900
submitted 2 days ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 120 points 2 days ago

yea, but you get to brag to all the other inmates in the political prison yard that you stood up for your principles by not voting!

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

They'll be in the same political prisons as their primary enemies, the classic liberal Dems.

[-] blazeknave@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Am I allowed physical violence to the purported leftist idiots who land us there? I'll piss on their cracked skulls while reminding them we have the same values but I'm practical and trying to survive to fight for them.

[-] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 1 points 17 hours ago

You'd fight us but not Republicans because we destroy the notion that you're the good guys. You both want to preserve the status quo, with libs preferring marginally less grotesque methods of enforcement, and superficially opposing the fucked up methods Republicans prefer to employ. Good cop vs. bad cop routine, and you hate us because we're pointing out that the good cop wants us imprisoned too.

Let's be real, in actual prison, you'd be making aliances with the skinheads and guards 15 minutes in, then call on them to do your dirty work instead of doing any fighting yourself.

Same dynamic you're employing right now actually: "Fall in line or I'll sic the Republicans on you!" while fantasizing about the left getting sent to the camps for daring to oppose your brand of status quo preservation...just like Republicans, but less honest about your intentions.

Dipshits of both lib and fash varieties fail to recognize themselves as allies in defence of capitalism, imperialism, patriarchy, and white supremacy, yet somehow you always instinctively know who is more important to fight, the left.

The SPD voted for the concentration camps the KPD died in. Same dynamic will play out here.

You defended Biden for not closing the migrant camps, understanding that you would never spend a second inside one. We opposed them the entire time, not caring that they'd eventually be used for us.

Smart fascists understand how useful your brand of performative opposition is to legitimizing the system that keeps the treats flowing, so even if they throw did your ass in prison to appease their base (they won't), you'll be let go. You're too useful an idiot for keeping the real opposition (communists) from taking power.

[-] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 2 points 1 day ago

Oh hey everybody, it’s the toughest guy on the internet! What’s it like being so damn tough?

[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 13 points 2 days ago

LOL i can't wait to get in fistfights with them

[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Fuck the fist fights, I'll be playing human shield with their corpses while I sneak out in the cadaver wagon.

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Oh Lemmy. Don’t ever change ❤️

[-] Samvega 11 points 2 days ago

I'm not as enthused as you to vote for a system where innocent civilians have to die for political convenience, sorry. My morals say that killing is wrong, and I don't like it.

[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 79 points 2 days ago

LOL you guys never fail to illustrate my point in less than 5 minutes

[-] Samvega 10 points 2 days ago

If your point is "some people think that killing is wrong", feel free to consider your point proven.

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 47 points 2 days ago

You're choosing between "lots of people being killed" vs "LOOOOOOTTTTTSSSS of people being killed"

Based on your own morality you have outlined, ethically you would choose to vote Kamala then, as under her far far fewer people will die.

[-] seaQueue@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

What do you think about China's Uighur genocide?

[-] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 1 points 15 hours ago

Show me a single dead Uighur. Show me any evidence at all.

Lemme guess, the only evidence you'll be able to provide is either:

  • Adrian Zenz's "research" or media citing it.
  • that single picture of the Kashgar inmates watching a drug awareness presentation.
  • testimony from some person in Uighur World Congress (who are such a puppet of US dept of state that they cant even have solidarity with fellow Muslims in Palestine by recognizing their genocide) saying they have missing family members.

Tell me:

  • what purpose does this genocide serve China?
  • how does China prevent any evidence at all from getting out? Is their great firewall more effective than Israel knocking out every cell tower and cutting all ISP lines? Why can we see that genocide despite Israel spending billions to stifle info getting out? Are Uighurs that much more afraid of retribution than the Palestinians who know they will be martyred for fighting back?
  • why did Muslim majority countries not unite to denounce this "genocide" like they did Gaza? Did Xi bribe them all?
  • where is the satellite footage showing the infrastructure needed to carry out an industrial scale genocide? Why isn't the US coming forth with it if they have it?
  • do the Han Chinese hate Muslims? If so, why aren't they also genociding the Hui Muslims who are much more divout?
  • why does Xinjiang have more mosques than all of Europe if they hate Muslims enough to kill off its least devout followers?
  • why UN inspectors came and found no evidence of genocide. How come the report has nothing more than "human rights abuses" (the most severe of which also occur daily in US prisons, who won't allow inspections from international bodies.)

You are just another dog of the US State Department. Israel thanks you for your whataboutism to diminish the severity of their very real, US funded genocide. Muslims everywhere appreciate your valient efforts to protect a Muslim group from an imaginary genocide.

[-] Samvega 5 points 2 days ago

There is no genocide that I agree with.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] seaQueue@lemmy.world 59 points 2 days ago
[-] Samvega 6 points 2 days ago

Thanks, as a person with a trans gender identity, this really helps me to understand that nothing will change, because fear and oppression will be utilised to force people to rationalise harmful actions as inevitable.

