|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 07 2024 23:55 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2024 19:42 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 07 2024 19:30 maybenexttime wrote:On February 07 2024 18:30 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 06 2024 21:27 WombaT wrote:On February 06 2024 20:21 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 06 2024 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
My first thought is: "I won't vote for someone aiding and abetting Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestinians and find it irreconcilably problematic that Democrat voters rationalize/insist on/celebrate doing so." If your metric is 'any candidate that supports Israel' will lose your vote, then you won't find any candidates in the Western world, period. I mean, even in far more liberal European parties, tacit support for Israel is a given. No one is happy about it, but no one is withdrawing support either. If ‘support’ means believe it has a right to exist as a state, and has some right to self-defence of its people, then yeah I’d agree you’ll struggle to find many who don’t. Equally you will find many individuals, as well as whole parties who oppose settlements, back BDS and disagree with how the current conflict is being conducted. Although I’d assume it’s broadly a minority, or often these parties aren’t actually wielding the power of governments. While not innately hostile or opposed to Israel, I wouldn’t class those sorts of positions as supporting Israel either. In the UK your choices are more limited given Labour have become noticeably more hawkishly aligned with Israel under Starmer in terms of the Parliamentary party and its policy prescriptions, but even then that tradition hasn’t entirely dissipated from individual MPs who’ve long held other views, or the wider party membership. No western country has introduced sanctions (or threatened to) after the ICJ ruling, and no major left-leaning party is making the argument that we should use any means at our disposal (economic sanctions being the easiest) to stop this genocide from happening. I.e. we all tacitly support Israel in what they're doing. People keep throwing the word "genocide" but can anyone explain how what Israel is doing qualifies as such? As per Article 2 of the Genocide Convention genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. If the intention is to destroy Palestinian Arabs as such, why is Israel not doing anything about the millions of Palestinian Arabs who are Israeli citizens? You've just made the argument that no matter what Israel does in Gaza, Israel will "not be technically committing genocide" because Israeli Palestinians exist. Well, if you claim that Israel is trying to commit genocide on Palestinian Arabs and it lets millions of them live peacefully as citizens, something doesn't add up.
I don't see anything logically inconsistent with that. The definition you brought up specifically mentions "destroy, in whole or in part". This would be the "in part" scenario.
It's perfectly valid that Israel is fine sharing space with Palestinian ethnics that submit to their authority (i.e. a one state solution with that state being Israel), yet not fine sharing space with those that don't want to become part of Israel.
Note that I'm not arguing that what Israel is doing is necessarily genocide, just that the idea isn't made absurd or contradictory by having a large Palestinian minority as citizens.
|
On February 08 2024 00:12 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2024 23:55 maybenexttime wrote:
Well, if you claim that Israel is trying to commit genocide on Palestinian Arabs and it lets millions of them live peacefully as citizens, something doesn't add up.
I don't understand the argument. This is the ICJ ruling: Show nested quote +
"At least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention," the judges said.
The ruling required Israel to prevent and punish any public incitements to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and to preserve evidence related to any allegations of genocide there.
Israel must also take measures to improve the humanitarian situation for Palestinian civilians in the enclave, it said.
Do you disagree with the ICJ that some of the acts committed by Israel appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention?
All the court said is that it doesn't reject this accusation outright and it ought to be investigated.
|
|
|
On February 08 2024 01:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2024 01:18 Dan HH wrote:On February 07 2024 23:55 maybenexttime wrote:On February 07 2024 19:42 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 07 2024 19:30 maybenexttime wrote:On February 07 2024 18:30 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 06 2024 21:27 WombaT wrote:On February 06 2024 20:21 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 06 2024 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
My first thought is: "I won't vote for someone aiding and abetting Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestinians and find it irreconcilably problematic that Democrat voters rationalize/insist on/celebrate doing so." If your metric is 'any candidate that supports Israel' will lose your vote, then you won't find any candidates in the Western world, period. I mean, even in far more liberal European parties, tacit support for Israel is a given. No one is happy about it, but no one is withdrawing support either. If ‘support’ means believe it has a right to exist as a state, and has some right to self-defence of its people, then yeah I’d agree you’ll struggle to find many who don’t. Equally you will find many individuals, as well as whole parties who oppose settlements, back BDS and disagree with how the current conflict is being conducted. Although I’d assume it’s broadly a minority, or often these parties aren’t actually wielding the power of governments. While not innately hostile or opposed to Israel, I wouldn’t class those sorts of positions as supporting Israel either. In the UK your choices are more limited given Labour have become noticeably more hawkishly aligned with Israel under Starmer in terms of the Parliamentary party and its policy prescriptions, but even then that tradition hasn’t entirely dissipated from individual MPs who’ve long held other views, or the wider party membership. No western country has introduced sanctions (or threatened to) after the ICJ ruling, and no major left-leaning party is making the argument that we should use any means at our disposal (economic sanctions being the easiest) to stop this genocide from happening. I.e. we all tacitly support Israel in what they're doing. People keep throwing the word "genocide" but can anyone explain how what Israel is doing qualifies as such? As per Article 2 of the Genocide Convention genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. If the intention is to destroy Palestinian Arabs as such, why is Israel not doing anything about the millions of Palestinian Arabs who are Israeli citizens? You've just made the argument that no matter what Israel does in Gaza, Israel will "not be technically committing genocide" because Israeli Palestinians exist. Well, if you claim that Israel is trying to commit genocide on Palestinian Arabs and it lets millions of them live peacefully as citizens, something doesn't add up. I don't see anything logically inconsistent with that. The definition you brought up specifically mentions "destroy, in whole or in part". This would be the "in part" scenario. It's perfectly valid that Israel is fine sharing space with Palestinian ethnics that submit to their authority (i.e. a one state solution with that state being Israel), yet not fine sharing space with those that don't want to become part of Israel.Note that I'm not arguing that what Israel is doing is necessarily genocide, just that the idea isn't made absurd or contradictory by having a large Palestinian minority as citizens. Out of curiosity is the bolded part a for sure? I think it is more a case of Israelis being afraid that they will lose Israel if that many Muslim Arabs join (many who want to kill them all at this point). The Muslim Arabs that live within Israel have the most freedom and best standard of living on average of (maybe) every country in the middle east. I think this is partly why the extreme parts of the Jewish and Muslim religion have such high fertility rates. As bad as it sounds to some degree they are trying to outbreed each other and make it not sustainable for both to coexist.
No, it's not a for sure, only one possible scenario in which Israel could commit genocide despite not having a problem with some specific subsets of Palestinians.
|
|
|
First, the ICJ ruling is not an indictment of Genocide or Ethnic cleansing. It merely tells Israel to make sure that it's not committing genocide. (s) Because when someone is committing genocide, you politely ask them not to and to pretty please not destroy evidence of it (/s). So Israel can say "sure" and continue doing what they're doing.
Second, I reject the notion that Biden is aiding and abetting an ethnic cleansing even if you think Israel is committing ethnic cleansing. The actions he has taken seem to all be in service of preventing a larger war. If Israel were ever to be considered a military peer of other middle eastern countries, they would be immediately attacked. If everyone in the west were to withdraw support from Israel, we'd likely see attacks from Lebanon and Iran that would lead to an all-out war with hundreds of thousands of deaths, possibly millions. Instead, Biden has ordered very controlled retaliatory strikes against Iranian proxy terrorists and sent a message that their attacks will not be tolerated. At the same time, he has urged restraint with the Israelis while recognizing their pain, which is exactly what they need to limit their worst impulses after Oct 7th.
Third, there's a big difference between not voting at all and voting third party. I'm fully in support of people voting 3rd party, but it's incredibly stupid to not vote at all. By voting, you signal to everyone that your vote is up for grabs to whoever matches with you best. So if you vote for the Green Party (for example), you have sent a message to both the Democrats and Republicans that you want policies more like the Green Party and that they could obtain your vote if they were more like the Green Party. You can also insert any independent candidate in here, including write-ins (so long as it's an actual person eligible to be president). It may not be the most impactful decision in the short term, but it sends a message in the long term.
Not voting at all sends a very different message. It sends the message that your vote cannot be gotten and that you should be ignored. The non-voter is the person that would vote if a candidate was perfect for him, but nobody else. The same type of person who would totally improve his own life if stuff just didn't get in the way. Unfortunately, stuff keeps getting in the way and that vote will never actually be made. Still, he makes himself feel better by complaining online.
In the meantime, I'll vote for an actual good candidate in Joe Biden who has real policies to help Americans and promote peace abroad with minimal US involvement. Even if he was shit, I'd still play the lesser evil game and vote for the most impact. It looks doubtful already, but I was planning to vote in the Republican primary against Trump. Sadly, Haley doesn't look like she can even make it that far.
Still, I don't blame anyone for voting for their favorite candidate even if he has no chance. At least you've sent a message.
|
|
|
In other news after a failed vote to impeach a random cabinet members because Republicans are jealous that Dems got to vote for an impeachment, Speaker Johnson comes out and says the quiet part out loud again. "we held the vote because we expected an opponent to be in hospital and unable to vote".
Because Republicans are absolute scum.
https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1755278108117139647?t=quG9EOYSaHRLesU_bWga1Q&s=19
(for those who didn't catch it, Al Green (D) rushed to the chamber from the hospital where he is recovering from abdominal surgery to give the deciding vote sinking the impeachment attempt)
|
On February 08 2024 04:48 Gorsameth wrote:In other news after a failed vote to impeach a random cabinet members because Republicans are jealous that Dems got to vote for an impeachment, Speaker Johnson comes out and says the quiet part out loud again. "we held the vote because we expected an opponent to be in hospital and unable to vote". Because Republicans are absolute scum. https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1755278108117139647?t=quG9EOYSaHRLesU_bWga1Q&s=19(for those who didn't catch it, Al Green (D) rushed to the chamber from the hospital where he is recovering from abdominal surgery to give the deciding vote sinking the impeachment attempt)
It is amazing how they don't seem to have any standards whatsoever. Don't they ever tire of acting like comic book villains?
And, of course, the eternal question of why the fuck would any sane person actively vote for said comic book villains. Whenever you see something like that, always remember: About half of the voting population of the US actively supports this behaviour.
|
On February 08 2024 04:48 Gorsameth wrote:In other news after a failed vote to impeach a random cabinet members because Republicans are jealous that Dems got to vote for an impeachment, Speaker Johnson comes out and says the quiet part out loud again. "we held the vote because we expected an opponent to be in hospital and unable to vote". Because Republicans are absolute scum. https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1755278108117139647?t=quG9EOYSaHRLesU_bWga1Q&s=19(for those who didn't catch it, Al Green (D) rushed to the chamber from the hospital where he is recovering from abdominal surgery to give the deciding vote sinking the impeachment attempt)
Dude was wearing a hospital gown and had to be rolled into the chamber to cast his vote. They could have waited until scalice is finished with his "totally not abortion anymore to the republicans" stem cell treatment for his cancer but no they decided to step on their own toes again for no reason. They also randomly decided to vote on a standalone Israel bill right after that had no chance to advance either and was defeated by their far right because jews.
A month until the state of the union. Anyone think we'll get the ukraine funding through by then?
|
On February 08 2024 06:41 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2024 04:48 Gorsameth wrote:In other news after a failed vote to impeach a random cabinet members because Republicans are jealous that Dems got to vote for an impeachment, Speaker Johnson comes out and says the quiet part out loud again. "we held the vote because we expected an opponent to be in hospital and unable to vote". Because Republicans are absolute scum. https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1755278108117139647?t=quG9EOYSaHRLesU_bWga1Q&s=19(for those who didn't catch it, Al Green (D) rushed to the chamber from the hospital where he is recovering from abdominal surgery to give the deciding vote sinking the impeachment attempt) It is amazing how they don't seem to have any standards whatsoever. Don't they ever tire of acting like comic book villains? And, of course, the eternal question of why the fuck would any sane person actively vote for said comic book villains. Whenever you see something like that, always remember: About half of the voting population of the US actively supports this behaviour.
Isn't it largely a difference in perspective?
If you're anti-corporation, then finding a loophole that allows you to fuck a corporation out of getting your money, but still allow you to get whatever goods or services they offered, it feels like a victory to that person. On a grand scale, that person is ultimately making the situation worse for everyone, because the corporation is just going to bundle up that loss and charge their users for it, or make other changes that fix the loophole, but make the whole service run more clunkily.
From a neutral outside perspective it feels like making the corporation run -worse- is obviously counterproductive on a grand scale, but to the anti-capitalist anti-corporation user it might actually be a victory.
Successfully operating big government is pretty clearly not a republican goal. What we might see as an obvious comic book villain, they see more akin to The Punisher doling out corrupted justice.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On February 07 2024 22:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2024 21:44 WombaT wrote:On February 07 2024 21:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 07 2024 21:10 WombaT wrote:On February 07 2024 20:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 07 2024 20:31 WombaT wrote:
I mean if neither party meets your absolute minimum threshold of conscience go for it, is that not what democracy’s about? If you’re in a safe constituency you’re not gonna influence the outcome anyway.
I can’t vote for the main UK parties over here anyway, but if I could I’m not voting Labour. Oh but the Tories might get in again, well so fuck, Labour dropped most of what I’d have supported to appeal to this mythical middle ground.
Outside of a scenario where one party has an avowed platform of harm to some element of society, like an anti-trans prospectus and not voting will hang a marginal group out to dry, I’ll vote on my beliefs and if the country returns a bunch of cunts well, that’s the country’s problem.
I’m far from alone in this, if you want the left wing vote you have to throw us a bone or two. You can’t deign not to do that and then blame us for not turning out. Obligatory reminder that Biden is the most progressive president in recent history, scoring major accomplishments in regards to almost everything Bernie Sanders campaigned on. I’m not arguing for or against any specific candidate in particular, just in generalities. I don’t think someone should be browbeaten for sticking to their principles. Generations of ‘lesser evil’ voting leave us with choices that are unpalatable to some, why focus on the latter cohort? If GH thinks US support for Israel is disqualifying for him to give consent via voting, then that’s up to him and hey I support it. Some folks find themselves single and latch on to the first person who shows them any interest, some hold off until various boxes are ticked. Incidentally if I was in the States I’d vote for Biden, personally as the alternative is just that catastrophic, but I do respect GH’s position too. Would you characterize my conversation with GH as me browbeating him? I don't think I'm using particularly intimidating or abusive language, but I could be mistaken. I feel like we're having a pretty chill discussion, where we're each bringing up important points and posing questions and answering them, even if we disagree on some fundamental issues. I would not, I’m just giving my position somewhat in parallel to that discussion, not accusing you personally of browbeating at all, I think you’re one of the more level-headed and genuinely engaging posters in this thread The whole ‘lesser evil’ thing is a sore point for me after big chunks of the centre/left centre did nothing but attack Corbyn as unelectable, but now the line is vote for Starmer or you’ll let the Tories in again It’s supremely disingenuous I appreciate the compliment! And while I don't know anything about your Corbyn/Starmer example, I think I'm still open to considering lesser-of-two-evil situations as a practical necessity in certain cases, although of course I'd prefer the ideal greater-of-two-goods scenario, where both candidates would be a net-positive for things I'd like to see happen. And I do think that presenting a positive/affirming case *for* a candidate tends to be more convincing than merely leaning on the (easier?) argument of the lesser of two evils, or being *against* the opponent.
I guess a broadly similar phenomenon framed for the States could be if we’d have got a hypothetical Bernie/Trump shootout.
If centrists wouldn’t vote for Bernie, but when on the primary cycle, or when Biden was the nominee in our actual reality and the call is ‘you on the left have to vote or Trump will get in’.
If he’s the Great Satan and woman’s reproductive rights etc were under right, then it should follow that centrists could suck up a few socialist leaning policies right?
And if not then for such people the ‘lesser evil’ is actually Trump, based on the weighing.
I’m only on a brief break in work and very broad brushing. With Corbyn you actually had a rough Bernie analogue be the candidate, and there was a fuckload of pushback from the centre, which really didn’t help his electoral chances. But the second he’s replaced with a more centrist leader in Starmer, the (frankly pissed off) left are now having the ‘you have to support Labour or the Tories will get in’
Well that was the case, and did happen then, why is keeping the Tories out the number 1 concern now and not then?
Hope that helps, bit rambling and pissed out
|
On February 08 2024 08:44 JimmiC wrote:
Not sure how that is at all a blow to big government, more a blow to democracy.
MAGA also just tanked the immigration rules they wanted because Trump does not want Biden to look good.
It is clear Trump cares more about him winning than the US getting better it is just weird that Republicans seem to also care more about that. So many seem to treat their political parties like sports fans treat their teams.
It isn't IMO, that was the point of the analogy.
|
On February 08 2024 08:44 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2024 22:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 07 2024 21:44 WombaT wrote:On February 07 2024 21:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 07 2024 21:10 WombaT wrote:On February 07 2024 20:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 07 2024 20:31 WombaT wrote:
I mean if neither party meets your absolute minimum threshold of conscience go for it, is that not what democracy’s about? If you’re in a safe constituency you’re not gonna influence the outcome anyway.
I can’t vote for the main UK parties over here anyway, but if I could I’m not voting Labour. Oh but the Tories might get in again, well so fuck, Labour dropped most of what I’d have supported to appeal to this mythical middle ground.
Outside of a scenario where one party has an avowed platform of harm to some element of society, like an anti-trans prospectus and not voting will hang a marginal group out to dry, I’ll vote on my beliefs and if the country returns a bunch of cunts well, that’s the country’s problem.
I’m far from alone in this, if you want the left wing vote you have to throw us a bone or two. You can’t deign not to do that and then blame us for not turning out. Obligatory reminder that Biden is the most progressive president in recent history, scoring major accomplishments in regards to almost everything Bernie Sanders campaigned on. I’m not arguing for or against any specific candidate in particular, just in generalities. I don’t think someone should be browbeaten for sticking to their principles. Generations of ‘lesser evil’ voting leave us with choices that are unpalatable to some, why focus on the latter cohort? If GH thinks US support for Israel is disqualifying for him to give consent via voting, then that’s up to him and hey I support it. Some folks find themselves single and latch on to the first person who shows them any interest, some hold off until various boxes are ticked. Incidentally if I was in the States I’d vote for Biden, personally as the alternative is just that catastrophic, but I do respect GH’s position too. Would you characterize my conversation with GH as me browbeating him? I don't think I'm using particularly intimidating or abusive language, but I could be mistaken. I feel like we're having a pretty chill discussion, where we're each bringing up important points and posing questions and answering them, even if we disagree on some fundamental issues. I would not, I’m just giving my position somewhat in parallel to that discussion, not accusing you personally of browbeating at all, I think you’re one of the more level-headed and genuinely engaging posters in this thread The whole ‘lesser evil’ thing is a sore point for me after big chunks of the centre/left centre did nothing but attack Corbyn as unelectable, but now the line is vote for Starmer or you’ll let the Tories in again It’s supremely disingenuous I appreciate the compliment! And while I don't know anything about your Corbyn/Starmer example, I think I'm still open to considering lesser-of-two-evil situations as a practical necessity in certain cases, although of course I'd prefer the ideal greater-of-two-goods scenario, where both candidates would be a net-positive for things I'd like to see happen. And I do think that presenting a positive/affirming case *for* a candidate tends to be more convincing than merely leaning on the (easier?) argument of the lesser of two evils, or being *against* the opponent. I guess a broadly similar phenomenon framed for the States could be if we’d have got a hypothetical Bernie/Trump shootout. If centrists wouldn’t vote for Bernie, but when on the primary cycle, or when Biden was the nominee in our actual reality and the call is ‘you on the left have to vote or Trump will get in’. If he’s the Great Satan and woman’s reproductive rights etc were under right, then it should follow that centrists could suck up a few socialist leaning policies right? And if not then for such people the ‘lesser evil’ is actually Trump, based on the weighing. I’m only on a brief break in work and very broad brushing. With Corbyn you actually had a rough Bernie analogue be the candidate, and there was a fuckload of pushback from the centre, which really didn’t help his electoral chances. But the second he’s replaced with a more centrist leader in Starmer, the (frankly pissed off) left are now having the ‘you have to support Labour or the Tories will get in’ Well that was the case, and did happen then, why is keeping the Tories out the number 1 concern now and not then? Hope that helps, bit rambling and pissed out
Yeah that helps, and I appreciate the hypothetical analogy between Bernie and Trump. Voters positioned between those two candidates would need to figure out who they lean slightly towards (for the "lesser of two evils" argument to work, if they value that argument at all). On the other hand, people to the left of Bernie or Biden (or to the right of Trump) wouldn't need to figure out who the lesser of two evils is... just if they value that argument in the first place (which ties nicely into GH's perspective on things).
