God, I hope so.

If our reach is wide enough that the democrats lost because of us, then it means they have no choice but to win us over if they want to win.

I fully understand why you see it that way. To you, Palestinians do not register as human beings, and so from your perspective I’m throwing a fit because my parents won’t rescue a puppy, or perhaps buy me a new doll. Only through the complete othering and dehumanization of foreigners is it possible for you to describe opposition to genocide as a “personal sensibility” or my “exact desires” or compare it to throwing a fit because I don’t get ice cream. You people are constantly telling on yourself that you do not recognize people born on the other side of an imaginary line with the wrong skin color as human beings. You don’t see it as being about them, rather you think this is all about my feelings, about “oh no I saw something on TV that made me feel sad, somebody do something about my feelings,” because you are unable to recognize them as human, and that is how you are able to absurdly call it “selfish” and “egotistical” for me to care about them.

If it’s truely the case that my only option within the system is to vote in favor of genocide, then yes, obviously, “burning down the grocery store” would be an extremely reasonable and proportionate response to that situation, you know, like, if the grocery store was actively butchering up human beings and serving their meat in the deli aisle. But since these people have the same moral worth to you as animals, that’s why to you it seems like burning down a grocery store just because they serve beef.

What’s incredible about this though is that you have the audacity and lack of self awareness to describe my position as the privileged one. As if you don’t get to live your whole life safely behind the walls of the garden, beyond which people are getting massacred in your name, but which you have the ability to simply ignore and shut out, out of sight and out of mind. You and I have the privilege of being born in a first world country, but I have my perspective precisely because I have had the misfortune of getting a glimpse of what things are like beyond that wall, and recognizing from that that the status quo cannot continue.

Whether for good or ill and whether sooner or later, the wall is coming down. Someday you’ll get a taste of the horrors beyond, of your own medicine that you’ve been dishing out, and the karma of your actions will find it’s way back home to you.

Because Gaza’s been doing so well right now.

Behind door #1: Isn’t as one-sided as you regarding a war in another country that involves your religion.

They’re way more one-sided about the “war” (genocide) than I imagine the vast majority of Muslim and pro-Palestinian voters are, just in the wrong direction. What part of unconditionally supplying weapons to a country that is indiscriminately slaughtering civilians is “not one sided,” oh “rational_lib?”

What a fascinating standard.

I’m curious, does this mean that you would consider China to be absolved of responsibility for arming Pol Pot, who used their weapons to murder millions of innocent people, on the basis that they never expressly told him to do it, and “merely” kept arming him while it was clear that that was what he was doing? Because I’m pretty sure that kind of apologia would catch you a ban even in the tankiest of tankie spaces, and rightly so. But switch out China and Pol Pot for the US and Netanyahu, and dronies consider not taking that position to be “misinformation.”

Why are americans so fuckin dumb? Instead of pointing their fingers at millions of trump voters, they are pointing it at people with empathy for having anti-genocider stance.

It’s because of do-gooder derogotation, and generally not caring about winning or learning from mistakes so long as they can save face and protect their egos.

Do-gooder derogation is a phenomenon where a person’s morally motivated behavior leads to them being perceived negatively by others.

One possible reason for do-gooder derogation is ‘anticipated moral reproach’. This describes a threat to one’s moral standing and to their sense of self-worth.

Research suggests that since people are highly sensitive to any criticism or challenge to their morals, they are more likely to put down the source of this ‘threat’.

What restrictions?

Democrats were never holding them back from expanding, they literally expanded the war into Lebanon under Biden. The only check they ever had are the people on the ground fighting.

Right, I don’t deny that Harris was less evil on other issues, but I do not subscribe to the ideology of lesser-evilism. Just because one side is more evil doesn’t mean that the other side is worth supporting when they’re both irredeemably evil genocidal psychopaths who deserve eternal torture in the deepest circle of hell. Lesser-evilism doesn’t make sense from either a moral or strategic standpoint.

There’s a social experiment that’s been studied where the researchers give two people $100 to split, but the first person makes one offer on how to split it, and if the second person doesn’t agree, then neither of them get anything. If lesser-evilism was correct, then what would happen is that the first person would offer a $99-$1 split and the second person would accept, because $1 is a lesser evil than $0. But that’s not what actually happens. The reality is that most people have a certain minimum threshold, somewhere around $70-$30, and below that they’ll tell the other person to get fucked.

This is not really an irrational behavior, though it may appear so in the context of the experiment. For example, if the experiment were repeated multiple times with the same participants, than accepting the $1 means that you will only ever be offered $1 in future negotiations because you’ve shown you’ll accept it.

In reality, I’m pretty sure that lesser-evilists understand this concept on some level. It’s just that either their minimum threshold does not preclude the genocide of foreigners in far away countries, or they convince themselves that the democrats aren’t actually as bad about that as they are. But for me, I do recognize that Harris is a complete monster, and I also place value on Palestinian lives, so I said no to the $99-$1 offer and now I have $0 which I fully anticipated and have no regrets over. Maybe next time they’ll come back with a reasonable offer that doesn’t include genocide.

she’s someone we could have talked to and could have felt the pressure of her voters.

No, she absolutely isn’t.

Politicians are never more receptive to voters’ concerns than just before an election. Once they have people’s votes, they tend to shift further in the direction of interests groups and the establishment. Like, for example, on the campaign trail, Obama promised to end mass surveillance and protect whistleblowers, but once he was in office, he did the opposite. Harris on the campaign trail, after the widespread campus protests, was the most pro-Palestine she would ever be, which is to say not even the slightest bit and completely unconditionally supportive of material aid to Israel.

It used to be that politicians would promise to do good things on the campaign trail, and then usually not follow through. But now they don’t even have to promise anything, because people will just project whatever views and values they hold onto whichever candidate they like regardless of anything they say or do.

Harris and Biden are unconditionally supportive of everything Israel does. Short of direct involvement of the US military, it’s not really possible for Trump to be meaningfully worse than that.

Hm, I wonder if any of the “anti-genocide” assholes ever stopped to think about Rashida, and whether she would have wanted Democrats to sit out this election or vote Green.

When you definitely know Tlaib’s positions lmao

Incredibly chauvinistic to use her as a talking point and put your own positions into her mouth without listening to anything she says.

There were two ways to vote for Trump. 1) Mark Trump on your ballot and turn it in, or 2) Not vote for Harris, not turn in a ballot at all.

In that case, Trump has won with an overwhelming majority in every election he’s ever run in, since nonvoters are like half the population and all of them count as voting for Trump.

Back here in reality, that’s not how it works.

Unless you’re referencing it as such

They very obviously are. How could you possibly read their comment otherwise?

Oh, I didn’t say that. Not all irredeemably evil genocidal psychopaths who deserve eternal torture in the deepest circle of hell are exactly as bad.

Right back atcha.

Link or it didn’t happen.

In what way were we wrong? Did we ever claim Trump would be good on Gaza?

How’s your conscience now??? Still feeling good about your decision?

Yes.

Trump is an irredeemably evil genocidal psychopath who deserves eternal torture in the deepest circle of hell. That fact does not make me wish that I had voted for a different irredeemably evil genocidal psychopath who deserves eternal torture in the deepest circle of hell. The fact that Trump is horrible was never in dispute.

The Palestinians had a chance under Harris.

No, they didn’t.