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.
On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'.
GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have.
He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people.
I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests.
What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself.
Rejecting both parties within a two party system is abandoning democracy entirely. Unless you combine it with an overthrow of the state it’s simply non participation. It’s very convenient for him that his morally pure pedestal from which he judges others requires him to do literally nothing. Not even the barest minimum to protect the rights of his trans brothers and sisters by voting against a greater evil. Nothing at all.
I proposed bombing a federal building in jest but if he feels that’s too revolutionary he could bomb a state building. If that’s too much then maybe a municipal one. If that’s too much then maybe just break a window. If that’s too much then maybe use their public bathrooms, take a massive shit, and not flush. Any of these active steps would be above roleplaying a revolutionary on the internet. If he can’t manage any of those I really don’t see in what way he’s a revolutionary. It’s like being lectured by a vegan who couldn’t manage to give up bacon.
The rejection of the parties is only defensible as part of a larger effort to get where you want to be outside of the political process. If you’re not doing that then you’re not rejecting both parties, you’re just apolitical.
I think he's made it pretty clear that he supports some undescribed overthrow of the state and replacing it with something else which makes it not just non-participation. Who's to say pleading your case on the internet is any less serious than dropping a massive duke in a government building. In the information age it's entirely plausible the next revolutionary will be some blogger/vlogger that gets their following on the internet. Pen mightier than the sword and all that. But I do agree that his postings here are mostly for his vanity. Being holier than thou to strangers on the internet is the best selling point socialism is offering to people these days and a lot of people find that appealing.
On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'.
GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have.
He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people.
I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests.
What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself.
Rejecting both parties within a two party system is abandoning democracy entirely. Unless you combine it with an overthrow of the state it’s simply non participation. It’s very convenient for him that his morally pure pedestal from which he judges others requires him to do literally nothing. Not even the barest minimum to protect the rights of his trans brothers and sisters by voting against a greater evil. Nothing at all.
I proposed bombing a federal building in jest but if he feels that’s too revolutionary he could bomb a state building. If that’s too much then maybe a municipal one. If that’s too much then maybe just break a window. If that’s too much then maybe use their public bathrooms, take a massive shit, and not flush. Any of these active steps would be above roleplaying a revolutionary on the internet. If he can’t manage any of those I really don’t see in what way he’s a revolutionary. It’s like being lectured by a vegan who couldn’t manage to give up bacon.
The rejection of the parties is only defensible as part of a larger effort to get where you want to be outside of the political process. If you’re not doing that then you’re not rejecting both parties, you’re just apolitical.
I think he's made it pretty clear that he supports some undescribed overthrow of the state and replacing it with something else which makes it not just non-participation. Who's to say pleading your case on the internet is any less serious than dropping a massive duke in a government building. In the information age it's entirely plausible the next revolutionary will be some blogger/vlogger that gets their following on the internet. Pen mightier than the sword and all that. But I do agree that his postings here are mostly for his vanity. Being holier than thou to strangers on the internet is the best selling point socialism is offering to people these days and a lot of people find that appealing.
GH’s revolutionary socialism is, thus far, indistinguishable from my own. And yet he judges me for my “tolerance” of injustice. Does he not see that I’m right there alongside him on the imaginary barricades? Does my blood not bleed out in the imaginary trenches? Are my imaginary sacrifices meaningless to him? One day I hope to live in a world with more inclusive revolutionary roleplay. The imaginary revolution must be for everyone who wishes to pretend to be a revolutionary or it will be for no one. None of us can be free until all of us are free.
On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'.
GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have.
He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people.
I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests.
What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself.
We can stop stumping for Biden but that leads to a convicted felon and man liable for sexual assault becoming President. It does not make America better. Everyone here has repeatedly said we would rather not have Biden. But its him or Trump.
GH has acknowledged this concept and even refers to it as "lesser evilism" in brief. This still gets repeated every week for the past 6 months like GH is somehow unaware that if Biden doesn't win then Trump is going to. Since this argument hasn't swayed GH the last 100 times it was stated I think we can safely put it to bed.
On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'.
GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have.
He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people.
I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests.
What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself.
We can stop stumping for Biden but that leads to a convicted felon and man liable for sexual assault becoming President. It does not make America better. Everyone here has repeatedly said we would rather not have Biden. But its him or Trump.
GH has acknowledged this concept and even refers to it as "lesser evilism" in brief. This still gets repeated every week for the past 6 months like GH is somehow unaware that if Biden doesn't win then Trump is going to. Since this argument hasn't swayed GH the last 100 times it was stated I think we can safely put it to bed.
