.
(This comment is not approval of Israel’s actions)
The protests don’t ask for Israel not defending itself. They demand a stop to the revenge-rampage Israel is carrying out.
My comment has nothing to do with protests and never implies approval of Israel’s actions.
What do you think the post was about? O.o
You asked about Israel having their back against the wall (Hamas).
I clarified the bigger challenge Israel would hypothetically be against the wall with would be Iran. That’s it.
Edit then you randomly brought protests up into a tightly scoped comment chain.
What do you think happens when Israel’s back is against the wall, they’re running out of conventional weapons, and Iran and/or other groups decide to take advantage?
Do not misrepresent what you know full well I am talking about.
deleted by creator
They’re running out of conventional weapons because they don’t have the resources to flatten Gaza?
The demand is to stop the genocide, not to demilitarize Israel.
I always forget ceasefire agreements mean they keep shooting.
It’s almost like if the US just turns its back on Israel, we’d lose our leverage to press a negotiated agreement, which would surely not end with Israel digging in their heels even further. (/s)
How is this distinct from the current situation, where Israel has killed at least 35,000 people, is starving around a million more, shows no signs of changing course, and also we are giving them bombs to carry it out?
The time to start applying gentle pressure was about 8 months ago.
But hey, some rando with literally no national attention is polling at 3% in a couple of safely blue states, so definitely don’t vote for GeNoCiDe JoE! /s
Notice how they only ever criticize Biden, and never the Republican party, which fully supports Israeli bullshit?
To be entirely fair, the Republican party does a good job of criticizing themselves.
Consider that a lot of the discourse you’re seeing is from people who already believe the democratic party is the lesser of the two evils they’re probably going to vote for them regardless.
If you’re engaging in a conversation with someone else, whose only tangible difference between the two of you is that one of you believes Dems are a-okay, and one believes that both parties are shit, the only real talking points they have are what the Dems do that aren’t great.
Obviously I don’t think this is every case, but I know that if I wasn’t already primed to have THIS argument, that’d probably be the route it’d take.
Republicans don’t pretend to care they wear their bigotry on their shoulder, Democrats are covert in their bigotry and their racism that’s why they are often called out for it
Biden is the fucking commander in chief.
Congress exists as a coequal branch of the government and is who actually makes laws. The president can only exercise policies to execute those laws.
This is elementary school civics in the US. Being commander in chief doesn’t mean Biden can change funding and laws on a whim.
The president can only exercise policies to execute those laws.
If the United States determines at any time that a transfer is no longer in accordance with United States foreign policy objectives, national security goals, or legal obligations, the United States may cease the transfer of or future support for a transferred defense article or service.
Biden could act unilaterally here.
This is elementary school civics in the US.
Yes, and he needs a declaration of war to go to war. 🙄 Just because your education ended with an elementary school reading of the constitution, doesn’t mean that’s how the country operates in practice.
“Checks and balances” exist in name only. Sure the supreme court or congress could strike down new social programs, but war and spy powers exist independently from the legislative and judicial branches.
Oh I’ve noticed. The way I see it, there are three options when it comes to the “both sides”/protest vote camp, every single one of them is one of the following:
- a bad faith actor cosplaying as a leftist
- an accelerationist
- a misguided idealist who legitimately believes a non-mainstream candidate could win and/or completely disregards the cold hard fact that FPTP means a third party/abstain vote simply endangers the lesser of two evils candidate while empowering the greater of two evils candidate
No matter what I will never stop throwing shade at that crowd hard and heavy. The first two on that list will never change. I do hope, however, that continued social pressure on that last type of person will make some of them realize that voting is just as much a responsibility as a right, and consider that maybe there’s a good reason their views are so unpopular.
Edited after a good point made by samus12345.
Also I noticed the single downvote on every one of my comments. I know who you are lol. Glad to see I’m still living in your head rent-free.
I think there are also misguided idealists who think it’s more important that they feel good about not voting for the “genocide” guy while absolving themselves of any blame should his opponent win. They know a third party candidate can’t win, but that’s not as important as them being “right”.
I believe the vast majority of these are privileged people whose family wealth will shield them from legislation they don’t want to be subject to.
you don’t actually have any evidence for that, though, do you?
Only their words showing them to be clearly insulated from and cavalier about the effects of Republican legislature, true.
