▲ 343 ▼ VoTe BluE (lemmy.ml) submitted 1 year ago by jankforlife@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml 195 comments fedilink hide all child comments BlueMAGA
[+] MTK@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago (27 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source hideshow 27 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 year ago (1 child) Is committing genocide not a fascist act? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Fascism provides a specific permission structure for genocide that isn't present in other systems. That's not to say genocide didn't happen before the term was coined, but that the characteristics of fascism; nationalism, racial supremacy, military supremacy, victim complex, out groups, scapegoating, disdain for human rights, etc.; tend to be present anywhere that genocide is present, and genocide doesn't just happen because some "genocidal regime" found its way into power. Whether or not you need their permission to make the policy; you need the people's permission for it to stand, because ultimately you need the people's voluntary compliance in order to carry it out. Otherwise you undermine your own system and generally incite resistance against it. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 29 points 1 year ago (10 children) They just do nothing to stop the fascists when they have power and do everything they can to compromise with them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -10 points 1 year ago (10 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] anoriginalthought@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (4 children) Great hero of the people: Neville Chamberlain permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'd say that's a ridiculous choice and it's time to organize with the masses against the system that presented it to us; rather than undermine that effort by treating the system as legitimate and shaming others for not seeing the candidates and their futures the way I did. Hand me two cups of shit, I still have free will to throw them back in your face. The system can force feed if it wants but you won't see me voluntarily picking a shit cup and eating shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -6 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) The point is I'm not going to lend you any legitimacy by picking up the shit and eating it myself, then turning at the people around me and asking why they aren't eating it yet. I'm going to make it impossible for the shit peddler to hide their willingness and ability to abuse their power. If I'm eating shit either way, why would I do it in a way that makes it apparent to outsiders that I'm choosing to eat shit? And no, when you scold people for not participating in a system, you are not just not "refusing to acknowledge its legitimacy". You are promoting it, whether you care to or not. You are promoting the idea that everyone is choosing these options out of complete and true support of complete and unbiased information. This is especially true when people like you misrepresent and refuse to understand the arguments of those who choose to abstain or vote third party. You are saying, "if you participate in this system, you could change the way things are going; and if you don't, then you implicitly consent to it", which is simply not true. Interestingly enough, you know how little power a person has when acting as an individual, which is why you minimize the reach of individuals when it comes to forms of political action other than voting, but you never apply it to the situation of voting where the ruling class has vast numbers of ways to influence people's behaviors in whatever direction they want. The change can only come when we have built the ability to move cohesively as a class, or a voting bloc if you will, that can either take power for itself or force our leaders to come to our table if they want our compliance. We can only build this by overcoming the resentment we hold for other members of our class, and putting one foot in front of the other; turning one person at a time towards the inner workings of the machine that the ruling class works so hard to hide. Not by stoking resentment and wasting our energy trying to manipulate an illegitimate system while we wait around for the movement to build itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) You keep saying that, but what does that even mean? You don't know what legitimacy is? Our political system rests on the consent of the people, because the people have the power of collective action when they are organized and/or believe en masse that the pathways by which the system claims to represent them are illegitimate (re: not actually representing them). The ruling class wouldn't work so hard to obscure their undemocratic nature if that wasn't the case. People don't just accept those kinds of things, they resist and build power that does represent them. That is demonstrable throughout history. Voting is not only going out to vote on the day of, its all the time you and I are spending now debating it, it's workers canvassing for bourgeois candidates and 24/7 campaign ads planting establishment narratives into the public, its people participating in democratic offices when they could be doing grassroots organizing, it's minimizing anything that doesn't help your candidate like the economic conditions of the working class or the fact the candidate is massively aiding a genocide, it's throwing your hands up when your team doesn't win and callously telling your class members "FAFO" when you could be rallying on a shared struggle. It's fucking toxic, and don't you dare pretend you don't know what I'm talking about with your "no u" ass arguments. I don't refuse to understand anything. lmfao... You know what, I was pretty clear and concise with my language. I said what I wanted to say. I'm not going to play point-for-point semantics with you because it would take me writing a several-pages-long essay to fully get my meaning across to someone who is clearly digging in their heels and not willing to take me in good faith. There's also theorists out there who have already done a far better job than I would at that but I doubt you would care to read them. In short; try putting your ego aside, re-reading what I said, and thinking super hard about it. I've already answered all of your questions, you're just blocking them out at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) [–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 20 points 1 year ago (3 children) What's the actual difference? You end up at the same place with either one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Oppopity@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) but all they really care about is money and influence. Correct. That is why they maintain American imperialism. Such as funding a genocide in the middle east. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Oppopity@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago You cannot convince the rich and powerful that it's politically unfavourable when it's economically favourable to do genocide. They don't care about what people want. They care about what they want, and that's US imperialism. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago This feels like trying to explain to someone that you can have 2 different infinities, and one is larger than the other. Both are bad, but one is clearly worse. "What's the difference if you end up at the same place?" The difference is that 2 genocides is not the same place as 1 genocide. It is reasonable to criticize the people supporting a genocide while at the same time recognizing that the people wanting more genocides are not the same. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] culprit@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago politicians who compromise with fascists are still miles better than just uncompromised fascism the paradox of tolerance, ever heard of it? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] narwhal@mander.xyz 13 points 1 year ago* The world cares about what they do to other nations, not to themselves. Crazy gun policies? Slave labour in prisons? Your problem. Military expansionism, cripling economic sanctions, political inference? Very much our problem. That did't change. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago They aren't fascists, yet they're committing a genocide: Democrats: against every genocide except the current one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tinidril@midwest.social 6 points 1 year ago (11 children) I'm sympathetic to your argument, but ultimately they absolutely are fascist. If you doubt me, then to ask a Palestinian. There is very little that the Trump regime is doing that the Democrats weren't doing less obnoxiously and on a much slower timescale. We can't keep accepting the lesser evil indefinitely. When you brush off the serious issues in the Democratic party with language like "no saints" you make it look like that's exactly what you intend for the country to do. I mean "politicians will be politicians". That's not convincing anymore. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* If you doubt me, then to ask a Palestinian. Just to clarify this to others: permalink fedilink source parent [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (9 children) There is very little that the Trump regime is doing that the Democrats weren't doing less obnoxiously and on a much slower timescale. That part is important. I hear you about "the lesser evil" but if you're response to resisting a lesser evil results in a faster, accelerated evil then you have contributed to a much greater harm. If you doubt me, ask a Palestinian if they are better off with Democrats not having any power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (5 children) If you doubt me, ask a Palestinian if they are better off with Democrats not having any power. Biden was in power when the genocide started and during most of it. He had the power to stop it and didn't. So there's your answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) So the Genocide hasn't accelerated under Trump as OP claimed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) No. It continued at the same rate. It is a nonsensical argument anyways. Biden could have stopped it but chose to pass it on to Trump. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Okay, don't vote for Biden then. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Swapping faces changes nothing. The rot starts with the DNC and without a formal apology for enabling the genocide the party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out and I am not into necrophilia. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago Biden could have stopped it Use better language then. he party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out On the corpse people are living on. Americans throwing up their hands and saying "both are dead to me" just accelerates the rot. In all these posts of people insisting trying to minimize damage is unethical I haven't seen a single one trying to push for an alternative or a fucking solution. "Everything is bad and if you get involved in any way you are evil. If you are a good person then do nothing, that is how you stop evil from succeeding." permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tinidril@midwest.social -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child) That's the part where I'm sympathetic to your argument. I think anyone not voting for Harris made a mistake. I also think the arguments people like you made for people to vote for Harris were really really bad and that you are enabling the Democrats to continue down a terrible path of failure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) I also think the arguments people like you made for people to vote for Harris were really really bad and that you are enabling the Democrats to continue down a terrible path of failure. The argument I made for people to vote for Harris was that this is exactly what will happen if Trump wins, and 3 months before an election is not the time to try to get a viable alternative. Harris sucked, her campaign was shit, but the alternative is running the predictable course. Now is an excellent time to work on a viable alternative, but saying "both are the same" is disingenuous, and is not actually putting an alternative forward. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tinidril@midwest.social -3 points 1 year ago To put it differently, if they are the proximate cause of the Trump presidency, then you are the ultimate cause. I throw up my hands at trying to decide which matters more. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 year ago (1 child) Is committing genocide not a fascist act? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Fascism provides a specific permission structure for genocide that isn't present in other systems. That's not to say genocide didn't happen before the term was coined, but that the characteristics of fascism; nationalism, racial supremacy, military supremacy, victim complex, out groups, scapegoating, disdain for human rights, etc.; tend to be present anywhere that genocide is present, and genocide doesn't just happen because some "genocidal regime" found its way into power. Whether or not you need their permission to make the policy; you need the people's permission for it to stand, because ultimately you need the people's voluntary compliance in order to carry it out. Otherwise you undermine your own system and generally incite resistance against it. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Fascism provides a specific permission structure for genocide that isn't present in other systems. That's not to say genocide didn't happen before the term was coined, but that the characteristics of fascism; nationalism, racial supremacy, military supremacy, victim complex, out groups, scapegoating, disdain for human rights, etc.; tend to be present anywhere that genocide is present, and genocide doesn't just happen because some "genocidal regime" found its way into power. Whether or not you need their permission to make the policy; you need the people's permission for it to stand, because ultimately you need the people's voluntary compliance in order to carry it out. Otherwise you undermine your own system and generally incite resistance against it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] causepix@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Fascism provides a specific permission structure for genocide that isn't present in other systems. That's not to say genocide didn't happen before the term was coined, but that the characteristics of fascism; nationalism, racial supremacy, military supremacy, victim complex, out groups, scapegoating, disdain for human rights, etc.; tend to be present anywhere that genocide is present, and genocide doesn't just happen because some "genocidal regime" found its way into power. Whether or not you need their permission to make the policy; you need the people's permission for it to stand, because ultimately you need the people's voluntary compliance in order to carry it out. Otherwise you undermine your own system and generally incite resistance against it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 29 points 1 year ago (10 children) They just do nothing to stop the fascists when they have power and do everything they can to compromise with them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -10 points 1 year ago (10 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] anoriginalthought@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (4 children) Great hero of the people: Neville Chamberlain permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'd say that's a ridiculous choice and it's time to organize with the masses against the system that presented it to us; rather than undermine that effort by treating the system as legitimate and shaming others for not seeing the candidates and their futures the way I did. Hand me two cups of shit, I still have free will to throw them back in your face. The system can force feed if it wants but you won't see me voluntarily picking a shit cup and eating shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -6 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) The point is I'm not going to lend you any legitimacy by picking up the shit and eating it myself, then turning at the people around me and asking why they aren't eating it yet. I'm going to make it impossible for the shit peddler to hide their willingness and ability to abuse their power. If I'm eating shit either way, why would I do it in a way that makes it apparent to outsiders that I'm choosing to eat shit? And no, when you scold people for not participating in a system, you are not just not "refusing to acknowledge its legitimacy". You are promoting it, whether you care to or not. You are promoting the idea that everyone is choosing these options out of complete and true support of complete and unbiased information. This is especially true when people like you misrepresent and refuse to understand the arguments of those who choose to abstain or vote third party. You are saying, "if you participate in this system, you could change the way things are going; and if you don't, then you implicitly consent to it", which is simply not true. Interestingly enough, you know how little power a person has when acting as an individual, which is why you minimize the reach of individuals when it comes to forms of political action other than voting, but you never apply it to the situation of voting where the ruling class has vast numbers of ways to influence people's behaviors in whatever direction they want. The change can only come when we have built the ability to move cohesively as a class, or a voting bloc if you will, that can either take power for itself or force our leaders to come to our table if they want our compliance. We can only build this by overcoming the resentment we hold for other members of our class, and putting one foot in front of the other; turning one person at a time towards the inner workings of the machine that the ruling class works so hard to hide. Not by stoking resentment and wasting our energy trying to manipulate an illegitimate system while we wait around for the movement to build itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) You keep saying that, but what does that even mean? You don't know what legitimacy is? Our political system rests on the consent of the people, because the people have the power of collective action when they are organized and/or believe en masse that the pathways by which the system claims to represent them are illegitimate (re: not actually representing them). The ruling class wouldn't work so hard to obscure their undemocratic nature if that wasn't the case. People don't just accept those kinds of things, they resist and build power that does represent them. That is demonstrable throughout history. Voting is not only going out to vote on the day of, its all the time you and I are spending now debating it, it's workers canvassing for bourgeois candidates and 24/7 campaign ads planting establishment narratives into the public, its people participating in democratic offices when they could be doing grassroots organizing, it's minimizing anything that doesn't help your candidate like the