I see the idea being very prevalent that having conversations on the internet is less effective than displaying signs in public and destroying government property.
On June 06 2024 15:41 WombaT wrote: How did we get here from an article DPB posted about a rather worrying piece about another Supreme Court ruling?
Sometimes, when I write a post, I try to privately predict how different TL members will respond. "Introvert would probably disagree with my perspective, because of X"; "BlackJack would probably focus on this particular point, because of Y"; "GH would probably disagree with my premise here, because of Z". That being said, I don't think I would have ever guessed that we'd get here, though in retrospect I suppose it was a natural progression for a GH-KwarK back-and-forth, after an initial reply to my article essentially included something like "Who cares what the Supreme Court says? We can just ignore them." It always depends on who is responding, and who is responding to those responses. Who posts in good faith, who has short fuses, who has certain views or tendencies that are more likely to derail conversations, etc.
On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'.
GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have.
He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people.
I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests.
What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself.
Rejecting both parties within a two party system is abandoning democracy entirely. Unless you combine it with an overthrow of the state it’s simply non participation. It’s very convenient for him that his morally pure pedestal from which he judges others requires him to do literally nothing. Not even the barest minimum to protect the rights of his trans brothers and sisters by voting against a greater evil.Nothing at all.
I proposed bombing a federal building in jest but if he feels that’s too revolutionary he could bomb a state building. If that’s too much then maybe a municipal one. If that’s too much then maybe just break a window. If that’s too much then maybe use their public bathrooms, take a massive shit, and not flush. Any of these active steps would be above roleplaying a revolutionary on the internet. If he can’t manage any of those I really don’t see in what way he’s a revolutionary. It’s like being lectured by a vegan who couldn’t manage to give up bacon.
The rejection of the parties is only defensible as part of a larger effort to get where you want to be outside of the political process. If you’re not doing that then you’re not rejecting both parties, you’re just apolitical.
Bolded 1: No it is not, it is merely statement that you dont support either of the parties. If for example 80% of voters would took GH position then does government still get to claim being democratically elected? If they do, then thats when overthrow of the state happens.
Italic: You literally judging him from your morally pure pedestal for not doing what you would want him to do.
Bolded Italic: Whether you voting for smaller evil, or greater evil, you still support evil. GH by not voting doesnt.
Bolded 2: It may be revolutionary idea, but some may think that convincing one person on the internet may serve better to his cause than not flushing in public bathroom.
On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'.
GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have.
He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people.
I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests.
What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself.
Rejecting both parties within a two party system is abandoning democracy entirely. Unless you combine it with an overthrow of the state it’s simply non participation. It’s very convenient for him that his morally pure pedestal from which he judges others requires him to do literally nothing. Not even the barest minimum to protect the rights of his trans brothers and sisters by voting against a greater evil.Nothing at all.
I proposed bombing a federal building in jest but if he feels that’s too revolutionary he could bomb a state building. If that’s too much then maybe a municipal one. If that’s too much then maybe just break a window. If that’s too much then maybe use their public bathrooms, take a massive shit, and not flush. Any of these active steps would be above roleplaying a revolutionary on the internet. If he can’t manage any of those I really don’t see in what way he’s a revolutionary. It’s like being lectured by a vegan who couldn’t manage to give up bacon.
The rejection of the parties is only defensible as part of a larger effort to get where you want to be outside of the political process. If you’re not doing that then you’re not rejecting both parties, you’re just apolitical.
Bolded 1: No it is not, it is merely statement that you dont support either of the parties. If for example 80% of voters would took GH position then does government still get to claim being democratically elected? If they do, then thats when overthrow of the state happens.
Italic: You literally judging him from your morally pure pedestal for not doing what you would want him to do.
Bolded Italic: Whether you voting for smaller evil, or greater evil, you still support evil. GH by not voting doesnt.
Bolded 2: It may be revolutionary idea, but some may think that convincing one person on the internet may serve better to his cause than not flushing in public bathroom.
I disagree with the assertion that "not voting" means you're not supporting evil, because abstaining from the voting process (or voting third party) can also be seen as being complicit and enabling. (Everyone is supporting some level of evil, technically and practically and subjectively, even those who don't vote.)
On June 06 2024 19:48 Razyda wrote:Bolded Italic: Whether you voting for smaller evil, or greater evil, you still support evil. GH by not voting doesnt.