Yeah that’s a good point.
NO, These are all bad points! With the regularity of these posts, I am starting to suspect you are all bots.
If you want Biden to stop doing something, like supporting a genocide, you don’t just say “please stop, but I’ll support you no matter what”. You tell him, pollsters and everyone who asks that you definitely won’t be voting for someone who supports x. When it’s time to vote, it might be time to vote for the least evil choice.
With the regularity of these posts, I am starting to suspect you are all bots.
lol… I went ahead and measured my heart rate and blood oxygen for ya, 67bpm and 98% respectively; I am decidedly flesh and bones. Perhaps the reason these posts are so regular is because a good number of people don’t agree with you? Ever consider that?
You tell him, pollsters and everyone who asks that you definitely won’t be voting for someone who supports x. When it’s time to vote, it might be time to vote for the least evil choice.
Ok. There’s a lot to unpack here. If you’re considering voting for him anyway, there’s no weight behind your threat to withhold your vote. The problem is that not everyone thinks that way, and encouraging people to essentially burn their vote and endanger Biden’s reelection is that the only other option is Trump. Myself, and many others in this community see this as a flagrantly irresponsible gamble to be making. That’s why we push back against it. I emphatically support protesting, but not protest voting. I emphatically support the idea of a general strike, but still not protest voting. There are plenty of people like me, who want to see the genocide end, but also recognize the very real fact that the consequences of fucking around come general election time may very well be continued genocide and fascism. Just like some people say voting for a candidate supporting a genocide is a line they won’t cross, ushering in the age of trumpist fascism in the US is a line we won’t cross. The thing you seem to fail to consider is that there are more of us than you think.
What about a more nuanced approach, such as both sides are shit. One side is clearly a bit less shit than the other, and so, I’ll vote for that side, out of duress. I don’t want to, I want to vote someone I actually believe in. I can’t say many good things about the party I’m voting for, but I can’t say ANYTHING good about their only viable opponent. And so, in an effort to keep the worst case scenario from happening, I’m going to vote for the only viable option.
This is the core of the “both sides” argument to me. We’re going to vote dem. But we cannot forget that neither of these parties are the ones we want. It’s important to make that known. We are not voting for you because we like you, we’re voting for you because we REALLY DON’T LIKE THE OTHER ONE. As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn’t silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we’ll actually be able to elect the one we want.
As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn’t silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we’ll actually be able to elect the one we want.
Which is why centrists are so keen on silence from their critics to the left. And only ever the left.
The neolib centrists need the right to guarantee their power. The left is the only group threatening that.
Amen! I feel like my post history is 90% calling out these bullshit accounts, and 10% random other non-political stuff.
That’s almost all I do here. These people should be outed for what they are.
Yeah, same. Mine is a mix of dumb memes posted to Ten Forward, dumb joke comments on random posts, and “both siders are fucking morons”-type comments.
I’ve noticed they will have a little tirade if you ask them what is the logical consistency that they support China despite being “against” Gaza genocide in a way that means they couldn’t possibly vote for harm reduction.
voting is not a harm reduction strategy.
It is if you think women losing access to healthcare or Ukrainians being massacred is harm.
voting isn’t a harm reduction strategy. a harm reduction strategy would be recognizing those bad things are going to happen and helping people mitigate the fallout.
Yes, by voting for the party that isn’t saying we should have the National Guard brutalize protesters, that protesters should be deported, and that Israel would be justified in nuking Gaza.
I’ve been pointing that out all the time. They’re never on any posts critical of Trump. Only anything about Biden. It it’s critical, they’re there to agree- if it’s positive, they’re there to shit all over it.
Also notice how there’s never any talk about what they wish Biden was doing instead.
I wish Biden would stop sending weapons to Israel.
From another comment:
POTUS has the power to pause military equipment shipments. Biden did exactly this with Israel, as have a few other presidents in other situations. The current congressional Republicans put forward legislation to prevent POTUS from being able to do that. (I’m not sure whether that bill got anywhere or not.) Biden said he would veto such a bill.
Foreign military aid to Israel is supplied as of the terms of the United States - Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, a ten year agreement to supply Israel with certain military aid, which was signed by the US and Israel in 2016, and which took effect in 2018. That was passed by Congress. POTUS does not have the power to unilaterally end that agreement; Congress does.