economic conditions of the working class or the fact the candidate is massively aiding a genocide, it's throwing your hands up when your team doesn't win and callously telling your class members "FAFO" when you could be rallying on a shared struggle. It's fucking toxic, and don't you dare pretend you don't know what I'm talking about with your "no u" ass arguments. I don't refuse to understand anything. lmfao... You know what, I was pretty clear and concise with my language. I said what I wanted to say. I'm not going to play point-for-point semantics with you because it would take me writing a several-pages-long essay to fully get my meaning across to someone who is clearly digging in their heels and not willing to take me in good faith. There's also theorists out there who have already done a far better job than I would at that but I doubt you would care to read them. In short; try putting your ego aside, re-reading what I said, and thinking super hard about it. I've already answered all of your questions, you're just blocking them out at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) [–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 20 points 1 year ago (3 children) What's the actual difference? You end up at the same place with either one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Oppopity@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) but all they really care about is money and influence. Correct. That is why they maintain American imperialism. Such as funding a genocide in the middle east. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Oppopity@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago You cannot convince the rich and powerful that it's politically unfavourable when it's economically favourable to do genocide. They don't care about what people want. They care about what they want, and that's US imperialism. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago This feels like trying to explain to someone that you can have 2 different infinities, and one is larger than the other. Both are bad, but one is clearly worse. "What's the difference if you end up at the same place?" The difference is that 2 genocides is not the same place as 1 genocide. It is reasonable to criticize the people supporting a genocide while at the same time recognizing that the people wanting more genocides are not the same. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] culprit@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago politicians who compromise with fascists are still miles better than just uncompromised fascism the paradox of tolerance, ever heard of it? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -10 points 1 year ago (10 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] anoriginalthought@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (4 children) Great hero of the people: Neville Chamberlain permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'd say that's a ridiculous choice and it's time to organize with the masses against the system that presented it to us; rather than undermine that effort by treating the system as legitimate and shaming others for not seeing the candidates and their futures the way I did. Hand me two cups of shit, I still have free will to throw them back in your face. The system can force feed if it wants but you won't see me voluntarily picking a shit cup and eating shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -6 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) The point is I'm not going to lend you any legitimacy by picking up the shit and eating it myself, then turning at the people around me and asking why they aren't eating it yet. I'm going to make it impossible for the shit peddler to hide their willingness and ability to abuse their power. If I'm eating shit either way, why would I do it in a way that makes it apparent to outsiders that I'm choosing to eat shit? And no, when you scold people for not participating in a system, you are not just not "refusing to acknowledge its legitimacy". You are promoting it, whether you care to or not. You are promoting the idea that everyone is choosing these options out of complete and true support of complete and unbiased information. This is especially true when people like you misrepresent and refuse to understand the arguments of those who choose to abstain or vote third party. You are saying, "if you participate in this system, you could change the way things are going; and if you don't, then you implicitly consent to it", which is simply not true. Interestingly enough, you know how little power a person has when acting as an individual, which is why you minimize the reach of individuals when it comes to forms of political action other than voting, but you never apply it to the situation of voting where the ruling class has vast numbers of ways to influence people's behaviors in whatever direction they want. The change can only come when we have built the ability to move cohesively as a class, or a voting bloc if you will, that can either take power for itself or force our leaders to come to our table if they want our compliance. We can only build this by overcoming the resentment we hold for other members of our class, and putting one foot in front of the other; turning one person at a time towards the inner workings of the machine that the ruling class works so hard to hide. Not by stoking resentment and wasting our energy trying to manipulate an illegitimate system while we wait around for the movement to build itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) You keep saying that, but what does that even mean? You don't know what legitimacy is? Our political system rests on the consent of the people, because the people have the power of collective action when they are organized and/or believe en masse that the pathways by which the system claims to represent them are illegitimate (re: not actually representing them). The ruling class wouldn't work so hard to obscure their undemocratic nature if that wasn't the case. People don't just accept those kinds of things, they resist and build power that does represent them. That is demonstrable throughout history. Voting is not only going out to vote on the day of, its all the time you and I are spending now debating it, it's workers canvassing for bourgeois candidates and 24/7 campaign ads planting establishment narratives into the public, its people participating in democratic offices when they could be doing grassroots organizing, it's minimizing anything that doesn't help your candidate like the economic conditions of the working class or the fact the candidate is massively aiding a genocide, it's throwing your hands up when your team doesn't win and callously telling your class members "FAFO" when you could be rallying on a shared struggle. It's fucking toxic, and don't you dare pretend you don't know what I'm talking about with your "no u" ass arguments. I don't refuse to understand anything. lmfao... You know what, I was pretty clear and concise with my language. I said what I wanted to say. I'm not going to play point-for-point semantics with you because it would take me writing a several-pages-long essay to fully get my meaning across to someone who is clearly digging in their heels and not willing to take me in good faith. There's also theorists out there who have already done a far better job than I would at that but I doubt you would care to read them. In short; try putting your ego aside, re-reading what I said, and thinking super hard about it. I've already answered all of your questions, you're just blocking them out at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) [–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 20 points 1 year ago (3 children) What's the actual difference? You end up at the same place with either one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Oppopity@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) but all they really care about is money and influence. Correct. That is why they maintain American imperialism. Such as funding a genocide in the middle east. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Oppopity@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago You cannot convince the rich and powerful that it's politically unfavourable when it's economically favourable to do genocide. They don't care about what people want. They care about what they want, and that's US imperialism. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago This feels like trying to explain to someone that you can have 2 different infinities, and one is larger than the other. Both are bad, but one is clearly worse. "What's the difference if you end up at the same place?" The difference is that 2 genocides is not the same place as 1 genocide. It is reasonable to criticize the people supporting a genocide while at the same time recognizing that the people wanting more genocides are not the same. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] culprit@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago politicians who compromise with fascists are still miles better than just uncompromised fascism the paradox of tolerance, ever heard of it? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] anoriginalthought@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (4 children) Great hero of the people: Neville Chamberlain permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'd say that's a ridiculous choice and it's time to organize with the masses against the system that presented it to us; rather than undermine that effort by treating the system as legitimate and shaming others for not seeing the candidates and their futures the way I did. Hand me two cups of shit, I still have free will to throw them back in your face. The system can force feed if it wants but you won't see me voluntarily picking a shit cup and eating shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -6 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) The point is I'm not going to lend you any legitimacy by picking up the shit and eating it myself, then turning at the people around me and asking why they aren't eating it yet. I'm going to make it impossible for the shit peddler to hide their willingness and ability to abuse their power. If I'm eating shit either way, why would I do it in a way that makes it apparent to outsiders that I'm choosing to eat shit? And no, when you scold people for not participating in a system, you are not just not "refusing to acknowledge its legitimacy". You are promoting it, whether you care to or not. You are promoting the idea that everyone is choosing these options out of complete and true support of complete and unbiased information. This is especially true when people like you misrepresent and refuse to understand the arguments of those who choose to abstain or vote third party. You are saying, "if you participate in this system, you could change the way things are going; and if you don't, then you implicitly consent to it", which is simply not true. Interestingly enough, you know how little power a person has when acting as an individual, which is why you minimize the reach of individuals when it comes to forms of political action other than voting, but you never apply it to the situation of voting where the ruling class has vast numbers of ways to influence people's behaviors in whatever direction they want. The change can only come when we have built the ability to move cohesively as a class, or a voting bloc if you will, that can either take power for itself or force our leaders to come to our table if they want our compliance. We can only build this by overcoming the resentment we hold for other members of our class, and putting one foot in front of the other; turning one person at a time towards the inner workings of the machine that the ruling class works so hard to hide. Not by stoking resentment and wasting our energy trying to manipulate an illegitimate system while we wait around for the movement to build itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) You keep saying that, but what does that even mean? You don't know what legitimacy is? Our political system rests on the consent of the people, because the people have the power of collective action when they are organized and/or believe en masse that the pathways by which the system claims to represent them are illegitimate (re: not actually representing them). The ruling class wouldn't work so hard to obscure their undemocratic nature if that wasn't the case. People don't just accept those kinds of things, they resist and build power that does represent them. That is demonstrable throughout history. Voting is not only going out to vote on the day of, its all the time you and I are spending now debating it, it's workers canvassing for bourgeois candidates and 24/7 campaign ads planting establishment narratives into the public, its people participating in democratic offices when they could be doing grassroots organizing, it's minimizing anything that doesn't help your candidate like the economic conditions of the working class or the fact the candidate is massively aiding a genocide, it's throwing your hands up when your team doesn't win and callously telling your class members "FAFO" when you could be rallying on a shared struggle. It's fucking toxic, and don't you dare pretend you don't know what I'm talking about with your "no u" ass arguments. I don't refuse to understand anything. lmfao... You know what, I was pretty clear and concise with my language. I said what I wanted to say. I'm not going to play point-for-point semantics with you because it would take me writing a several-pages-long essay to fully get my meaning across to someone who is clearly digging in their heels and not willing to take me in good faith. There's also theorists out there who have already done a far better job than I would at that but I doubt you would care to read them. In short; try putting your ego aside, re-reading what I said, and thinking super hard about it. I've already answered all of your questions, you're just blocking them out at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'd say that's a ridiculous choice and it's time to organize with the masses against the system that presented it to us; rather than undermine that effort by treating the system as legitimate and shaming others for not seeing the candidates and their futures the way I did. Hand me two cups of shit, I still have free will to throw them back in your face. The system can force feed if it wants but you won't see me voluntarily picking a shit cup and eating shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -6 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) The point is I'm not going to lend you any legitimacy by picking up the shit and eating it myself, then turning at the people around me and asking why they aren't eating it yet. I'm going to make it impossible for the shit peddler to hide their willingness and ability to abuse their power. If I'm eating shit either way, why would I do it in a way that makes it apparent to outsiders that I'm choosing to eat shit? And no, when you scold people for not participating in a system, you are not just not "refusing to acknowledge its legitimacy". You are promoting it, whether you care to or not. You are promoting the idea that everyone is choosing these options out of complete and true support of complete and unbiased information. This is especially true when people like you misrepresent and refuse to understand the arguments of those who choose to abstain or vote third party. You are saying, "if you participate in this system, you could change the way things are going; and if you don't, then you implicitly consent to it", which is simply not true. Interestingly enough, you know how little power a person has when acting as an individual, which is why you minimize the reach of individuals when it comes to forms of political action other than voting, but you never apply it to the situation of voting where the ruling class has vast numbers of ways to influence people's behaviors in whatever direction they want. The change can only come when we have built the ability to move cohesively as a class, or a voting bloc if you will, that can either take power for itself or force our leaders to come to our table if they want our compliance. We can only build this by overcoming the resentment we hold for other members of our class, and putting one foot in front of the other; turning one person at a time towards the inner workings of the machine that the ruling class works so hard to hide. Not by stoking resentment and wasting our energy trying to manipulate an illegitimate system while we wait around for the movement to build itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) You keep saying that, but what does that even mean? You don't know what legitimacy is? Our political system rests on the consent of the people, because the people have the power of collective action when they are organized and/or believe en masse that the pathways by which the system claims to represent them are illegitimate (re: not actually representing them). The ruling class wouldn't work so hard to obscure their undemocratic nature if that wasn't the case. People don't just accept those kinds of things, they resist and build power that does represent them. That is demonstrable throughout history. Voting is not only going out to vote on the day of, its all the time you and I are spending now debating it, it's workers canvassing for bourgeois candidates and 24/7 campaign ads planting establishment narratives into the public, its people participating in democratic offices when they could be doing grassroots organizing, it's minimizing anything that doesn't help your candidate like the economic conditions of the working class or the fact the candidate is massively aiding a genocide, it's throwing your hands up when your team doesn't win and callously telling your class members "FAFO" when you could be rallying on a shared struggle. It's fucking toxic, and don't you dare pretend you don't know what I'm talking about with your "no u" ass arguments. I don't refuse to understand anything. lmfao... You know what, I was pretty clear and concise with my language. I said what I wanted to say. I'm not going to play point-for-point semantics with you because it would take me writing a several-pages-long essay to fully get my meaning across to someone who is clearly digging in their heels and not willing to take me in good faith. There's also theorists out there who have already done a far better job than I would at that but I doubt you would care to read them. In short; try putting your ego aside, re-reading what I said, and thinking super hard about it. I've already answered all of your questions, you're just blocking them out at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] causepix@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (3 children) I'd say that's a ridiculous choice and it's time to organize with the masses against the system that presented it to us; rather than undermine that effort by treating the system as legitimate and shaming others for not seeing the candidates and their futures the way I did. Hand me two cups of shit, I still have free will to throw them back in your face. The system can force feed if it wants but you won't see me voluntarily picking a shit cup and eating shit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -6 