this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
224 points (80.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43678 readers
1961 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Of course we are talking about politics, not their metaphor. Metaphors break down pretty quickly in politics, as the actual material logic requires more than a five minute toy example.
In our current scenario, the Dems have a genocide candidate. If you vote for that and tell other people to vote for that, you are telling yourself and those around you that genocide is tolerable. Not just tolerable, even - recommendable in certain circumstances, pleading that it is reluctant. You are, in fact, helping to normalize genocide, and with it, dehumanize Palestinians. And if that genocidal candidate wins with your support, what will be the accepted consciousness? What will you and others internalize? It sure as shut will not be, "wow we should not have supported a fucking genocide what the fuck is wrong with us?" It will be, "hey cool we will support you no matter what, 98% Hitler". The party will see this and nod their heads, "let's start doing criminal charges for supporting Palestine" (they are already starting in this direction, e.g. Samidoun) and, "we never have to do anything our voters want".
Basically, y'all have no concept of leverage but you do have a concept of personal morality and are absolutely trashing it. You will, of course, never be forgjven by those who consider Palestinians to be human. One must hope that you overcome this implicit racism.
You forgot the other scenario. You talk of not having leverage because of a vote, and yet the other choice absolutely has no leverage at all, and possibly makes things even harder to change.
Let me ask this - would you recommend not voting for either President, but voting on the rest of the ballot? Because telling people to not vote usually implies don't show up at all, and that is part of why nothing changes. Local and state representation can matter more than the President.
I haven't said anything like, "not having leverage because of a vote". The relevance of leverage is that the entire premise of y'all's framings is that your role is to cheerlead your corronated genocidal candidate and accept anything they do, at least up to genocide. You throw away any concept of your own ability to make demands or organize and subordinate yourself to a genocidal political class. It makes you actively work against those who build leverage as well, you try to sheepdog them back into your self-defeating mindset.
So, having thrown away any real political analysis for building and using power, your vote is really reduced to a reflection of your personal morality. And that morality? To look at Palestinians as subhuman.
Re: harder to change, your electoral logic is already self-defeatjng. What do you think you are changing when your electoral logic is, "fall in line vite blue no matter who" including fucking genocide. Who would ever take you seriously? You think they're going to do anything to "win your vote"? Genocide apologist, they know they already have it. You announced you were giving it to them free of charge, that you will tolerate anything they do and still vote for them, and are actually pressuring others to do the same on their behalf.
You have thrown away any semblance of power or influence, and that is already within the limited confinea of electoralism. We all know that folks who think this way aren't out there working against the party in alternative organizations.
It amuses me how rational you think you are while simultaneously missing the point. The gop will collapse, and then the dems will be the right wing party that they want to be. And the fight will begin anew. Harris shift to the right is a fine demonstration of this.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. When would the GOP collapse? Dems of course want to move right, there is no capitalist draw to the left, if you can call it a left. They would love to be able to manage their party without a "left" flank to handle and pivot fully to nationalism.
When? Im not an Oracle. May take decades. May get worse before it gets better in certain areas. The USSR took a generation to collapse.
Im hoping harris move to the right enough and manages it. So we can split the dem party finally.