POTUS does not have the power to unilaterally end that agreement; Congress does.
Oh, hey, I have seen you before. One of the accelerationists who wants China to expand its influence despite what they are doing to Uyghurs.
Nor any suggestions on who could win in his place. Ask them. Every time- make a game out of it.
They NEVER answer it. Not once. I’ve asked them who is currently running that can win November. Not a single one of them has made a peep of a suggestion.
That is why every time someone brings up Genocide Joe, I bring up Turbo Genocide Donny
literally whataboutism
It’s not, though. Nice try.
saying something doesnt make it true.
Take your own advice then, champ.
Is that Jill Stein? She barely scraped past 1% of the popular vote in 2016, less than 1/3 of fucking Gary Johnson.
Oh but this time, this time Dems will learn a lesson and turn full leftist 2028. There’s no risk either since muh both sides are dictators so it’s equally bad either way.
I think there was some guy from California that was recently polling (yes polling, not locked in votes at all) around 3% in a handful of states and some of the both-siders were breaking their arms jerking each other off about it. I don’t remember the dude’s name, for the obvious reason of his candidacy being completely unviable.
Well said.
It’s almost like if the US just turns its back on Israel, we’d lose our leverage to press a negotiated agreement, which would surely not end with Israel digging in their heels even further. (/s) It’s almost like geopolitics are - wait for it - complicated.
Which would end up with Israel in a war not just with Palestine but probably other countries in the region. And something I feel people forget: Israel has nuclear weapons but doesn’t acknowledge them. Which means we don’t have a great idea of their nuclear capability. So if Israel’s existence is being threatened, there’s a good chance to ruin that part of the world for generations and/or start WW3.
Are you saying that if the US stops sending Israel weapons, they will likely start a nuclear war? Bruh
If Israel is fighting for it’s survival and it has nukes? Uh yeah? That’s why no one’s itching to invade Russia even though they are a LOT weaker than expected.
Guess I just don’t see the flattening of Gaza and displacement of more than 1 million Palestinian civilians as Israel “fighting for it’s survival,” nor do I see an immediate cessation of sending US bombs to Israel as leaving them in the dust.
Remember though that Iran has already launched a significant attack on Israel, and it was because of the US and their allies that casualties were heavily curbed. If the US had previously stopped all operations, it could very well have turned into an existential war for Israel.
None of that remotely defends what Israel is doing. And I completely agree we need to stop sending them bombs and additional military support for Gaza. But my point is that there is a potential for a much bigger, possibly nuclear conflict if countries cut all ties.
I get what you’re saying, but I’m not certain the Iranian drone attack would have even happened if Israel hadn’t been engaged in the raising of Gaza with US backing.
I mean, Israel bombed an Iranian embassy two weeks before that occurred.
I’m in somewhat agreement with you. On the one hand, there are innocent Israelis who need to be protected (here, I don’t necessarily buy the nuclear risk, tbh. Continued US protection is more about prevention of civilian casualties, to me ). On the other, our continued support further emboldens Israel to keep fucking shit up over there, so of course they’re going to experience aggression from their neighbors.
Unfortunately this starts getting into a game of who-shot-first, which is a bad state to be in.
If anything, all this is a win-win for the “defense” industry.
Edit: also, for the record, and in the context of this thread, even though I’d argue against continued US military support of Israel, and that Biden hasn’t been forceful enough on that issue, and that Democrats in general are too comfortable with the status quo regarding free market capitalism for individuals and socialism for the corporations, and that many of them serve their own interests or those of corporations, you still gotta vote for Biden this election, especially if you’re in a swing state. The two parties are not the same, even if they do both suck. The degrees of suckage are not equal.
It’s almost like if the US just turns its back on Israel, we’d lose our leverage to press a negotiated agreement
No kidding huh, I can’t believe people don’t see this. You want to influence Israel? You can’t do that if you cut off communication and shun them.
Not continuing to provide them with weapons of war while they are actively committing genocide is not cutting off communication and shunning them.
That’s on congress, not Biden.
Incorrect. We already have a law to not ship weapons to people who are credibly accused of what Israel is credibly accused of. As the Chief Executive Biden could simply follow that law which is well within his power to execute.
And yet I don’t see Republicans shooting down any Israel aid bills. Interesting, no?