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) The point is I'm not going to lend you any legitimacy by picking up the shit and eating it myself, then turning at the people around me and asking why they aren't eating it yet. I'm going to make it impossible for the shit peddler to hide their willingness and ability to abuse their power. If I'm eating shit either way, why would I do it in a way that makes it apparent to outsiders that I'm choosing to eat shit? And no, when you scold people for not participating in a system, you are not just not "refusing to acknowledge its legitimacy". You are promoting it, whether you care to or not. You are promoting the idea that everyone is choosing these options out of complete and true support of complete and unbiased information. This is especially true when people like you misrepresent and refuse to understand the arguments of those who choose to abstain or vote third party. You are saying, "if you participate in this system, you could change the way things are going; and if you don't, then you implicitly consent to it", which is simply not true. Interestingly enough, you know how little power a person has when acting as an individual, which is why you minimize the reach of individuals when it comes to forms of political action other than voting, but you never apply it to the situation of voting where the ruling class has vast numbers of ways to influence people's behaviors in whatever direction they want. The change can only come when we have built the ability to move cohesively as a class, or a voting bloc if you will, that can either take power for itself or force our leaders to come to our table if they want our compliance. We can only build this by overcoming the resentment we hold for other members of our class, and putting one foot in front of the other; turning one person at a time towards the inner workings of the machine that the ruling class works so hard to hide. Not by stoking resentment and wasting our energy trying to manipulate an illegitimate system while we wait around for the movement to build itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) You keep saying that, but what does that even mean? You don't know what legitimacy is? Our political system rests on the consent of the people, because the people have the power of collective action when they are organized and/or believe en masse that the pathways by which the system claims to represent them are illegitimate (re: not actually representing them). The ruling class wouldn't work so hard to obscure their undemocratic nature if that wasn't the case. People don't just accept those kinds of things, they resist and build power that does represent them. That is demonstrable throughout history. Voting is not only going out to vote on the day of, its all the time you and I are spending now debating it, it's workers canvassing for bourgeois candidates and 24/7 campaign ads planting establishment narratives into the public, its people participating in democratic offices when they could be doing grassroots organizing, it's minimizing anything that doesn't help your candidate like the economic conditions of the working class or the fact the candidate is massively aiding a genocide, it's throwing your hands up when your team doesn't win and callously telling your class members "FAFO" when you could be rallying on a shared struggle. It's fucking toxic, and don't you dare pretend you don't know what I'm talking about with your "no u" ass arguments. I don't refuse to understand anything. lmfao... You know what, I was pretty clear and concise with my language. I said what I wanted to say. I'm not going to play point-for-point semantics with you because it would take me writing a several-pages-long essay to fully get my meaning across to someone who is clearly digging in their heels and not willing to take me in good faith. There's also theorists out there who have already done a far better job than I would at that but I doubt you would care to read them. In short; try putting your ego aside, re-reading what I said, and thinking super hard about it. I've already answered all of your questions, you're just blocking them out at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -6 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) The point is I'm not going to lend you any legitimacy by picking up the shit and eating it myself, then turning at the people around me and asking why they aren't eating it yet. I'm going to make it impossible for the shit peddler to hide their willingness and ability to abuse their power. If I'm eating shit either way, why would I do it in a way that makes it apparent to outsiders that I'm choosing to eat shit? And no, when you scold people for not participating in a system, you are not just not "refusing to acknowledge its legitimacy". You are promoting it, whether you care to or not. You are promoting the idea that everyone is choosing these options out of complete and true support of complete and unbiased information. This is especially true when people like you misrepresent and refuse to understand the arguments of those who choose to abstain or vote third party. You are saying, "if you participate in this system, you could change the way things are going; and if you don't, then you implicitly consent to it", which is simply not true. Interestingly enough, you know how little power a person has when acting as an individual, which is why you minimize the reach of individuals when it comes to forms of political action other than voting, but you never apply it to the situation of voting where the ruling class has vast numbers of ways to influence people's behaviors in whatever direction they want. The change can only come when we have built the ability to move cohesively as a class, or a voting bloc if you will, that can either take power for itself or force our leaders to come to our table if they want our compliance. We can only build this by overcoming the resentment we hold for other members of our class, and putting one foot in front of the other; turning one person at a time towards the inner workings of the machine that the ruling class works so hard to hide. Not by stoking resentment and wasting our energy trying to manipulate an illegitimate system while we wait around for the movement to build itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) You keep saying that, but what does that even mean? You don't know what legitimacy is? Our political system rests on the consent of the people, because the people have the power of collective action when they are organized and/or believe en masse that the pathways by which the system claims to represent them are illegitimate (re: not actually representing them). The ruling class wouldn't work so hard to obscure their undemocratic nature if that wasn't the case. People don't just accept those kinds of things, they resist and build power that does represent them. That is demonstrable throughout history. Voting is not only going out to vote on the day of, its all the time you and I are spending now debating it, it's workers canvassing for bourgeois candidates and 24/7 campaign ads planting establishment narratives into the public, its people participating in democratic offices when they could be doing grassroots organizing, it's minimizing anything that doesn't help your candidate like the economic conditions of the working class or the fact the candidate is massively aiding a genocide, it's throwing your hands up when your team doesn't win and callously telling your class members "FAFO" when you could be rallying on a shared struggle. It's fucking toxic, and don't you dare pretend you don't know what I'm talking about with your "no u" ass arguments. I don't refuse to understand anything. lmfao... You know what, I was pretty clear and concise with my language. I said what I wanted to say. I'm not going to play point-for-point semantics with you because it would take me writing a several-pages-long essay to fully get my meaning across to someone who is clearly digging in their heels and not willing to take me in good faith. There's also theorists out there who have already done a far better job than I would at that but I doubt you would care to read them. In short; try putting your ego aside, re-reading what I said, and thinking super hard about it. I've already answered all of your questions, you're just blocking them out at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] causepix@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) The point is I'm not going to lend you any legitimacy by picking up the shit and eating it myself, then turning at the people around me and asking why they aren't eating it yet. I'm going to make it impossible for the shit peddler to hide their willingness and ability to abuse their power. If I'm eating shit either way, why would I do it in a way that makes it apparent to outsiders that I'm choosing to eat shit? And no, when you scold people for not participating in a system, you are not just not "refusing to acknowledge its legitimacy". You are promoting it, whether you care to or not. You are promoting the idea that everyone is choosing these options out of complete and true support of complete and unbiased information. This is especially true when people like you misrepresent and refuse to understand the arguments of those who choose to abstain or vote third party. You are saying, "if you participate in this system, you could change the way things are going; and if you don't, then you implicitly consent to it", which is simply not true. Interestingly enough, you know how little power a person has when acting as an individual, which is why you minimize the reach of individuals when it comes to forms of political action