Doesn't it tho?
If small evil or big evil will win the vote and there are essentially no other options, then does not voting avoid you from supporting evil? or does it increase the chance of big evil winning? Could not voting actually be a bigger evil then voting for the small evil?
On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'.
GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have.
He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people.
I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests.
What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself.
Rejecting both parties within a two party system is abandoning democracy entirely. Unless you combine it with an overthrow of the state it’s simply non participation. It’s very convenient for him that his morally pure pedestal from which he judges others requires him to do literally nothing. Not even the barest minimum to protect the rights of his trans brothers and sisters by voting against a greater evil.Nothing at all.
I proposed bombing a federal building in jest but if he feels that’s too revolutionary he could bomb a state building. If that’s too much then maybe a municipal one. If that’s too much then maybe just break a window. If that’s too much then maybe use their public bathrooms, take a massive shit, and not flush. Any of these active steps would be above roleplaying a revolutionary on the internet. If he can’t manage any of those I really don’t see in what way he’s a revolutionary. It’s like being lectured by a vegan who couldn’t manage to give up bacon.
The rejection of the parties is only defensible as part of a larger effort to get where you want to be outside of the political process. If you’re not doing that then you’re not rejecting both parties, you’re just apolitical.
Bolded 1: No it is not, it is merely statement that you dont support either of the parties. If for example 80% of voters would took GH position then does government still get to claim being democratically elected? If they do, then thats when overthrow of the state happens.
Italic: You literally judging him from your morally pure pedestal for not doing what you would want him to do.
Bolded Italic: Whether you voting for smaller evil, or greater evil, you still support evil. GH by not voting doesnt.
Bolded 2: It may be revolutionary idea, but some may think that convincing one person on the internet may serve better to his cause than not flushing in public bathroom.
I disagree with the assertion that "not voting" means you're not supporting evil, because abstaining from the voting process (or voting third party) can also be seen as being complicit and enabling. (Everyone is supporting some level of evil, technically and practically and subjectively, even those who don't vote.)
How can you disagree?? You literally voting "for" something not "against" something. Just look at the ballot. If you voting for something that means you support it. It also takes some mental gymnastics to believe that someone who didnt vote (eg: didnt support evil) is being complicit and enabling, rather than someone who actively vote for it.
Edit: Edited part in brackets as it was somewhat unclear
On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'.
GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have.
He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people.
I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests.
What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself.
Rejecting both parties within a two party system is abandoning democracy entirely. Unless you combine it with an overthrow of the state it’s simply non participation. It’s very convenient for him that his morally pure pedestal from which he judges others requires him to do literally nothing. Not even the barest minimum to protect the rights of his trans brothers and sisters by voting against a greater evil.Nothing at all.
I proposed bombing a federal building in jest but if he feels that’s too revolutionary he could bomb a state building. If that’s too much then maybe a municipal one. If that’s too much then maybe just break a window. If that’s too much then maybe use their public bathrooms, take a massive shit, and not flush. Any of these active steps would be above roleplaying a revolutionary on the internet. If he can’t manage any of those I really don’t see in what way he’s a revolutionary. It’s like being lectured by a vegan who couldn’t manage to give up bacon.
The rejection of the parties is only defensible as part of a larger effort to get where you want to be outside of the political process. If you’re not doing that then you’re not rejecting both parties, you’re just apolitical.
Bolded 1: No it is not, it is merely statement that you dont support either of the parties. If for example 80% of voters would took GH position then does government still get to claim being democratically elected? If they do, then thats when overthrow of the state happens.
Italic: You literally judging him from your morally pure pedestal for not doing what you would want him to do.
Bolded Italic: Whether you voting for smaller evil, or greater evil, you still support evil. GH by not voting doesnt.
Bolded 2: It may be revolutionary idea, but some may think that convincing one person on the internet may serve better to his cause than not flushing in public bathroom.
I disagree with the assertion that "not voting" means you're not supporting evil, because abstaining from the voting process (or voting third party) can also be seen as being complicit and enabling. (Everyone is supporting some level of evil, technically and practically and subjectively, even those who don't vote.)
How can you disagree?? You literally voting "for" something not "against" something. Just look at the ballot. If you voting for something that means you support it. It also takes some mental gymnastics to believe that someone who didnt vote (eg: supported evil) is being complicit and enabling, rather than someone who actively vote for it.
I'll try to rephrase, using a slightly more structured elaboration of my perspective:
1. Someone is going to become the next president of the United States. (That person is almost guaranteed to be Biden or Trump, but even if they both suddenly die and then a third person becomes president, my line of reasoning doesn't change.)