“It’s Republicans’ fault that the US keeps sending weapons to Israel” doesn’t make sense when Republicans only control the House and Biden has to sign any bills they want passed.
Biden can only stop sales that are below a certain amount. Congress has been approving sales that are above this amount.
Sure, both sides are not the same. But the “good” side is still part of the system that allows the “bad” side to exist.
So by all means, vote for the party that will do less damage in the short term. But oppose FPTP voting at the same time.
Voting is not enough to have a functioning democracy. Activism is essential
In a world where a large majority of America has recognized it was asinine to ever consider voting for the bad side, it becomes more practical to have third party alternatives.
But that cannot happen within the current system lest you allow the Republicans to win. Change must be forced onto the system.
Who says we are?
Would preventing the bad side from existing equal thought police?
You should definitely vote, at a minimum. But if you want real change, you need direct action.
Republicans have argued, under oath, that high voter turnout is unfair for their electoral chances.
both sides aren’t bad.
one side is bad. the other side is a comically evil, fucking nightmare that is going to make sure all future generations for the foreseeable future will suffer things that can be avoided by voting for the “bad” side.
don’t be stupid. one side is banning abortion, is going to go after simple contraceptives next, and will certainly ban gay marriage as soon as possible. their obsession with trans people is just a foot in the door.
No.
Don’t be stupid don’t vote for procorporate genocide supporting trash in the Democrat primaries.
we’re not talking about primaries.
i checked your history and you’re trying so hard. I’d be really surprised if you weren’t a Russian troll.
I’d be really surprised if you weren’t a Russian troll.
Yeah I’ve heard this cope before and I ask every time: Where do you think all the people are who voted “undecided” in the 2024 DNC primaries? Do they just have zero social media presence?
I’ve yet to get a real answer.
again, we’re not talking about primaries.
I am. Deal with it.
lol. there’s nothing to deal with. the primaries are irrelevant. we’re talking about the general election because that’s what the post is about and also what the comment you responded to is about.
if you don’t know how to follow a conversation or make relevant comments, that’s not something for me to “deal with”. it’s something for you to learn in order to be able to socialize without being ridiculed.
You still haven’t answered the question.
You accuse anyone who doesn’t intend on voting for your geriatric procorporate genoicde supporting trash of a candidate of being a Russian troll. But when you’re pressed on the fact that there are citizens who have the right to vote in Democrat primaries and specifically signaled they won’t be voting for Biden you suddenly have nothing to say.
I couldn’t care less about whether you ridicule me. Your policy and strategies are an absolute failure and you still defend it endlessly. Your legacy will be attributed to lead poisoning.
Then they better get started earning those votes
Get involved locally and build from there. Under 60? You’ll be the youngest there in a lot of Democratic clubs.
Eliminating the First Past the Post voting system would enable people to vote for third-party candidates without the risk of a spoiler effect. This change would foster competition in the electoral process, enhancing the quality of candidates for all voters. Additionally, it would likely increase voter turnout and political engagement.
Electoral reform is possible at the state level, Alaska and Maine have already passed electoral reform so it is possible to get this done.
Republicans have already made moves to protect First Past the Post voting. Florida recently made Ranked Choice voting illegal. Fortunately there are many alternatives to FPTP, so the ban still isn’t in the way of passing electoral reform.
So the question remains, why do Blue states still use FPTP voting? Why would you want to use the voting system republicans prefer? There are no republicans stopping these reforms in states that democrats control.
It is clear that democrats understand the flaws of FPTP voting, just talk about voting third party in nearly any social media and you will get a entire flock of Democrats lecturing you on how a vote not for a democrat is a vote for a republican. How can you admit the voting system is flawed and then not make any moves to rectify the situation is beyond me. You don’t get to lecture people on the flaws of FPTP voting and then do nothing to fix the issue.
Yeah, but that’s not where we are NOW. Yes, definitely work for it. I’d love to see ranked choice voting in my section of the deep south. But, again, that’s not happening this election.
If only there were a party you could vote for that wants to pass federal election reforms. Oh geez, if only if only. Gosh, I wonder how your comment fits into the context of this post which is about how one side is clearly much much worse than the other? Maybe the point you’re trying to make is that the whole system sucks and that both sides are… bad? Is that what you’re trying to say?
that cgpgrey video takes liberties (to say the least) with the truth, making logical leaps and asserting opinion as fact. i think it should not be used as a source of “good” information unless the information you want is “why does everyone think two party systems are inevitable without proof?” or maybe “how can i tell people who won’t fall in line they’re stupid while sounding academic?”
