I'm not banned yet because the admin's at least a bit sympathetic, but I sure as hell don't think 90% of the group's gonna want to speak to me after this. I told them I'm voting and campaigning for a 3rd party candidate who is anti-Israel and pro-trans and explained that I could not in good conscience vote for Biden after his blatant and willing complicity in genocide. Here are some of the arguments I encountered in response to that:
- "Not voting for Biden makes it easier for Trump to win, and Trump will genocide trans people in addition to Palestinians. Therefore anything you do supports genocide, so you might as well support less genocide."
- "Your trans friends will all know that you're functionally anti-trans." (I'm sure this would be a shock to my trans friends in my org, all of whom have made it clear they will also not vote for Biden)
- "Trump would genocide Palestinians even harder."
- "Biden wants to stop the genocide, but the Republicans won't let him."
Some choice quotes:
Have pride in your self centeredness, I guess.
Choosing someone who you know cannot win, especially as they're not the chosen candidate, is only symbolically different than choosing apathy.
It's just objectively how it works in this system. There is no non vote.
And it is most depressing your friends here at home are not important enough to check one box for.
And this:
[The Palestinian] genocide is going to happen regardless of the two. But the one that's happening here, that one can be stopped. And you refuse to do anything about it because you think you're so much better.
You're right about one thing, though. I do think I'm better than people who give their endorsement to running over Palestinian children with tanks.
And I'm better than people that choose two genocides at once, I guess. If we're ranking each other. I'd laugh if it wasn't stupid.
I feel like there is some neurosis in seppos about voting. It so doesn’t matter it’s not even funny.
P.s.And they are voting for one genocide instead of zero, so they have roughly 0.0005 (round 10 days I think) of palestinian life on their hands, if we do moralistic arguments
According to their own calculus, every option supports genocide, so they're taking the best option by supporting one instead of two. Which sounds an awful lot like the argument of someone who wants to rationalize the fact that they're choosing to support a genocide.
Two worlds: dems eat shit cause of genocide and one they don’t.
In which world dems have a chance to readjust isntrael politics? Whatcha they got to say about that?
Same question if they eat shit by third party margin
They didn't understand this with the whole "Bernie or Bust" thing in 2020 either. Or maybe they did, but either way, they chose to characterize it as petulant. "Taking the ball and going home" was a common way they'd try to deride it.