i don’t even know if this is good or if i stand by it 100% but it’s a helluva lot better (less tone deaf) than the other one ☺️
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
But it's not obvious to everyone. I just made a thread that was filled with people saying otherwise. Another post was made 24 hours ago that was filled with people saying otherwise. There are people in THIS comment section saying otherwise.
You were seeing people say that trump wouldn’t speed up the genocide? I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone make that claim in good faith, except possibly in relation to what trump was saying about the war needing to end because of optics, but that’s a whole different can of worms regarding why he is saying it and stuff.
Or were you seeing people say “Why does that matter when the problem should be about the presence of genocide, rather than the rate of it”
Some choice examples:
None of these are saying trump won't speed up the genocide.
The first one is probably the worst take, not gonna lie. While I love the first and third sentence, since it points out a campist tendency people tend to have, the rest of the take is genuinely bad. Accelerationism is a terrible ideology. The second one is dubious, and the rest are hard to judge without context.
I think you should read the last one again.
This isn't a both sides take. Sure, it is comparing both sides, but the thing that makes it difference is they are arguing about the absurdity of the lesser evil argument whether or not it should even be considered valid.
I think that there's an important takeaway in that. At what point is arguing about who has the better pro-genocide policies a waste of time? Instead of working towards change, it is just enforcing apathy and powerlessness.
Also, that last one is a better phrasing of what I said earlier: "Why does that matter when the problem should be about the presence of genocide, rather than the rate of it”
If you are seeing that as problematic, I'm genuinely concerned.