121
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
121 points (73.5% liked)
politics
19135 readers
977 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm voting for Harris and have never, I want to stress this, absolutely fucking NEVER suggested doing otherwise.
You will of course completely ignore this because I dared to say that genocide isn't the only thing in this world that gives life meaning.
I'll admit I was mistaken given your comment was sandwiched between two people suggesting otherwise and given your suggestion that anyone tired of listening to those people try to discourage voting for Harris is pro-genocide. You may not be one of them, but you walk a very similar walk here, so I wouldn't be so surprised by the confusion.
Consider for a moment that some of the others that you've written off might not be trying to discourage people from voting for Harris but might actually be upset about genocide.
You do understand that there are people in the world who genuinely don't like genocide without ulterior motives, right? That it's actually possible to find genocide objectionable?
Because it sure fucking seems like centrists on lemmy don't want to hear anything that isn't glowing praise in the face of the news that Harris will continue supporting genocide to the same degree that Biden has.
Dude this all started because top comment knew this post was gonna be full of people discouraging voting for Harris, and then you jumped in and accused people of being pro-genocide for it. This is what I mean when I said you walk a similar walk. Anyone who disagrees with your perfect view of the world MUST be an enemy who directly wants genocide.
None of us like genocide. We're just tired of it being used to trash the candidate who's objectively better on the topic, shitty as that may be. I, at least, don't care if some posts about her are negative, but I'm real fucking tired of people trying to pretend that her failings here mean getting the objectively worse Trump elected on purpose or on accident is somehow a coherent idea, much less a good one.
And anyone who criticizes any Democrat's support for genocide gets a fucking earful of "you want Trump to win" accusations.
Ha. I wish we could link to specific modlog entries.
Objectively less bad. Let's not pretend she's good on the topic in any way.
And I'm tired of the constant insinuations that anyone who thinks that no Democrat should be supporting genocide must be a trumper.
Neither fucking party should be supporting genocide. This isn't perfect-world-everyone-gets-a-pony-and-a-blowjob-yes-even-the-women purity. This is the absolute bare minimum of what should be acceptable. It's the most disgusting shit ever to see the "good" party willing to be complicit in the eradication of a people, and to be met with gross hostility from your own party for daring to call it wrong.
I wonder who the next entry on Netanyahu's "then they came for" list is. Because one thing about genocide, it doesn't end unless it's stopped. It doesn't end when it runs out of victims in one group. The genocidal stay in power by lying to the people that if they just get rid of those that they designate to be the cause of all the world's ills, all their problems will go away. So when the victims are dead and the problems remain, they don't admit they're wrong; they're politicians, after all. They just find a new scapegoat for all the world's ills and continue as before. Ultimately everyone's on that list except the genocidal maniac at the top.
Calling her "pro-genocide" might very much suggest to people that they should not vote for her.
She is arming a genocide and refuses to stop. How is that not pro genocide? If accurately describing her stance drives people away maybe she should change it
Ffs people are so naive.
And if she didn't change it, you don't vote for her and Trump wins how do you think that plays out? You think he really cares and will save more lives than Kamala.
This is picking the least worst option and people are saying not to vote for her because of this. While Trump is saying if he gets in people will not have to vote again. Get the best choice in then protest the issue, but if Trump gets in it's much worse.
Why can't you just let people be angry about a genocide and the people that are responsible for it. We can't help that speaking the truth about this enormous atrocity hurts the less evil candidate we have to deal with the fact that our government is supplying the means to murder children on a daily basis grow a fucking heart
Because addressing the problem the wrong way can make it worse. I don't want it to be worse. Demonizing Harris and given Trump a better chance hurts everyone, Gaza included. I'm trying to step back and look at the big picture and far reaching implications.
Your cold and unsympathetic demeanor has convinced me not to vote for kamala
Ok
You're bitching about shit that you refuse to try to change. You've already admitted that you haven't done anything to change the course.
If you don’t tell anyone in power that you dislike a policy then no one will know you don’t like it. Most of you don’t want to tell anyone in power how you feel, so it’s just text in the wind.
You only have yourself to blame.
I don't know what the fuck you're talking about
I'm not surprised.
Point of fact, I called centrists pro-genocide, not necessarily Harris. Though it's not like calling Harris pro-genocide would make any centrist less likely to vote for her.
I feel like people are being very liberal with this "pro-genocide" term.
Not nearly as liberal as centrists have been for the past months with the "you don't support genocide so you must be voting for trump" accusation. Which you don't have a problem with.
Wow the amount of assumptions and speculation there. You're not interested in an honest conversation huh?
I find it interesting that people like you, who are "anti-genocide" can't help themselves from telling others how they think and feel. Might be a hint that your stance is dishonest.
Well, if you have a problem with the anti-genocide=trumper accusation, you're certainly not raising that concern with those who are making it.
If you have so much difficulty imagining having objections to genocide that you assume dishonesty, I don't know what to tell you, and it's not like you would believe it anyway since it comes from someone who has voiced opposition to genocide without immediately following it with "but."
Ok, so in the absence of you knowing my stance you feel comfortable making assumptions. Seems like a logical path to truth. Ffs...
You toss all nuance out the window to build this straw man. Genocide isn't the only thing in the world happening. And like I said in my last comment the "but" is because context exists. We could enslave them all and that would fix the genocide. I can only assume you're in favor of that because it would stop genocide, no buts.
You are comfortable saying that I called Harris pro-genocide, which I did not do. I said that centrists on lemmy are pro-genocide, which you took to mean that Harris is pro-genocide.
Both the article and the thread are about genocide.
Wouldn't be the only thing you've assumed about me that wasn't true.