[-] femtech@midwest.social 16 points 2 days ago

A trans gender identity? That sounds like a broken English interpretation.

[-] yumpsuit@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It’s a fucky word construction, but it’s correct and in wide use. Transgender and trans are different concepts. I’m reading “A Short History of Trans Misogyny” by Jules Gill-Peterson which opens with this paragraph:

•••

Preface

"Trans misogyny" refers to the targeted devaluation of both trans femininity and people perceived to be trans feminine, regardless of how they understand them-selves. While it can manifest as a system of beliefs, trans misogyny also structures the material world through disparate life outcomes and a suite of characteristically punitive regimes. As an exercise of interpersonal or state violence, trans misogyny operates through the logic of the preemptive strike. It trans-feminizes its targets without their assent, usually by sexualizing their presumptive femininity as if it were an expression of male aggression. This process of misrecognition and projection construes its targets as inherently threatening. The threat label, in turn, justifies aggression or punishment rationalized after the fact as a legitimate response to having been victimized— a self-interested playbook if there ever was one. Whoever pursues trans misogyny enjoys the rare privilege of being at once the victim and the judge, jury, and executioner. The transgression prompting this full-court press can be as mundane as walking down the street, or a moral panic as overinflated as the putative end of Western civilization. Regardless, the passive presence of a trans-feminized person is almost always the solipsistic pretense for striking first. Trans misogyny attacks the very existence of trans femininity in attacking real people.

•••

[-] Samvega 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Hey, I'm autistic, queer, and an immigrant. You can hate me if you want, plenty of people do.

My gender identity is trans. I'm also ethnically Ukrainian. Feel free to assume I'm Russian because I'm different to you. That's what human society does, create ougroups and scapegoat them. I try to avoid doing it, which makes me an enemy of those who do, because I say impossible things like "can we not kill innocent people?" For practical purposes, that will not happen, and asking for it is naive.

I know that. But, although impractical and naive, that does not stop it from being the morally correct outcome. My autism shows itself in a very strong sense of justice, and I find justice to be more important than practicality.

[-] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 days ago

How exactly does not voting/3rd party voting create any justice in your opinion? Opting out of our limited and imperfect democracy doesn't magically create justice, it silences your own voice. Nobody here hates you, and broadly speaking the Democrats don't hate you either. I can't say the same for the cult of Trump. If you truly have a strong sense of justice, wouldn't you want to at a bare minimum try to prevent am actual criminal from gaining power?

[-] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

Nobody here hates you

One of many examples of the genocide apologists in this thread just saying whatever the fuck they want to regardless of the observed reality of the situation.

[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 12 points 2 days ago

as a person with a trans gender identity

I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right there chief. Transgender people don't write "transgender" as two words. Big "as a black man" energy here, cishet loser.

[-] yumpsuit@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Our posting buddy’s fucky word construction is correct and in wide use. I’m reading “A Short History of Trans Misogyny” by Jules Gill-Peterson which opens with this paragraph:

•••

Preface

"Trans misogyny" refers to the targeted devaluation of both trans femininity and people perceived to be trans feminine, regardless of how they understand them-selves. While it can manifest as a system of beliefs, trans misogyny also structures the material world through disparate life outcomes and a suite of characteristically punitive regimes. As an exercise of interpersonal or state violence, trans misogyny operates through the logic of the preemptive strike. It trans-feminizes its targets without their assent, usually by sexualizing their presumptive femininity as if it were an expression of male aggression. This process of misrecognition and projection construes its targets as inherently threatening. The threat label, in turn, justifies aggression or punishment rationalized after the fact as a legitimate response to having been victimized— a self-interested playbook if there ever was one. Whoever pursues trans misogyny enjoys the rare privilege of being at once the victim and the judge, jury, and executioner. The transgression prompting this full-court press can be as mundane as walking down the street, or a moral panic as overinflated as the putative end of Western civilization. Regardless, the passive presence of a trans-feminized person is almost always the solipsistic pretense for striking first. Trans misogyny attacks the very existence of trans femininity in attacking real people.

•••

Also, if you’re still reading, please also add to your lexicon the absolute gift that is “cissie.”

[-] Samvega 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

As a non-binary person who is under the trans gender umbrella, without being transgender in the sense of having transitioned across genders, I am careful with my language. I am not transgender in the way people typically understand.

Feel free to participate in non-binary erasure, I'm used to it. Humans love creating outgroups so they can bully each other, that is why I find myself not labelling myself as human. I think gender is stupid, and I think humans are rude.