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On February 08 2024 04:39 JimmiC wrote:
There is an ongoing state sponsored ethnic cleansing going on in China. They are trying to remove a culture from the planet. It is unarguable and yet the reaction to it is completely different. Whenever I bring it up it at best gets a shrug other directly support the Chinese government. No one is willing to even pay more for products let alone any major step to stop it.
I do not think it is a consequence that the propaganda machines in Russia, North Korea and China are not saying how awful that one is.
There’s not really much to discuss, neither is it a topic I’m particularly well-versed in. It does seem awful on face value, most agree and discussion naturally fizzles out.
China is just too critical to modern economies for anyone to ruffle too many feathers in a realpolitik sense when we’re talking nation-states. At the individual/community level it’s difficult to engage in any boycott kind of enterprise without becoming some hermit living off the grid, so omnipresent are Chinese-made products.
I mean it sucks but hey, difficult to see that changing anytime soon. By way of a crude analogy if you wouldn’t intervene to diffuse a bar fight instigated by a weedy 5 foot tall bloke, you’re not going to intervene when it’s a 7 foot mountain of muscle doing it.
|
On February 08 2024 08:44 JimmiC wrote:
Not sure how that is at all a blow to big government, more a blow to democracy.
MAGA also just tanked the immigration rules they wanted because Trump does not want Biden to look good.
It is clear Trump cares more about him winning than the US getting better it is just weird that Republicans seem to also care more about that. So many seem to treat their political parties like sports fans treat their teams.
This is true, it's been true for a very long time, and it's one of the biggest problems with democracy.
As the great social commentators NOFX once said, "Political scientists get the same one vote as some Arkansas inbred".
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On February 08 2024 20:17 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2024 13:56 WombaT wrote:On February 08 2024 04:39 JimmiC wrote:
There is an ongoing state sponsored ethnic cleansing going on in China. They are trying to remove a culture from the planet. It is unarguable and yet the reaction to it is completely different. Whenever I bring it up it at best gets a shrug other directly support the Chinese government. No one is willing to even pay more for products let alone any major step to stop it.
I do not think it is a consequence that the propaganda machines in Russia, North Korea and China are not saying how awful that one is. There’s not really much to discuss, neither is it a topic I’m particularly well-versed in. It does seem awful on face value, most agree and discussion naturally fizzles out. China is just too critical to modern economies for anyone to ruffle too many feathers in a realpolitik sense when we’re talking nation-states. At the individual/community level it’s difficult to engage in any boycott kind of enterprise without becoming some hermit living off the grid, so omnipresent are Chinese-made products. I mean it sucks but hey, difficult to see that changing anytime soon. By way of a crude analogy if you wouldn’t intervene to diffuse a bar fight instigated by a weedy 5 foot tall bloke, you’re not going to intervene when it’s a 7 foot mountain of muscle doing it. Self interest is a powerful force. But if people passionate about this kind of thing are not willing to pay more for clothes and technology to no support a state who is directly, currently in the middle of an ethic cleansing campaign within their borders then why do we expect our government to do so against what they consider to be their geopolitical interests? Next why do we have people writing how bad and disqualifying “aiding and abetting ethnic cleansing campaigns” is so often that if it was a drinking game we would all be smashed. But then openly support a different government that is unarguably doing it systematically within their own borders?
But I don’t have the option to pay more for (less clothes to be fair) but technology. A huge amount is just made in China, at some part of the manufacturing chain. Other nations just aren’t building certain things, there’s not really an ethical alternative, at least in consumer electronics anyway.
On the other hand it’s actually relatively low-effort to boycott Israeli goods that come from settlements, it’s a limited range of things and at least in my country they’re clearly labelled as coming from certain areas.
I mean morally, would be nice to do both, absolutely, but the level of imposition you put in an individual, in a shit economy just varies quite a lot between the two. To boycott China means living like a hermit, or spending way more of your hard-earned wedge on the alternatives, if they even exist.
As per the bolded, who are these people? And why do you spend post after post arguing against the ethnic cleansing framing with Israel but apply it to the Uighurs? I’ve asked this question before and never got an answer, it seems to me they’re both clear-cut examples of it.
|
"We" aren't willing to give up anything to save the planet that we and our children live on. The notion that people will give up something to help out people dying half the world away just doesn't fit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