2. Nobody is perfect, which means that the next president will inevitably have some level of moral failing or political shortcoming or point of contention, which apparently we're calling "evil". (Every potential president has some amount of "evil" tied to them; there is no perfect, non-evil candidate.)
3. It is inaccurate to view all possible presidential candidates as equally evil, because each candidate has a different history, a different set of political platforms, and disagreements with each other. (Biden and Trump, for example, are extremely different in many important ways, and their previous words, actions, and presidencies have demonstrated that.)
4. It is therefore possible for each potential voter to rank each presidential candidate by how much "evil" the candidate has (based on agreements/disagreements with political views, failings/shortcomings, etc.). I would prefer the positive spin - ranking by how much good a future president could do for the country - but I'm also trying to work within the bounds of the "evil" semantics that was brought up.
5. This personalized ranking effectively makes a practical list of who - given the current candidates - you would prefer as your first choice, second choice, etc. for president. Your first choice would be the least "evil", in your opinion, using whatever perspectives and metrics and definitions of "evil" you want (which can certainly be different for everyone, based on the policies and values they prioritize).
6. I think voters have a moral obligation to support their preferred candidate. By not voting, you are necessarily not voting for your preferred candidate. You are not helping them win, which means you are not helping to minimize evil. That's enabling evil, and being complicit in allowing more-evil presidential candidates to win. It's similar to this famous quote: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.
I hope that helps to flesh out my position, which you may disagree with or find irrational. There are certainly some points in my 6th line that may warrant further clarification. For example, the question of "What if my vote doesn't count because I don't live in a swing state", would lead me to respond with "Vote anyway for your preferred candidate, and also do what you can to reach out to those who do live in swing states... and, also, vote for ways to make elections fairer, more representative, and more inclusive, such as a national popular vote instead of the electoral college".
You also just wrote: "If you voting for something that means you support it." Sure, but if you vote for someone, that doesn't mean you support everything that person says and does. You might agree with most of what they say, or you may just be minimizing evil (compared to the other, worse candidates, based on your personal ranking).
On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'.
GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have.
He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people.
I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests.
What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself.
Rejecting both parties within a two party system is abandoning democracy entirely. Unless you combine it with an overthrow of the state it’s simply non participation. It’s very convenient for him that his morally pure pedestal from which he judges others requires him to do literally nothing. Not even the barest minimum to protect the rights of his trans brothers and sisters by voting against a greater evil.Nothing at all.
I proposed bombing a federal building in jest but if he feels that’s too revolutionary he could bomb a state building. If that’s too much then maybe a municipal one. If that’s too much then maybe just break a window. If that’s too much then maybe use their public bathrooms, take a massive shit, and not flush. Any of these active steps would be above roleplaying a revolutionary on the internet. If he can’t manage any of those I really don’t see in what way he’s a revolutionary. It’s like being lectured by a vegan who couldn’t manage to give up bacon.
The rejection of the parties is only defensible as part of a larger effort to get where you want to be outside of the political process. If you’re not doing that then you’re not rejecting both parties, you’re just apolitical.
Bolded 1: No it is not, it is merely statement that you dont support either of the parties. If for example 80% of voters would took GH position then does government still get to claim being democratically elected? If they do, then thats when overthrow of the state happens.
Italic: You literally judging him from your morally pure pedestal for not doing what you would want him to do.
Bolded Italic: Whether you voting for smaller evil, or greater evil, you still support evil. GH by not voting doesnt.
Bolded 2: It may be revolutionary idea, but some may think that convincing one person on the internet may serve better to his cause than not flushing in public bathroom.
I disagree with the assertion that "not voting" means you're not supporting evil, because abstaining from the voting process (or voting third party) can also be seen as being complicit and enabling. (Everyone is supporting some level of evil, technically and practically and subjectively, even those who don't vote.)
How can you disagree?? You literally voting "for" something not "against" something. Just look at the ballot. If you voting for something that means you support it. It also takes some mental gymnastics to believe that someone who didnt vote (eg: didnt support evil) is being complicit and enabling, rather than someone who actively vote for it.
Edit: Edited part in brackets as it was somewhat unclear
Voting lesser evil: You did everything you could in the election to minimize harm. Abstaining: You deem neither outcome good enough and risk further harm as a result.
GH's vote doesn't matter anyway, because he's in a safe blue state and has the privilege of safely abstaining that he wouldn't have in a state like Pennsylvania.