[-] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 56 points 2 days ago

I'm voting so the state doesn't kill my sister if she has complications in her pregnancy.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] poke@sh.itjust.works 50 points 2 days ago

Not voting is a choice as well. A choice that will make it so that your voice will not have an impact on whether the candidate that kills more will win, or the candidate that kills less. Choosing to abstain is an announcement that you don't care about those whose lives are being threatened, the opposite of what you seem to think it is.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago

A great Canadian philosopher once said "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!"

[-] asexualchangeling@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago

It's really not hard to rush to the polls

[-] Pika@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Honestly my ideology on it is the same as my parents and my grandparents, and even my great grandparents ideology.

I don't care who you vote for, what you vote for, or your reasoning's for doing do.

But if you refuse to vote, regardless of reason, you lose any say in complaining about what happens as a result, as you actively did nothing to help prevent it, meaning you have no right to bitch about the outcome.

[-] Samvega 7 points 2 days ago

Not voting is a choice as well.

Yes, but I don't have any other choice, myself.

Choosing to abstain is an announcement that you don’t care

No, it's an announcement that I care so much about innocent people dying that I am morally conflicted about being asked to be part of a political system which condones it.

[-] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

the candidate that kills more will win, or the candidate that kills less

The most infuriating thing about you nazi motherfuckers is you still have the fucking gall to believe you're better than the other side

[-] GiantChickDicks@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 days ago

It doesn't take enthusiasm to make an active move toward harm reduction if and when you see the opportunity, especially when the consequences are this serious. I would love to see ranked choice voting and a diverse and motivated number of parties to challenge the dichotomy we have now, but I live in the reality of the viable options in front of me in this moment.

This isn't about an acceptance or endorsement of the system we have now. Unfortunately for all of us, however, this is the system we currently live in. If my choices are between bad and catastrophic, I'm going with bad. Doubly so in cases like these. The choice is either the people who are suffering may or will continue to do so, versus these same people suffering even worse while making multiple new groups of people suffer, too.

If Trump wins and things get as bad, or worse, than the scenarios that have been proposed on record, more people will continue to lose their homes, autonomy, and lives in the United States. Many people who are suffering from atrocities actively going on in places other than the Middle East will likely also be worse off under these policies.

I hope those people who feel as if they own the moral high ground will remember they had an opportunity to stop it and chose to do nothing if we suddenly all find ourselves living in that world.

[-] Samvega 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I hope those people who feel as if they own the moral high ground will remember they had an opportunity to stop it

How many people died in Gaza today? I wish I had an opportunity to stop that.

but I live in the reality of the viable options

Yes, and I am unhappy that the options all involve 'innocent people are dying right now'. This bothers me.

If it's the moral high ground to say that killing is wrong, then it is also the moral high ground for you to say "The choice is either the people who are suffering may or will continue to do so, versus these same people suffering even worse". You're saying that hurting innocent people is bad, yes?

Having to choose to hurt some or more innocent people is not a choice I am enthused about, no matter what the practical reality is. It would be churlish to criticise someone without food for complaining about their practical choice between going hungry and starving, I feel.

Practical concerns do not replace morality. Someone might have no choice but to abandon their children because they cannot afford them: this does not stop them from being harmed by the moral weight of what, in all practicality, they had to do.

[-] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 days ago

Who told you that your vote has to be based on morals and not practicality? It's just a vote, you're not swearing allegiance to them or agreeing with their every stance. It's really not that complicated.

If you want to bring morals in, is it moral that women are literally dying because SCOTUS allowed states to deny women healthcare? Is deporting 11 million people moral? Seems like you get a lot of immorality when you let fundamentally immoral people have power.

[-] fuckdenialists@lemmings.world 1 points 2 days ago

Racist yank cares about american life first. But they are very different than MAGAs /s

[-] GiantChickDicks@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 days ago

My underlying point was the nuance of this entire situation, and you provided another obtuse black-and-white response. If you can't radically accept the world and your life, it's going to make it awfully hard to see it well enough to make changes.

[-] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago

There are no palatable choices in this election. You can vote for the guy who has said Israel should hurry up and finish the job or the woman who has asked for a cease fire. There are other choices, but they tend to support the first guy. It would be awesome to have a choice that results in the genocide absolutely stopping, and I feel it's entirely appropriate to be angry that isn't an option, but it isn't the choice we have. Perhaps you believe standing aside and doing nothing when the moral choice isn't available is the correct thing to do. I vehemently do not, but that is also an option American voters have, whether through protest voting or abstaining from voting altogether. Unfortunately, my world hasn't been that black and white for a long time.

[-] fuckdenialists@lemmings.world 1 points 2 days ago

You could do it like the brave soldier who did self-immolation. If I was american I would

[-] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I prefer action , or even just talking, over pointless gestures.

[-] KillerTofu@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago

So you’re voting for fascism or just going to sit it out in a political statement? Or being bold and voting third party?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Voyajer@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

Not sure why you're acting like you can vote on this in the first place

load more comments (1 replies)
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
900 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19136 readers
3275 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS