you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

I appreciate your post. I know I've probably argued with you before and sorry if I appear harsh or combatitive attacking the insinuation (which might not have been your directly stated position in a particular thread) that both parties are the same that it's not worth choosing one. It might come off as me defending the real harms users like you rightfully point out from the status quo which some "lesser evil" politicians are staking out, but I think we are an agreement we want better.

Keep on shining and advocating for the policies and people that can serve us better, but I will keep reminding people of the idea that solidarity will let us accomplish more of what we want even if we are not fully in alignment on every issue or the methods.

Quick word on Mr. Hamilton and religion. I'm not religious, but I'm not against religion for the sake of it. Most Abrahamic and worldwide religions teach the concept of empathy in one way or another. Religion is just a tool than can be used to spread both good and evil, and whether people learn empathy through that, through secular education or through lived experiences, then I don't really care how they did.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 week ago

    I appreciate that.

    The only thing I'll say is that in my view, solidarity goes across racial lines, gender lines, etc, but not across political lines. For example, you can have solidarity with both Jews and Palestinians, but you can't have solidarity with both Netanyahu and Palestinians. Solidarity across political lines often just means failing to hold people accountable for supporting harmful policies. Policies can change, but immutable characteristics of a person cannot. So when there is an incompatibility between those things, we can only demand that the policy changes, if we want to achieve real solidarity.

    Also, between an unreliable ally with power (a politician with bad policies) and a reliable ally without power (someone affected by those policies), I would rather have the latter. It's like, I don't know, Three Kingdoms shit. If you'll excuse me the fanciful example, Dong Zhou may have all the power but everyone hates him, ally with him and when the winds shift you go down with him. The Peach Garden Oath may be between three nobodies, but they'll stand by each other no matter what happens. Trust is earned slowly and broken easily, and if activists are expected to drop their cause at the drop of a hat, you lose them and the people they stand up for, potentially for decades to come. I don't believe there's any one position or seat that's worth more than that trust.

    OK, so two things. But that's my piece. And I agree with you about his religion, it doesn't matter so long as he keeps it separate.

  • source
  • parent