I only mention "lesser evilism" because it is what the people who practice it typically call it to rationalize supporting someone that does awful things. "Evil" typically has a supernatural connotation I'm not a fan of.
That said, Biden's aiding and abetting of an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign (one of several examples) is profoundly immoral. It's not something that can rationally be waved away as "nobody's perfect".
"Don't support someone that is actively engaged in genocide" shouldn't be a controversial position. But Republicans have pulled Democrats/their supporters so far right that it's not just considered too radical a position for them to take, it actually invites derision from them.
Somewhat inexplicably, Democrats and (more confoundingly) their supporters, still refuse to recognize the ominous future that portends in a vain effort to perpetuate a deplorable status quo.
On June 06 2024 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote: I only mention "lesser evilism" because it is what the people who practice it typically call it to rationalize supporting someone that does awful things. "Evil" typically has a supernatural connotation I'm not a fan of.
That said, Biden's aiding and abetting of an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign (one of several examples) is profoundly immoral. It's not something that can rationally be waved away as "nobody's perfect".
"Don't support someone that is actively engaged in genocide" shouldn't be a controversial position. But Republicans have pulled Democrats/their supporters so far right that it's not just considered too radical a position for them to take, it actually invites derision from them.
Somewhat inexplicably, Democrats and (more confoundingly) their supporters, still refuse to recognize the ominous future that portends in a vain effort to perpetuate a deplorable status quo.
And yet, the only realistic alternative to Biden has an even worse stance than Biden does, in regards to the Palestinians, plus a bunch of other major flaws that Biden doesn't have. I can't speak for every Biden voter, but I don't think Biden's Israel-Palestine position is moral. I'm not hand-waving the severity of the situation just because I pragmatically recognize that Trump is worse for Palestine and for our country, and so that means I'm choosing Biden over Trump. Why would I (and you) want things to get worse for the Palestinians?
On June 06 2024 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote: I only mention "lesser evilism" because it is what the people who practice it typically call it to rationalize supporting someone that does awful things. "Evil" typically has a supernatural connotation I'm not a fan of.
That said, Biden's aiding and abetting of an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign (one of several examples) is profoundly immoral. It's not something that can rationally be waved away as "nobody's perfect".
"Don't support someone that is actively engaged in genocide" shouldn't be a controversial position. But Republicans have pulled Democrats/their supporters so far right that it's not just considered too radical a position for them to take, it actually invites derision from them.
Somewhat inexplicably, Democrats and (more confoundingly) their supporters, still refuse to recognize the ominous future that portends in a vain effort to perpetuate a deplorable status quo.
And yet, the only realistic alternative to Biden has an even worse stance than Biden does, in regards to the Palestinians, plus a bunch of other major flaws that Biden doesn't have. I can't speak for every Biden voter, but I don't think Biden's Israel-Palestine position is moral. I'm not hand-waving it just because I pragmatically recognize that Trump is worse for Palestine and for our country, and so that means I'm choosing Biden over Trump. Why would I (and you) want things to get worse for the Palestinians?
Democrats don't just get a pass for not being able to nominate someone that isn't engaged in genocide nor do the people that support someone engaged in genocide.
Rationalizing your support of a genocidal leader as "pragmatism" is exactly what I was referencing when I said:
Ironically, it's now Biden that could shoot someone on 5th ave and not lose his base. At least not the ones attempting to rationalize empowering someone actively engaged in genocide.
On May 31 2024 19:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Now that the verdict has been reached, is Trump's gag order lifted? Or does it remain until after sentencing, or up until his appeal starts, or until some other time?
Update: It appears that the gag order might still be in effect, until sentencing on July 11th, because there was no set expiration date and apparently it doesn't always expire once the verdict is given. This means that Trump might rack up additional contempt charges over the next month. Of course, Judge Merchan may decide to end the gag order, or Trump might keep his mouth shut for the next month, or Judge Merchan may continue to not really punish Trump for any future gag order violations (similar to Trump's first 10 violations).
On June 06 2024 14:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: There are degrees of apathy/trying to install change, it's not a binary 'either you're doing nothing or you have to bomb capitol'. Tbh I have no idea what GH is doing with his spare time but I have the impression he's been involved in at least some grassroots organization with the aim of inspiring a more revolutionary attitude in people. If you're a revolutionary socialist it's not like you're going to be a believer in lone wolf terrorism anyway - only a massive movement involving millions of people can install the societal change you want to enact, so working towards that goal (convincing people that there's a need for a revolution) is an entirely reasonable approach. You might argue that the messaging is inefficient in achieving that goal (maybe even counter-productive), but that's not really what you're doing here, Kwark.
You're also allowed to be outspokenly concerned with climate change while occasionally eating steak and driving a car, because you can have the opinion that the changes required to combat it must happen at a societal/political level and that single individuals trying to reduce their ecological footprint to 1 might not be all that impactful and will constitute a big sacrifice for relatively little gain. Again, not a binary - and I'll have more respect for the outspokenly concerned vegan than the outspokenly concerned private jet flying bbq master - but I certainly prefer it if people who consume too much (almost everybody) try to influence politics / others towards consuming less rather than just handwaving 'oh well it's futile might as well go out with a bang'.
GH attempts to hold everyone to an absurd and impossible moral and political standard and crucifies anyone he feels is taking insufficient direct action to effect change. And yet there is no evidence that he has ever taken any direct action himself. He identifies as a revolutionary socialist for the purpose of sneering at others but he has achieved as many socialist revolutions as I have.
He’s actually worse than a militant vegan. He’s a meat eater who self identifies as a militant vegan for the purpose of picking fights with people.
I have no time for him anymore. He doesn’t come remotely close to passing his own ridiculous purity tests.
What has GH asked anyone to do beyond simply making a post agreeing with him that we should reject both parties and commit to a socialist revolution? I haven't heard him ask anyone to take up arms. As far as I can tell the only direct action he has asked of anyone is to stop stumping for Biden and that's certainly something he has done himself.
Rejecting both parties within a two party system is abandoning democracy entirely. Unless you combine it with an overthrow of the state it’s simply non participation. It’s very convenient for him that his morally pure pedestal from which he judges others requires him to do literally nothing. Not even the barest minimum to protect the rights of his trans brothers and sisters by voting against a greater evil.Nothing at all.
I proposed bombing a federal building in jest but if he feels that’s too revolutionary he could bomb a state building. If that’s too much then maybe a municipal one. If that’s too much then maybe just break a window. If that’s too much then maybe use their public bathrooms, take a massive shit, and not flush. Any of these active steps would be above roleplaying a revolutionary on the internet. If he can’t manage any of those I really don’t see in what way he’s a revolutionary. It’s like being lectured by a vegan who couldn’t manage to give up bacon.
The rejection of the parties is only defensible as part of a larger effort to get where you want to be outside of the political process. If you’re not doing that then you’re not rejecting both parties, you’re just apolitical.
Bolded 1: No it is not, it is merely statement that you dont support either of the parties. If for example 80% of voters would took GH position then does government still get to claim being democratically elected? If they do, then thats when overthrow of the state happens.
Italic: You literally judging him from your morally pure pedestal for not doing what you would want him to do.
Bolded Italic: Whether you voting for smaller evil, or greater evil, you still support evil. GH by not voting doesnt.
Bolded 2: It may be revolutionary idea, but some may think that convincing one person on the internet may serve better to his cause than not flushing in public bathroom.
I disagree with the assertion that "not voting" means you're not supporting evil, because abstaining from the voting process (or voting third party) can also be seen as being complicit and enabling. (Everyone is supporting some level of evil, technically and practically and subjectively, even those who don't vote.)
How can you disagree?? You literally voting "for" something not "against" something. Just look at the ballot. If you voting for something that means you support it. It also takes some mental gymnastics to believe that someone who didnt vote (eg: supported evil) is being complicit and enabling, rather than someone who actively vote for it.
I'll try to rephrase, using a slightly more structured elaboration of my perspective:
1. Someone is going to become the next president of the United States. (That person is almost guaranteed to be Biden or Trump, but even if they both suddenly die and then a third person becomes president, my line of reasoning doesn't change.)
2. Nobody is perfect, which means that the next president will inevitably have some level of moral failing or political shortcoming or point of contention, which apparently we're calling "evil". (Every potential president has some amount of "evil" tied to them; there is no perfect, non-evil candidate.)
3. It is inaccurate to view all possible presidential candidates as equally evil, because each candidate has a different history, a different set of political platforms, and disagreements with each other. (Biden and Trump, for example, are extremely different in many important ways, and their previous words, actions, and presidencies have demonstrated that.)
4. It is therefore possible for each potential voter to rank each presidential candidate by how much "evil" the candidate has (based on agreements/disagreements with political views, failings/shortcomings, etc.). I would prefer the positive spin - ranking by how much good a future president could do for the country - but I'm also trying to work within the bounds of the "evil" semantics that was brought up.
5. This personalized ranking effectively makes a practical list of who - given the current candidates - you would prefer as your first choice, second choice, etc. for president. Your first choice would be the least "evil", in your opinion, using whatever perspectives and metrics and definitions of "evil" you want (which can certainly be different for everyone, based on the policies and values they prioritize).
6. I think voters have a moral obligation to support their preferred candidate. By not voting, you are necessarily not voting for your preferred candidate. You are not helping them win, which means you are not helping to minimize evil. That's enabling evil, and being complicit in allowing more-evil presidential candidates to win. It's similar to this famous quote: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.
I hope that helps to flesh out my position, which you may disagree with or find irrational. There are certainly some points in my 6th line that may warrant further clarification. For example, the question of "What if my vote doesn't count because I don't live in a swing state", would lead me to respond with "Vote anyway for your preferred candidate, and also do what you can to reach out to those who do live in swing states... and, also, vote for ways to make elections fairer, more representative, and more inclusive, such as a national popular vote instead of the electoral college".
You also just wrote: "If you voting for something that means you support it." Sure, but if you vote for someone, that doesn't mean you support everything that person says and does. You might agree with most of what they say, or you may just be minimizing evil (compared to the other, worse candidates, based on your personal ranking).
I think you're not considering GH's position that there are lines that should never be crossed. You're presenting it as two different types of evil being weighed against one another. He thinks neither of the two evils are acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever. In your point of view it's about minimizing harm, in GH's point of view no minimization of harm is possible to begin with (because that could only happen above the line that's being crossed by both of the evils. Below it there is no minimization possible). You view it as a choice, GH views it as a catch 22.
On June 06 2024 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote: I only mention "lesser evilism" because it is what the people who practice it typically call it to rationalize supporting someone that does awful things. "Evil" typically has a supernatural connotation I'm not a fan of.
That said, Biden's aiding and abetting of an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign (one of several examples) is profoundly immoral. It's not something that can rationally be waved away as "nobody's perfect".
"Don't support someone that is actively engaged in genocide" shouldn't be a controversial position. But Republicans have pulled Democrats/their supporters so far right that it's not just considered too radical a position for them to take, it actually invites derision from them.
Somewhat inexplicably, Democrats and (more confoundingly) their supporters, still refuse to recognize the ominous future that portends in a vain effort to perpetuate a deplorable status quo.
And yet, the only realistic alternative to Biden has an even worse stance than Biden does, in regards to the Palestinians, plus a bunch of other major flaws that Biden doesn't have. I can't speak for every Biden voter, but I don't think Biden's Israel-Palestine position is moral. I'm not hand-waving it just because I pragmatically recognize that Trump is worse for Palestine and for our country, and so that means I'm choosing Biden over Trump. Why would I (and you) want things to get worse for the Palestinians?
Democrats don't just get a pass for not being able to nominate someone that isn't engaged in genocide nor do the people that support someone engaged in genocide.
No one is saying that Democrats get a pass. It's comparing the only choices available, neither of which have "very good, moral take on the Israel-Palestine conflict" as a quality. It's literally as simple as that. If you want to deter people from voting for Biden, then you're increasing the chance that Trump wins the election, which means that things will get worse for the Palestinians. I would prefer a much, much better situation for the Palestinians, but the only option currently available to me, as a voter, is to vote for Biden over Trump.
Rationalizing your support of a genocidal leader as "pragmatism" is exactly what I was referencing when I said:
Ironically, it's now Biden that could shoot someone on 5th ave and not lose his base. At least not the ones attempting to rationalize empowering someone actively engaged in genocide.
That's a terrible take, and I suspect that you know this. If Biden shot someone, I'd want him prosecuted and held legally accountable for his actions. That's literally the opposite of what Trump's base wants for when Trump commits crimes, as evident by their faux outrage at his recent felony convictions and their flippant dismissal of all his remaining indictments.
On June 06 2024 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote: I only mention "lesser evilism" because it is what the people who practice it typically call it to rationalize supporting someone that does awful things. "Evil" typically has a supernatural connotation I'm not a fan of.
That said, Biden's aiding and abetting of an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign (one of several examples) is profoundly immoral. It's not something that can rationally be waved away as "nobody's perfect".
"Don't support someone that is actively engaged in genocide" shouldn't be a controversial position. But Republicans have pulled Democrats/their supporters so far right that it's not just considered too radical a position for them to take, it actually invites derision from them.
Somewhat inexplicably, Democrats and (more confoundingly) their supporters, still refuse to recognize the ominous future that portends in a vain effort to perpetuate a deplorable status quo.
And yet, the only realistic alternative to Biden has an even worse stance than Biden does, in regards to the Palestinians, plus a bunch of other major flaws that Biden doesn't have. I can't speak for every Biden voter, but I don't think Biden's Israel-Palestine position is moral. I'm not hand-waving it just because I pragmatically recognize that Trump is worse for Palestine and for our country, and so that means I'm choosing Biden over Trump. Why would I (and you) want things to get worse for the Palestinians?
Democrats don't just get a pass for not being able to nominate someone that isn't engaged in genocide nor do the people that support someone engaged in genocide.
No one is saying that Democrats get a pass. It's comparing the only choices available, neither of which have "very good, moral take on the Israel-Palestine conflict" as a quality. It's literally as simple as that. If you want to deter people from voting for Biden, then you're increasing the chance that Trump wins the election, which means that things will get worse for the Palestinians. I would prefer a much, much better situation for the Palestinians, but the only option currently available to me, as a voter, is to vote for Biden over Trump.
Ironically, it's now Biden that could shoot someone on 5th ave and not lose his base. At least not the ones attempting to rationalize empowering someone actively engaged in genocide.
That's a terrible take, and I suspect that you know this. If Biden shot someone, I'd want him prosecuted and held legally accountable for his actions. That's literally the opposite of what Trump's base wants for when Trump commits crimes, as evident by their faux outrage at his recent felony convictions and their flippant dismissal of all his remaining indictments.
Prosecuted and held legally liable sure, but if he's still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", I understand you to be taking the position you'd still vote for him and advocate others do too.
On June 06 2024 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote: I only mention "lesser evilism" because it is what the people who practice it typically call it to rationalize supporting someone that does awful things. "Evil" typically has a supernatural connotation I'm not a fan of.
That said, Biden's aiding and abetting of an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign (one of several examples) is profoundly immoral. It's not something that can rationally be waved away as "nobody's perfect".
"Don't support someone that is actively engaged in genocide" shouldn't be a controversial position. But Republicans have pulled Democrats/their supporters so far right that it's not just considered too radical a position for them to take, it actually invites derision from them.
Somewhat inexplicably, Democrats and (more confoundingly) their supporters, still refuse to recognize the ominous future that portends in a vain effort to perpetuate a deplorable status quo.
And yet, the only realistic alternative to Biden has an even worse stance than Biden does, in regards to the Palestinians, plus a bunch of other major flaws that Biden doesn't have. I can't speak for every Biden voter, but I don't think Biden's Israel-Palestine position is moral. I'm not hand-waving it just because I pragmatically recognize that Trump is worse for Palestine and for our country, and so that means I'm choosing Biden over Trump. Why would I (and you) want things to get worse for the Palestinians?
Democrats don't just get a pass for not being able to nominate someone that isn't engaged in genocide nor do the people that support someone engaged in genocide.
No one is saying that Democrats get a pass. It's comparing the only choices available, neither of which have "very good, moral take on the Israel-Palestine conflict" as a quality. It's literally as simple as that. If you want to deter people from voting for Biden, then you're increasing the chance that Trump wins the election, which means that things will get worse for the Palestinians. I would prefer a much, much better situation for the Palestinians, but the only option currently available to me, as a voter, is to vote for Biden over Trump.
Rationalizing your support of a genocidal leader as "pragmatism" is exactly what I was referencing when I said:
Ironically, it's now Biden that could shoot someone on 5th ave and not lose his base. At least not the ones attempting to rationalize empowering someone actively engaged in genocide.
That's a terrible take, and I suspect that you know this. If Biden shot someone, I'd want him prosecuted and held legally accountable for his actions. That's literally the opposite of what Trump's base wants for when Trump commits crimes, as evident by their faux outrage at his recent felony convictions and their flippant dismissal of all his remaining indictments.
Prosecuted and held legally liable sure, but if he's still "the only realistic alternative to Trump", I understand you to be taking the position you'd still vote for him and advocate others do too.
If Biden hypothetically committed enough additional evil to the point where Trump became the lesser of two evils, and if those two men were the only candidates for president, then I'd need to switch my vote to Trump. In reality, Biden isn't going to be outdoing Trump in the evil department.
EPT
