That’s great - good job. Like I said before, I have no interest in going through your history to examine your bonafides.

But I’ll gladly admit that your history doesn’t seem as bad as some others here, and that does provide some comfort.

Well, that's a super condescending way to phrase "Hey, you're right, all those things I was insisting to you over and over again were what you believed, they seem not to be accurate, and I apologize for having to go over and over it and not really acknowledging that I was wrong about it until you provided extensive evidence which I eventually accepted after rejecting the first few iterations of." I wasn't providing "bonafides," I was just repeatedly trying to illustrate how you were wrong in what you were repeatedly telling me about myself and my motivations. If you didn't use this strawman to represent anyone who doesn't agree with you as believing all these stupid and evil things, I wouldn't have had to do that, but you do and so here we are.

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate that you got there in the end. In the future though I would really recommend against using your preconception of what "some others here" believe and applying it to random people you're talking to. I can pretty much guarantee you that those "others" also do not believe that genocide is basically okay as long as it's being done by Democrats. You and the people you talk to on Lemmy just all agreed with each other to each other that they do. And when you talk outside that bubble, the people outside it just don't have the patience to yell at you repeatedly and demonstrate it at enough length what they actually support and believe that you finally have to halfway backhandedly accept it.

But what I hear in this is, ‘i cater my contributions to this conversation in such a way to encourage people to vote democrat in a conversation about their complicity in genocide’

I take it back lol, you're still doing it. You did halfway get there but only halfway.

I'm telling the truth here about what I believe and what I do, and why. If I thought something else, I would do something else (instead of catering my conversation a different way). I'm being straight with people about what I believe, and why it leads to voting and looking at the world the way I do. Of course I might be right or wrong, but that's why I'm saying something when I say it, almost all the time.

Now if it was this scenario where the DNC could hear me here saying that I was planning to vote for them anyway to keep Trump out of power, that would bother me a lot, because that actually would produce this impact you're talking about which could increase the genocide in the world. That would be fucking horrifying. That would probably make me not be straight about what I believe where they could hear me (or, even better, look for an organized coalition of people to be a part of so that I could threaten them with withheld votes in a way that they would interpret and understand as pressure to be better on Palestine.) That's part of the reason I contacted my congresspeople about funding for Israel and have gone to Palestine protests -- to effectively communicate, with whatever little limited voice I have, what it is that I and a lot of other people are horrified by about it. A big part of my horror at refusing to vote for Democrats "because of Gaza" is that I think the Democratic campaign machine is far too incompetent to accurately figure out that signal, and move to the left as a result. I think they're at least as likely to move to the right to try to fix the "losing elections" problem. Fixing that sounds great, but I'm disgusted in general with this big Lemmy contingent who seem to be a lot more vocal about not voting than they are about any other strategy for fixing US support for genocide. That's a shit strategy, straight up.

you who read something into this meme to be personally aggrieved by

I wasn't aggrieved by it, I just thought it contained a logical fallacy that was worth calling out. Talking with you has abundantly demonstrated that yes, there are people here (one at least) who are suffering from that logical fallacy.

The point of protesting is to bring the issue out in the open in order to shift public opinion - that’s what actually pressures a politician to the negotiation table.

Yes, which is why I'm in favor of that. IDK, I feel like you sort of halfway absorbed and halfway failed to absorb what I was telling you about my own viewpoint on protest and effective advocacy for change, and you're still kind of stuck in this strawman model of "the enemy" who doesn't believe in protest and so you have to lecture me, or doesn't believe in criticizing Democrats and so you have to lecture me.

Honestly, like I say, a lot of people will not have this kind of patience to try to talk with you until you're able to grasp this stuff. You'll just yell at them that they're okay with genocide and being aware that they absolutely are not, they'll decide you are off your rocker and not want to interact with you. That may be your goal, you may be happier just in the echo-chamber where everyone agrees what monsters all these genocide happy "liberals" are and unable to ever really have a political conversation with anyone outside that realm, in which case mission accomplished I guess.