other than voting, but you never apply it to the situation of voting where the ruling class has vast numbers of ways to influence people's behaviors in whatever direction they want. The change can only come when we have built the ability to move cohesively as a class, or a voting bloc if you will, that can either take power for itself or force our leaders to come to our table if they want our compliance. We can only build this by overcoming the resentment we hold for other members of our class, and putting one foot in front of the other; turning one person at a time towards the inner workings of the machine that the ruling class works so hard to hide. Not by stoking resentment and wasting our energy trying to manipulate an illegitimate system while we wait around for the movement to build itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) You keep saying that, but what does that even mean? You don't know what legitimacy is? Our political system rests on the consent of the people, because the people have the power of collective action when they are organized and/or believe en masse that the pathways by which the system claims to represent them are illegitimate (re: not actually representing them). The ruling class wouldn't work so hard to obscure their undemocratic nature if that wasn't the case. People don't just accept those kinds of things, they resist and build power that does represent them. That is demonstrable throughout history. Voting is not only going out to vote on the day of, its all the time you and I are spending now debating it, it's workers canvassing for bourgeois candidates and 24/7 campaign ads planting establishment narratives into the public, its people participating in democratic offices when they could be doing grassroots organizing, it's minimizing anything that doesn't help your candidate like the economic conditions of the working class or the fact the candidate is massively aiding a genocide, it's throwing your hands up when your team doesn't win and callously telling your class members "FAFO" when you could be rallying on a shared struggle. It's fucking toxic, and don't you dare pretend you don't know what I'm talking about with your "no u" ass arguments. I don't refuse to understand anything. lmfao... You know what, I was pretty clear and concise with my language. I said what I wanted to say. I'm not going to play point-for-point semantics with you because it would take me writing a several-pages-long essay to fully get my meaning across to someone who is clearly digging in their heels and not willing to take me in good faith. There's also theorists out there who have already done a far better job than I would at that but I doubt you would care to read them. In short; try putting your ego aside, re-reading what I said, and thinking super hard about it. I've already answered all of your questions, you're just blocking them out at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) You keep saying that, but what does that even mean? You don't know what legitimacy is? Our political system rests on the consent of the people, because the people have the power of collective action when they are organized and/or believe en masse that the pathways by which the system claims to represent them are illegitimate (re: not actually representing them). The ruling class wouldn't work so hard to obscure their undemocratic nature if that wasn't the case. People don't just accept those kinds of things, they resist and build power that does represent them. That is demonstrable throughout history. Voting is not only going out to vote on the day of, its all the time you and I are spending now debating it, it's workers canvassing for bourgeois candidates and 24/7 campaign ads planting establishment narratives into the public, its people participating in democratic offices when they could be doing grassroots organizing, it's minimizing anything that doesn't help your candidate like the economic conditions of the working class or the fact the candidate is massively aiding a genocide, it's throwing your hands up when your team doesn't win and callously telling your class members "FAFO" when you could be rallying on a shared struggle. It's fucking toxic, and don't you dare pretend you don't know what I'm talking about with your "no u" ass arguments. I don't refuse to understand anything. lmfao... You know what, I was pretty clear and concise with my language. I said what I wanted to say. I'm not going to play point-for-point semantics with you because it would take me writing a several-pages-long essay to fully get my meaning across to someone who is clearly digging in their heels and not willing to take me in good faith. There's also theorists out there who have already done a far better job than I would at that but I doubt you would care to read them. In short; try putting your ego aside, re-reading what I said, and thinking super hard about it. I've already answered all of your questions, you're just blocking them out at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child) You keep saying that, but what does that even mean? You don't know what legitimacy is? Our political system rests on the consent of the people, because the people have the power of collective action when they are organized and/or believe en masse that the pathways by which the system claims to represent them are illegitimate (re: not actually representing them). The ruling class wouldn't work so hard to obscure their undemocratic nature if that wasn't the case. People don't just accept those kinds of things, they resist and build power that does represent them. That is demonstrable throughout history. Voting is not only going out to vote on the day of, its all the time you and I are spending now debating it, it's workers canvassing for bourgeois candidates and 24/7 campaign ads planting establishment narratives into the public, its people participating in democratic offices when they could be doing grassroots organizing, it's minimizing anything that doesn't help your candidate like the economic conditions of the working class or the fact the candidate is massively aiding a genocide, it's throwing your hands up when your team doesn't win and callously telling your class members "FAFO" when you could be rallying on a shared struggle. It's fucking toxic, and don't you dare pretend you don't know what I'm talking about with your "no u" ass arguments. I don't refuse to understand anything. lmfao... You know what, I was pretty clear and concise with my language. I said what I wanted to say. I'm not going to play point-for-point semantics with you because it would take me writing a several-pages-long essay to fully get my meaning across to someone who is clearly digging in their heels and not willing to take me in good faith. There's also theorists out there who have already done a far better job than I would at that but I doubt you would care to read them. In short; try putting your ego aside, re-reading what I said, and thinking super hard about it. I've already answered all of your questions, you're just blocking them out at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] causepix@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Astonishing, I could say this word for word to you, and it would be no less correct. Bullshit. First of all, I haven't asked you any questions dumbass, nor have i picked apart every last sentence and feigned ignorance on your meaning. Especially not on anything having to do with semantics. I would rather take you in good faith than debate the meanings of words. In case you need me to define my terms, "good faith" and "understanding things" means comprehending what was said in aggregate and being able respond to the argument's essential points, as the writer clearly intended them, rather than taking issue with individual sentences and words used. The latter is what's known as "looking for an argument" and generally indicates you're just going to waste time and be contrarian about anything I say. Like I could say the sky is blue and you'll find a way to disagree. Good faith is assuming that yes, I must know that the sky simply appears blue only in certain weather and times of day and I must be using a shorthand for the sake of the format. We're not writing policy here, we're conversing on Lemmy. Well, more like trading insults at this point. I also wanted to let you know I've stopped reading your diatribes so you can stop writing them. I'll read it later. I'm not a morning person and I have a lot of other things I'm doing with my time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 20 points 1 year ago (3 children) What's the actual difference? You end up at the same place with either one. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Oppopity@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) but all they really care about is money and influence. Correct. That is why they maintain American imperialism. Such as funding a genocide in the middle east. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Oppopity@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago You cannot convince the rich and powerful that it's politically unfavourable when it's economically favourable to do genocide. They don't care about what people want. They care about what they want, and that's US imperialism. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago This feels like trying to explain to someone that you can have 2 different infinities, and one is larger than the other. Both are bad, but one is clearly worse. "What's the difference if you end up at the same place?" The difference is that 2 genocides is not the same place as 1 genocide. It is reasonable to criticize the people supporting a genocide while at the same time recognizing that the people wanting more genocides are not the same. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Oppopity@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) but all they really care about is money and influence. Correct. That is why they maintain American imperialism. Such as funding a genocide in the middle east. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Oppopity@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago You cannot convince the rich and powerful that it's politically unfavourable when it's economically favourable to do genocide. They don't care about what people want. They care about what they want, and that's US imperialism. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] Oppopity@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) but all they really care about is money and influence. Correct. That is why they maintain American imperialism. Such as funding a genocide in the middle east. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Oppopity@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago You cannot convince the rich and powerful that it's politically unfavourable when it's economically favourable to do genocide. They don't care about what people want. They care about what they want, and that's US imperialism. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Oppopity@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago You cannot convince the rich and powerful that it's politically unfavourable when it's economically favourable to do genocide. They don't care about what people want. They care about what they want, and that's US imperialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Oppopity@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago You cannot convince the rich and powerful that it's politically unfavourable when it's economically favourable to do genocide. They don't care about what people want. They care about what they want, and that's US imperialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago This feels like trying to explain to someone that you can have 2 different infinities, and one is larger than the other. Both are bad, but one is clearly worse. "What's the difference if you end up at the same place?" The difference is that 2 genocides is not the same place as 1 genocide. It is reasonable to criticize the people supporting a genocide while at the same time recognizing that the people wanting more genocides are not the same. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] culprit@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago politicians who compromise with fascists are still miles better than just uncompromised fascism the paradox of tolerance, ever heard of it? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] narwhal@mander.xyz 13 points 1 year ago* The world cares about what they do to other nations, not to themselves. Crazy gun policies? Slave labour in prisons? Your problem. Military expansionism, cripling economic sanctions, political inference? Very much our problem. That did't change. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago They aren't fascists, yet they're committing a genocide: Democrats: against every genocide except the current one. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 6 points 1 year ago (11 children) I'm sympathetic to your argument, but ultimately they absolutely are fascist. If you doubt me, then to ask a Palestinian. There is very little that the Trump regime is doing that the Democrats weren't doing less obnoxiously and on a much slower timescale. We can't keep accepting the lesser evil indefinitely. When you brush off the serious issues in the Democratic party with language like "no saints" you make it look like that's exactly what you intend for the country to do. I mean "politicians will be politicians". That's not convincing anymore. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* If you doubt me, then to ask a Palestinian. Just to clarify this to others: permalink fedilink source parent [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (9 children) There is very little that the Trump regime is doing that the Democrats weren't doing less obnoxiously and on a much slower timescale. That part is important. I hear you about "the lesser evil" but if you're response to resisting a lesser evil results in a faster, accelerated evil then you have contributed to a much greater harm. If you doubt me, ask a Palestinian if they are better off with Democrats not having any power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (5 children) If you doubt me, ask a Palestinian if they are better off with Democrats not having any power. Biden was in power when the genocide started and during most of it. He had the power to stop it and didn't. So there's your answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) So the Genocide hasn't accelerated under Trump as OP claimed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) No. It continued at the same rate. It is a nonsensical argument anyways. Biden could have stopped it but chose to pass it on to Trump. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Okay, don't vote for Biden then. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Swapping faces changes nothing. The rot starts with the DNC and without a formal apology for enabling the genocide the party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out and I am not into necrophilia. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago Biden could have stopped it Use better language then. he party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out On the corpse people are living on. Americans throwing up their hands and saying "both are dead to me" just accelerates the rot. In all these posts of people insisting trying to minimize damage is unethical I haven't seen a single one trying to push for an alternative or a fucking solution. "Everything is bad and if you get involved in any way you are evil. If you are a good person then do nothing, that is how you stop evil from succeeding." permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tinidril@midwest.social -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child) That's the part where I'm sympathetic to your argument. I think anyone not voting for Harris made a mistake. I also think the arguments people like you made for people to vote for Harris were really really bad and that you are enabling the Democrats to continue down a terrible path of failure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) I also think the arguments people like you made for people to vote for Harris were really really bad and that you are enabling the Democrats to continue down a terrible path of failure. The argument I made for people to vote for Harris was that this is exactly what will happen if Trump wins, and 3 months before an election is not the time to try to get a viable alternative. Harris sucked, her campaign was shit, but the alternative is running the predictable course. Now is an excellent time to work on a viable alternative, but saying "both are the same" is disingenuous, and is not actually putting an alternative forward. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tinidril@midwest.social -3 points 1 year ago To put it differently, if they are the proximate cause of the Trump presidency, then you are the ultimate cause. I throw up my hands at trying to decide which matters more. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* If you doubt me, then to ask a Palestinian. Just to clarify this to others: permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (9 children) There is very little that the Trump regime is doing that the Democrats weren't doing less obnoxiously and on a much slower timescale. That part is important. I hear you about "the lesser evil" but if you're response to resisting a lesser evil results in a faster, accelerated evil then you have contributed to a much greater harm. If you doubt me, ask a Palestinian if they are better off with Democrats not having any power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (5 children) If you doubt me, ask a Palestinian if they are better off with Democrats not having any power. Biden was in power when the genocide started and during most of it. He had the power to stop it and didn't. So there's your answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) So the Genocide hasn't accelerated under Trump as OP claimed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) No. It continued at the same rate. It is a nonsensical argument anyways. Biden could have stopped it but chose to pass it on to Trump. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Okay, don't vote for Biden then. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Swapping faces changes nothing. The rot starts with the DNC and without a formal apology for enabling the genocide the party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out and I am not into necrophilia. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago Biden could have stopped it Use better language then. he party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out On the corpse people are living on. Americans throwing up their hands and saying "both are dead to me" just accelerates the rot. In all these posts of people insisting trying to minimize damage is unethical I haven't seen a single one trying to push for an alternative or a fucking solution. "Everything is bad and if you get involved in any way you are evil. If you are a good person then do nothing, that is how you stop evil from succeeding." permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tinidril@midwest.social -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child) That's the part where I'm sympathetic to your argument. I think anyone not voting for Harris made a mistake. I also think the arguments people like you made for people to vote for Harris were really really bad and that you are enabling the Democrats to continue down a terrible path of failure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) I also think the arguments people like you made for people to vote for Harris were really really bad and that you are enabling the Democrats to continue down a terrible path of failure. The argument I made for people to vote for Harris was that this is exactly what will happen if Trump wins, and 3 months before an election is not the time to try to get a viable alternative. Harris sucked, her campaign was shit, but the alternative is running the predictable course. Now is an excellent time to work on a viable alternative, but saying "both are the same" is disingenuous, and is not actually putting an alternative forward. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tinidril@midwest.social -3 points 1 year ago To put it differently, if they are the proximate cause of the Trump presidency, then you are the ultimate cause. I throw up my hands at trying to decide which matters more. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (5 children) If you doubt me, ask a Palestinian if they are better off with Democrats not having any power. Biden was in power when the genocide started and during most of it. He had the power to stop it and didn't. So there's your answer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) So the Genocide hasn't accelerated under Trump as OP claimed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) No. It continued at the same rate. It is a nonsensical argument anyways. Biden could have stopped it but chose to pass it on to Trump. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Okay, don't vote for Biden then. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Swapping faces changes nothing. The rot starts with the DNC and without a formal apology for enabling the genocide the party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out and I am not into necrophilia. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago Biden could have stopped it Use better language then. he party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out On the corpse people are living on. Americans throwing up their hands and saying "both are dead to me" just accelerates the rot. In all these posts of people insisting trying to minimize damage is unethical I haven't seen a single one trying to push for an alternative or a fucking solution. "Everything is bad and if you get involved in any way you are evil. If you are a good person then do nothing, that is how you stop evil from succeeding." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (4 children) So the Genocide hasn't accelerated under Trump as OP claimed? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) No. It continued at the same rate. It is a nonsensical argument anyways. Biden could have stopped it but chose to pass it on to Trump. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Okay, don't vote for Biden then. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Swapping faces changes nothing. The rot starts with the DNC and without a formal apology for enabling the genocide the party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out and I am not into necrophilia. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago Biden could have stopped it Use better language then. he party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out On the corpse people are living on. Americans throwing up their hands and saying "both are dead to me" just accelerates the rot. In all these posts of people insisting trying to minimize damage is unethical I haven't seen a single one trying to push for an alternative or a fucking solution. "Everything is bad and if you get involved in any way you are evil. If you are a good person then do nothing, that is how you stop evil from succeeding." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children) No. It continued at the same rate. It is a nonsensical argument anyways. Biden could have stopped it but chose to pass it on to Trump. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Okay, don't vote for Biden then. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Swapping faces changes nothing. The rot starts with the DNC and without a formal apology for enabling the genocide the party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out and I am not into necrophilia. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago Biden could have stopped it Use better language then. he party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out On the corpse people are living on. Americans throwing up their hands and saying "both are dead to me" just accelerates the rot. In all these posts of people insisting trying to minimize damage is unethical I haven't seen a single one trying to push for an alternative or a fucking solution. "Everything is bad and if you get involved in any way you are evil. If you are a good person then do nothing, that is how you stop evil from succeeding." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Okay, don't vote for Biden then. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Swapping faces changes nothing. The rot starts with the DNC and without a formal apology for enabling the genocide the party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out and I am not into necrophilia. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago Biden could have stopped it Use better language then. he party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out On the corpse people are living on. Americans throwing up their hands and saying "both are dead to me" just accelerates the rot. In all these posts of people insisting trying to minimize damage is unethical I haven't seen a single one trying to push for an alternative or a fucking solution. "Everything is bad and if you get involved in any way you are evil. If you are a good person then do nothing, that is how you stop evil from succeeding." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) Swapping faces changes nothing. The rot starts with the DNC and without a formal apology for enabling the genocide the party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out and I am not into necrophilia. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago Biden could have stopped it Use better language then. he party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out On the corpse people are living on. Americans throwing up their hands and saying "both are dead to me" just accelerates the rot. In all these posts of people insisting trying to minimize damage is unethical I haven't seen a single one trying to push for an alternative or a fucking solution. "Everything is bad and if you get involved in any way you are evil. If you are a good person then do nothing, that is how you stop evil from succeeding." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago Biden could have stopped it Use better language then. he party is dead to me just like the Republicans. Two corpses fighting it out On the corpse people are living on. Americans throwing up their hands and saying "both are dead to me" just accelerates the rot. In all these posts of people insisting trying to minimize damage is unethical I haven't seen a single one trying to push for an alternative or a fucking solution. "Everything is bad and if you get involved in any way you are evil. If you are a good person then do nothing, that is how you stop evil from succeeding." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tinidril@midwest.social -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child) That's the part where I'm sympathetic to your argument. I think anyone not voting for Harris made a mistake. I also think the arguments people like you made for people to vote for Harris were really really bad and that you are enabling the Democrats to continue down a terrible path of failure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) I also think the arguments people like you made for people to vote for Harris were really really bad and that you are enabling the Democrats to continue down a terrible path of failure. The argument I made for people to vote for Harris was that this is exactly what will happen if Trump wins, and 3 months before an election is not the time to try to get a viable alternative. Harris sucked, her campaign was shit, but the alternative is running the predictable course. Now is an excellent time to work on a viable alternative, but saying "both are the same" is disingenuous, and is not actually putting an alternative forward. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) I also think the arguments people like you made for people to vote for Harris were really really bad and that you are enabling the Democrats to continue down a terrible path of failure. The argument I made for people to vote for Harris was that this is exactly what will happen if Trump wins, and 3 months before an election is not the time to try to get a viable alternative. Harris sucked, her campaign was shit, but the alternative is running the predictable course. Now is an excellent time to work on a viable alternative, but saying "both are the same" is disingenuous, and is not actually putting an alternative forward. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tinidril@midwest.social -3 points 1 year ago To put it differently, if they are the proximate cause of the Trump presidency, then you are the ultimate cause. I throw up my hands at trying to decide which matters more. permalink fedilink source parent