Obviously a huge genocide isn’t enough for you - you clearly want Every Palestinian to be killed or imprisoned when Trump is elected.

Please do your best to act in good faith and not lie about me.

And not just the ones in Gaza, if I were a Palestinian in the US, I’d be terrified of that madman winning, and I’d do everything I could to support Harris like my life depended on it (because it very well might)

No, that is what you, a non-Palestinian, believe you get to decide for Palestinians, people who have lost half or more of their family in the last year. The Palestinian diaspira, generally speaking, rejects Biden and Harris.

However, you have not answered my questions.

More generally you are trying to convince us that the genocide is the only important issue in the world, and that it’s somehow worth not supporting someone who is in all ways (not just all other) the far better of the two electable candidates.

Now you are downplaying the magnitude of genocide. Never again means never again for anyone, not just when it is politically convenient for you.

Welp, looks like you didn’t answer my questions. Maybe next time, right?

It’s literally the worst crime in the world.

Davidgro out here trying to minimize the literal worst crime in the world for political reasons.

You can chose not to vote for a party actively committing the literal worst crime in the world.

All under the mistaken belief that by refusing to vote for the group you would otherwise vote for, you will get them to move Left.

Don’t project your dumb shit on me

The reality is, refusing to vote is still a choice.

wooooooooow no shiiiiiiiiiit

You mean I’m exercising agency right now? You don’t saaaaaaaayyyyyyy.

Choosing to abstain because you don’t want to partipate out of moral self-righteousness

Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds. “Virtue signalling” you say?

You’re a nazi. You’re giving material support to the perpetrators of a genocide. You’re trash. Diminishing basic morality as a vice just like any other fucking 8chan fascist. Trash.

Smirking fucking nazi invoking “the lives affected by your choices” and “washing your hands” like the worst crime in history isn’t hanging behind you as you say that shit.

You’re fucking trash.

I await your response to what I said. I’m not interesting in watching you masturbate.

“You are responsible because you can’t swallow your pride. How incredibly selfish of you.”

you guys need to be a bit subtle in the gaslighting effort. where was all this anger for her supporting innocent kids being burned alive. go shout at her rallies to stop being a genocidal two faced hack. else you all are trolls trivialising an ongoing genocide and enabling future ones.

The effort to limit damage in the real world like advocating for a genocider?

Also, please do your best to act in good faith and not make things up about people.

Show me any examples of them limiting damage

deleted by creator

Go ask admins of other instances then.

Spoken like someone that has never been an admin of anything.

There are ways to observe sock puppets solely from metadata that the admins have access to without even looking at the content of the posts.

The admins are literally one of the few groups that can actually, quantitatively, state that there are few sock puppets.

Good job responding to something I didn’t say to try and discredit what I did.

Don’t think that goes unnoticed.

I’m not excusing Hamas. The fact that you read what I did says that you are either responding in bad faith, didn’t read my response very carefully, or are stupid. I’ll go with the middle one to be generous.

I don’t excuse Hamas. I don’t control Hamas, and much more importantly, I don’t pay for the weapons that Hamas use.

I pay, or rather my country pays, for the weapons that Israel uses to bomb apartment building, schools, and hospitals.

Hamas has killed somewhere between 1000-2000 civilians in this conflict, and that is being generous because we know that a large number of causalities were from Israel enacting the Hannibal directive and intentionally killing their own to keep them from being made prisoners (If Israel gets to grab 11,400 West Bank civilians without trial or due process and call them prisoners, then Hamas gets to do the same). Furthermore, if we count anyone who was in the IDF or the IDF’s military reserves as active military, then the number of civilians goes WAAAAY down. Remember that the IDF considers the trashmen, police, and hospital administrators as active combatants with Hamas affiliation. So, once again, if that is the standard that Israel is setting then it applies to all parties, including Israelis.

Israel, by all best estimates, has killed somewhere between 100,000-200,000 civilians. That is between 5% - 10% of the ENTIRE POPULATION OF GAZA. In all honesty, the number is probably higher.

That is completely ignoring the systemized rape and torture camps that Israel has set up, and the Israeli media discovered. Also, something that there is no evidence that Hamas has set up.

Acting like those two numbers are equivalent, or pointing out that Israel is quantitatively a minimum of 2 orders of magnitude worse, or that the two sides are the same is either stupidity, or evil. Take your pick.

None of this is justifying Hamas. It is pointing out how much more fantastically, cartoonishly fucking evil the Israeli government is.

You should ask yourself why you view the above as justifying Hamas. You might discover something.

If I understand you correctly, then I very much agree, but I don’t see this happening very much.