Both sides do suck. but only one is trying to get an orange dictator elected. I’m still voting Biden. Democrats aren’t perfect but it’s the only choice we have.
You elect Biden to live another day to fight him, you vote for trump and you shoot yourself in whatever genitals you have before we go full dictator for life, immunity for all crimes (and none of those things for you)
You elect trump if you watched Civil War and thought, fuck yeah that looks fun, want that.
If you thought, “that looks fun” you’re a sociopath and walking proof of the impact of Republicans dismantling mental health care infrastructure in the US for the last several decades
This. I f*cking HATE having to vote for Biden. I’ve hated voting for Democrats for the last 20 years. But I’ll vote for him this year because right now, our choices are between boring corporatists and 100% concentrated evil. I may hate my government but I love my country and I don’t want it to end.
He’s not 100% evil. You have to have some kind of drive for that. He’s just the most self-centered person I’ve ever seen. He’ll turn the US into a dictatorship only because it’s convenient for him for the rest of his years.
I believe every other President in my lifetime would have given their lives to prevent that.
The part I don’t get is complaining about a politician being boring. Isn’t that a good thing? If a politician is doing their job, admittedly a huge if, there’s no need for drama, outrage, noise
If your country is in a good state then yes, boring is the way to go. But if your country is an open dumpster fire then maybe you need something a little less sedate.
I’m definitely in the opposite side of that. If my country is an open dumpster fire, thaeb boring is exactly what we need. Let’s put those fires out by fixing things to just work. Lets start by firing any politician/ administrator who thinks their job is to create drama and invoke outrage, and replace them with people who can fill the role professionally
Fair enough. But I’m not talking about drama. I’m talking about change. I can appreciate that sitting in a slowly boiling pot of water may seem preferable to getting tipped into the fire but a big part of your problem is that too many are fed up with being slowly boiled alive and most of those are clueless about what to do about it so are thrashing about causing the pot to tip. Boring is partly what got you into this position.
this aged like wine
The intent of someone’s speech, or even its outcome, does not make it incorrect. A culture of hiding from reality thinking in doing so it will give us certain outcomes is what this practice will create.
Saying something that is technically correct is still wrong if it is done so in a way that causes people to be hurt unnecessarily.
Edit: Strawmaning me while talking about how truth is important is the biggest irony.
Being afraid of truth is a bandaid. Yes, sometimes saying a truth can cause short-term harm. Like Biden supporting war crimes. But if you start silencing truths instead of countering them with more truth, it just proves you don’t really believe you have the truth on your side. The group who is unwilling to face the truth, is sure to lose it all together.
So we need to shut people up who’s information we percieve will give us outcomes we don’t like? I guess the nazis gave that ago and if it worked for them I guess we should do the same. But if we have decided to live in a post-truth world of our own creation, how are we going to make an honest assessment of what true information is actually harmful. We could just be lying to ourselves about that too.
Here is a good rule of thumb. Never lie to yourself. Never hide from information. Anything else is just developing anti-intellectual habits.
It kind of reminds me of a quote from And Justice For All from Metallica. “Seeking no truth. Winning is all. Fighting so grim so true so real.”
When both sides frame what is true or false by what will help them win that that’s how you end up with a post truth world. Of course that can be easily corrected by lying to ourselves again and claiming that only one side has blame. There is nothing a lie to ourselves can’t fix.
Never lie to yourself. Never hide from information. Anything else is just developing anti-intellectual habits.
I agree. However, the entirety of your comment fails to address what I’ve said. Would you like to try again?
No. Not really. I think creating a post-truth world is more harmful. The way you get around the “harm” of true information is by encouraging people to process true information more maturely. Not by hiding it. There is no harm in truth by itself.
encouraging people to process true information more maturely
🔔🔔🔔 ✨ B I N G O ✨
So. Instead of just saying that both sides are bad (which is a fair opinion to have) you couch that information (or the data that you used to derive it) in statements that allow for good outcomes to the best of your ability. You’re probably going to say something along the lines of “people need to be better at understanding things” as a counter-point to what I’m saying, but remember: we don’t pick our audience. It’s on us to craft what we say to convey the information we want in ways that will lead to the desired results.