It happens all the time on a per-organizer basis if you actively do it. The left is currently small but has the capacity to rapidly snowball if it is principled and follows good practices. When you recruit 10 people per year per organizer and 2 of them become organizers, etc etc. And these things will come in waves if you make yourself known and build capacity for onboarding. One year it’s 10 per organizer, the next it may be 50.

My organizations experienced rapid growth under Trump and in Winter-Spring 2024 due to us actively doing work.

On one side I see people saying “vote for the lesser of two evils, and then we can focus on changing the system/changing the democrat policies” without actually any clear idea how to do that.

Yes this is just a line, they don’t really man it. They can’t even say what their goal is most of the time. They just say “push left”, leaving it vague. And of course they’re really telling you to stop making demands when you have the most leverage, to then give up that leverage by pledging to be a guaranteed vote then make their demands when they have the least leverage and gave already proven that they will vote blue regardless.

This line is repeated constantly because it keeps empathetic voters contained and powerless while also gaining some votes for their monstrous candidate.

On the other side I see “don’t vote for either party, neither major party deserves to win” without any clear idea of how to give any realistic chance for a third party to win.

Why does the third party need to win? There are many other outcomes to shedding the false consciousness of lesser evil voting. At the moment, I am highlighting liberals normalizing genocide. One outcone is to recognize that this “democracy” is a genocidal sham and you need to work against its underlying forces. Another is to effectively boycott so as to demonstrate illegitimacy of who is elected, which has a long history. Another us to begin creating a voting bloc that doesn’t ounch itself in the face every 4 years and actually makes demands with a credible threat. That voting bloc would also eventually fail because again, this “democracy” is a sham, but those people can then be organized against the genocidal status quo.

Here again you are using bad faith tactics to dismiss the idea that people in favour of voting might have valid reasons to, instead presenting it as if these people think normalising genocide is a good thing. This is divisive and not constructive at all.

It is not bad faith, it is the truth. Treating genocide like a typical lesser evil you have to accept is normalizing it. It was, allegedly, a red line, and now liberals are falling over themselves to erase that line.

This revelation probably makes you uncomfortable, but it is not false or unfair. You can see it throughout this thread. They try to avoid the topic at first, then speak euphemistically. Try asking them to say this: “I am against genocide and will never vote for a genocider”. Can you say that?

Yes I know how quickly controversial discourse can go downhill

“Controversial” my ass, I said they were panicking and racist. So much for “good faith”, eh? Don’t whitewash my framings and pretend it is what we are talking about.

but to be that seems all the more reason to not allow our arguments to disintegrate, even if the other sides are.

You are being so vague that I can’t even tell what you are recommending. This topic is something you brought up, trying to both sides communication, and what I am telling you is that there is a verifiable imbalance.

I definitely agree, I think all widespread “truths” should stand up to scrutiny, but my point is about the way this is done. Challenging a truth/point of view should mean approaching the logical base of that view, and presenting an alternative with reasons why the alternative is better.

Incorrect. That is fine for internal strategy discussions among people that agree with one another. It is absolutely terrible media and discursive strategy.

There is not a logical base for most political views. That is usually a rationalization for more basic feelings, like status, security, whether you are a good person, whether the bad people are getting what they deserve.

But so often I see people ignoring the logical base of the other side’s viewpoint, and instead creating straw-men to attack instead, or simply just dismissing the other side entirely through one tactic or another.

Because it isn’t about the logical base. I can present concrete facts and demonstrate pure logical contradiction in another person’s arguments and they will simply deflect. Their ego gets in the way, an ego taught to them by a society where having an opinion is important for status and self-worth and every disagreement is about destroying the other side. They will lie, deflect, insult, say racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic things. Having revealed that they have no logical base and are just Himmler Lite, any pretense that you are just going after logic and debate will undermine you and become a trolling session for them.

These are not the people you are trying to reach anyways. It is the audience at the borderline that need that, “oh shit my side is racist and I reject that” kind of push. Again, not about a logical base.

To be clear, this is done by all sides, I see many people dismissing the argument to vote as simply being “supportive of genocide” (which is obviously riduculous)

It is not ridiculous you are literally voting for someone doing a genocide and telling other people to do the same. Despite your complaints you have not addressed the clear basis for this claim and are doing that thing right now: deflecting through dismissal built entirely on sentiment, not any logical basis. I should not need to explain to you that “I am voting for a genocider and so should you” is a pro-genocide stance. But your discomfort in your complicity, the threat to you feeling like a good person, means you need to start dissembling.

while people dismissing the argument to vote third party as being “stupid/ignorant” or other things to that effect, which is also obviously false.

The people dismissing that are repeating canards handed to them by their faction of the political class. They are only needed insofar as the person returns to feeling like they are good and smart for voting for a genocider. You can watch them fall apart in real time when you try to discuss their alleged “logical base”, like discusing game theory and electoral strategy. They were not actually convinced to vote that way because of simplistic half-understood electoral math, they were convinced by allegiance to a political program that aligns with their idea of being a good person. And as bourgeous morality goes, they will then start making personal moralizung arguments, and then they must be reminded they are voting for a genocider.

Then we come full circle and they fall apart. Repeat ad nauseum.

Like you say, we are all products of our societies with different values, but the vast majority of people are reasonably smart and have good intentions.

Not true. Intentions are not inherently good when the society that crafted them is racist, genocidal, misigynist, etc. Being the product of conditions means the dominant intention can be oppressive and violent. With education they could acquire good intentions. If raised in a less oppresser society, they could have good intentions. But you don’t get to whitewash the bad intentions of those shoring up violence and oppression, including genocide. Those are not good intentions, they ar self-serving corrosive behaviors learned from their social circles.

And dismissing people is not a good way of “calling them out”, it only causes further division and makes them even less likely to be receptive to your ideas.

100% incorrect, certainly when it comes to media and fronts, which is more like how social media operates. The most effective means of agitation is direct callouts, particularly when it comes to reactionary positions that need to be made socially unacceptable.

The person receiving the callout will get defensive, but they do that anyways regardless of how you frame the problem in what they are saying. But now they get to coast by and pretend to be in the right and the audience will also miss this. Over time, that defensiveness can and does lead to change, where many go and do some research and come back in a few months as if they had always held a different position. Online, they might just make a new account. I’ve seen users bullied for their transphobia do this repeatedly, they got less transphobic over time but were still recognizably the same user.

If, on the other hand, someone is already sympathetic and not oppositional, they will let you know this early on. The main thing they will do is commiserate and ask questions. These are the people you can gently correct as they are not just trying to reaffirm their biases - such as to the white race and whose suffering they care about - and status as a good person by retaining them.

If you cannot see the reasons for someone’s beliefs (even if you strongly disagree with those reasons) then you stand very little chance of changing their mind.

Buddy I have recruited more people than you’ve ever talked to online.

eh. Not my style.

I’m not voting democrat because I “support genocide”, I’m voting democrat because if Trump gets elected, shit is about to get a WHOLE lot worse. It is damage control

You can keep sitting here and acting like a fucking child throwing a temper tantrum because you don’t like the reality of our only choices, but you are being just that. A child.

You can sit on the sidelines on your little soapbox and virtue signal all you want, but when Trump wins I won’t be blaming the republicans. I’ll be blaming all of you.

Genocide is a necessary but not sufficient condition for nazism.

I think that despite the appalling amount of equipment already being sent to Israel, a country with the resources of America can absolutely send a fucktonne more if it chooses to. Or it could start actively bombing in its own right, like it did in Yemen.

If Kamala isn’t stopping the genocide or even holding Israel back, how will Trump be worse? What could Trump possibly do that’s worse than genocide?

America absolutely has the capacity to supply far more equipment than it already is, and it has a track record of engaging in bombing campaigns in its own right in similar situations. Like in Yemen, under Trump. I do not want America to start bombing Palestine directly as well

“Finish the job” vs “finish the job faster”, either way the same result, genocide.

If they get to finish the job. The less quickly they can finish it, the more of a chance there is of Israeli and/or international public support turning against it enough to actually change it. The American election is not going to do that by itself because both realistic candidates are pro-Israel, so there is no point in making decisions that only work if they completely stop the genocide by voting or not voting.

You clearly also think that there is a chance of it being stopped since that’s your foundation for saying faster genocide is preferable. I don’t think your logic holds there, because I don’t see why a faster one would be likely to fail faster. On that basis, slower means fewer dead Palestinians.

It comes off as someone who doesn’t actually care about the issue and just wants to get their talking points out about why genocidal Trump is bad and genocidal Democrats are good.

Literally every point I made was explicitly rooted in what I believe will result in the fewest Palestinian deaths.

They most likely insulted you because they read what you wrote, the same reason I didn’t respond initially.

I accused them of not reading because they started off by trying to nitpick me by restating the exact same thing I pointed out literally in the same sentence.

So is your position that if the Saudis had killed Yemenis at the same rate as Israel is killing Palestinians, Trump would have reversed course? Bearing in mind that the war crimes weren’t enough, and he supported it significantly more actively than Biden and Harris are supporting Israel