It’s on us to craft what we say to convey the information we want in ways that will lead to the desired results.
This is called “being manipulative” and no, it is not something that we need to do.
🤡
I do think there is a constructive way to talk about how both sides accommodate the interests of the ruling class. We are at the point where our choices are corporate shills and fascist corporate shills. I am going to vote for the non-fascists every time, but don’t tell me I am harming the conversation when I expect the corporate shills to be better too.
You need to do more than merely vote
But what if I don’t want a typical Democrat in office either?
What if you really want a warm hug but you only have the choice between a poke in the eye with a sharp stick and not a poke in the eye?
You still choose “not a poke in the eye”, dumbo.
How about the people who keep voting against the warm hug in the primaries get some of these lectures? Is that an option at some point?
Yes, during the primaries.
Well they didn’t listen. What happens afterwards is on them.
David Attenborough voice: “We see here an ‘internet troll’ employing a strategy known as ‘whataboutism’. It shows that it’s desperate, and feels threatened by a stronger opponent.”
What stronger opponent? You and Biden want me to vote for him again. I’m not going to.
Refusing to make the optimal play when lives are on the line isn’t brave, good, or noble. If you increase the danger of others to preserve your sense of pride, innocence, or purity then you commit a deep evil.
I don’t want Biden to be president. So I’m not going to vote for him. It really is that simple. If the Democrats want my vote, they need to earn it by running a worthy candidate. My vote shouldn’t be taken for granted.
I don’t want Biden to be president.
Hey me too.
So I’m not going to vote for him.
Anti-fascism means doing everything we’re able to stop fascism Being against genocide means doing what we can to shift the probability of genocide increasing as low as possible. If you can’t put your petty feelings aside for long enough to push a few buttons, you shouldn’t call yourself either. It’s not about you.
Refusing to make the optimal play when lives are on the line isn’t brave, good, or noble.
I never claimed to be brave, good or noble. Personally I think we’re all pigs in the mud at this point.
But frankly it’s irrelevant. I’m not voting for Biden again. Find some other way to elect your geriatric procorporate genocide supporting trash candidate.
Thinking that all information has been revealed, and therefore that anyone who plays a different move must have deliberately avoided the optimal one, is called “totalitarianism”.
One of the important pieces of information that should not be ignored about the universe is that there is more information than can be process by the available information processing mechanisms.
Also, there is no logical way to prioritize information for processing (at least in part because logic requires complete information).
To deal with the fact that life is not even qualitatively like a textbook optimization problem, and cannot ever be due to limitations in how information works, we have developed cultural heuristics that ensure relevant information is not lost.
One of those heuristics is having respect for others’ opinions, even when you think they’re wrong.
The opposite of the totalitarian viewpoint is the humble viewpoint. That’s the one that says “I know I don’t understand this completely” and behaves accordingly.
Tic tac toe is a good scenario to behave in a totalitarian way. It’s damned easy to see if a move is optimal or non-optimal in tic tac toe, because the number of possible permutations is pretty small.
If an ongoing game of Tic Tac Toe were somehow linked to whether people lived or died, and I saw someone was about to make an un-optimal move on behalf of the rest of us, I’d say tie that idiot up and override his rights because he was about to kill us all.
But games more complex than tic tac toe are harder to commit. Tic Tac Toe has nine spaces, so you have like 9! paths the game can take. But reality’s bigger than that. Hundreds of orders of magnitude bigger. I can’t be computed or grokked or boiled down to the point where you know what optimal is.
Even deterministic small game like systems get hard to optimize quickly.
It’s hard to get total knowledge of real life, so behaving in a totalitarian way is wrong, in real life. If real life were just one game of tic tac toe, maybe totalitarian attitude would be correct: “You are making a bad move, it’s going to cost us everything, it’s worth it to violate your rights because your rights are worthless when we’re all dead anyway”.
I’m a mathematician; I too am aware of game theory and the principles of logic. Furthermore, you’ve made several mistakes.
is called “totalitarianism”
Bullshit. This is a common tankie word game.
there is no logical way to prioritize information for processing
This is wrong
logic requires complete information
Partially because this is wrong. Logic can operate with incomplete information. Heuristics and the standard of “cogency” exist for this very purpose.
Furthermore, this criticism entirely ignores the context of:
Potential optimal play provided
“No I don’t wanna”
Which is a blatantly immoral thing to do, regardless of how much information is available because they have decided not to regardless of available information.
Furthermore, this is an internet argument; I’m not threatening violence, and so it’s absolutely asinine of you to act like I’m “violating [somone else’s] rights”. I’m making a argument online about the morality of someone else’s choices. Your entire argument is sophistry.
What if the options are sharp stick or dull stick?
Do you really want me to answer that for you? Is it really that hard to think for yourself?
Alright then… You get either one or the other, there’s no way out of that whether you make a choice or not. Wouldn’t you still want to influence the choice so you get the one that hurts a lot less?
I mean at that point you struggle to escape, but assuming that’s definitely not possible, then sharp sticks hurt less. 🤷♂️ “Optimal” does not necessarily mean “good” or “desirable”.
Sharp sticks hurt less…
What?
Yeah, equally deep and long injuries with a sharper implement destroy fewer cells (since they have a smaller cross-section), cause less trauma, and are less disruptive to the surrounding tissues. I know it’s unintuitive, but it’s true.
Thank you. That’s what I was trying to say.
The dull stick is going to gouge your eye out entirely. I have no frame of reference of what would hurt more, but I guess that would be it.
No a dull stick would probably fuck your eye up, a sharp stick will absolutely destroy your eye.
That entirely depends on how deep the stick goes into your eye - though at some point it won’t matter anyway.
Then go run for office and be better. Until then, unfortunately, pick the FAR lesser evil
Millions are unsatisfied. Should everyone run for office?
Yes
A ballot sheet with thousands of names is not the answer
Yes
A ballot sheet with thousands of names is not the answer
Nothing is ever “the answer”
All yall want to do is complain
Get more involved in local politics is a sensible answer.
Telling everyone to run for office is idiotic.
I’m telling everyone to run cause I know we’re all some lazy fucks and no one is going to
Yall just won’t stop complaining about everything
I did. Marianne Williamson was shut out of the conversation and smeared by the media. Not my fault the left cannibalizes itself every election cycle. Biden might as well be a Republican
No.
Yes.
You’re trying to tell someone what to do in order to defend democracy?
So allowing babies to be bombed is not that evil got it
Give it a rest.
Nice leap there
Voting for someone in an election in the US is not an endorsement of that person. You have effectively two choices in many of the elections due to how the system is designed. You vote for the best choice of those two.
Not voting, or voting for a non viable candidate, is a signal that you Do Not Care who is in power.
Voting is a tool, and a civic duty. It’s one of the few ways US society allows direct input from citizens.
If you actually are against facism, don’t use misguided idealism to encourage people to throw away the little political power they have.
It’s one of the few ways US society allows direct input from citizens.
Okay here’s my input: I don’t vote for people who support genocides or block strikes.
If you want my vote work for it.
That’s your prerogative, just recognize that if both options support genocide and block strikes, so you chose to vote for a non viable candidate, or to not vote, you’re effectively disenfranchising yourself.
Your last point is very valid though. The DNC is very good at shooting themselves in the foot because they should know very well that people do get demotivated and just stop voting, yet continue to distance themselves from their voter base, resting on their laurels as “the only sane choice out of the two”.
Supporting local candidates, where your vote also is more heavily weighted, is one of the ways to shift policy - the US govt isnt just the president, it’s representatives and senators and state governments.
Boycotting is also very patriotic
Right now the Democratic Party’s convention and local election Primaries haven’t happened. Best that can be done is to influence the party platform through this primary season to influence or change what a ‘typical’ Democrat may be.
There’s a massive influx of money right now going towards keeping typical Democrats in line with Israel. So it appears that will predictably be a prevailing issue one way or another.
So like: most of my local elections usually feature Democrats v Democrats so I’ll likely opt for the non-Zionist or at least the less Zionist of the two. That may send a message for the winner of the Presidential ticket, if anything.
Plus they cherry-pick items, take them out of context, distort them, then bombard social media with it in a way that tries to push as many visceral buttons as they can.
All the while actively ignoring any and all information that might challenge the narrative they are cynically pushing, of course.
It’s probably damn near impossible to fully disentangle oneself from this addictive web, we all have fallen prey to weaponized disinformation at some level or other, and different disinformation campaigns target different segments of the population.
