• TheFriar@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    9
    Ā·
    7 months ago

    You are entirely missing the point here. You seem so deluded by factionalism that you canā€™t see this as anything but a democrat vs Republican issue.

    This is a HUMAN GODDAMN LIVES issue. A literal genocide is happening and youā€™re playing the whataboutism game. ā€œWhataboutismā€ is used way too much as a phrase in discussions, but this is a textbook example of it.

    ā€œBiden is contributing to genocide.ā€

    ā€œBut trump is a criminal.ā€

    ā€œOkayā€¦but people are literally being slaughtered and starved on the USā€™s dime and the president is still voicing support in the face of the atrocities we are all witnessing.ā€

    ā€œBut trump-ā€œ

    Just stop. No one here likes trump. We understand stacking domestic chaos on top of this issue is no good. But we are faced with no good option right now. The entire argument for voting for democrats over republicans is usually ā€œbut we can push the democrats through shame to do what is right.ā€ THAT IS WHAT THIS IS.

    Weā€™re not playing politics. Weā€™re playing try to save some goddamn lives with civil disobedience.

      • TheFriar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        Ā·
        7 months ago

        Like, itā€™s something we all understand. But that doesnā€™t absolve the Biden adminā€™s full-dive involvement. This administration is complicit in genocide.

        That doesnā€™t mean another president wouldnā€™t be as well. The US as a country and entity is complicit. But thatā€™s what weā€™re trying to change by calling out the weaker linkā€”because the point isnā€™t playing politics. Itā€™s stopping the genocide. Whatā€™s happening right now in Gaza is untenable. And Biden is supposed to be the better optionā€”again, yes, we all understand trump would not be better. But that doesnā€™t change whatā€™s happening. We need to be able to pressure our representatives, especially when they claim to be morally superior to the ā€œotherā€ party. And especially when theyā€™re more likely to change. We have Biden over the barrel because itā€™s an election year, and heā€™s seeing a ton of pressure from people he needs the votes of. Hats leverage we donā€™t typically have. We need to use it. Also, itā€™s fuckin genocide. I donā€™t know how else to say it. And it needs to stop. This isnā€™t us claiming anything except we donā€™t want whatā€™s happening to continue. Weā€™re not discussing the election. This supersedes it.

        This is what we need to do. Because, the point is stopping the genocide. Not playing politics. And thatā€™s what you just canā€™t see past. Like I said, we voted for Biden knowing he was supposed to be the more morally sound option. And here he is participating in genocide. We are trying to push the president who is vulnerable on this issue to do the right thing. Thatā€™s what needs to happen. BECAUSE THERE IS A FUCKING GENOCIDE TAKING PLACE. That fact isnā€™t going away, no matter how much of a disaster trump would be. This president is vulnerable on the issue, and the point isnā€™t politics. Itā€™s stopping a goddamn genocide.

        What is your point youā€™re making here? Because youā€™re not saying anything anyone else doesnā€™t know. But that doesnā€™t we shouldnā€™t be skewering Biden for this. Because he holds the reins of power. This is what we should be doing, if not more.

          • TheFriar@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            Ā·
            7 months ago

            No, youā€™re still missing he point. The thread youā€™ve been involved in, this thread, has been ā€œbiden is complicit in genocide.ā€ ā€œWell trump is bad and would be worse.ā€

            No one had said anything about the election when I jumped in except for you. But again, my point is this supersedes whatā€™s happening in the election. Youā€™re displaying factionalism. Democrat vs Republican is the arena youā€™re operating in.

            There is a genocide happening. Full stop.

            And it needs to end. That is where this conversation ends.

            Saying, ā€œwellā€¦but, the other candidateā€”ā€œ

            No. This isnā€™t about candidates. This president is in office for almost another year. People are protesting whatā€™s happening. The election only serves, in this situation, as leverage for us. Because this is bad timing for Biden because of the election. Thatā€™s its only involvement here. Except for your comments.

            You canā€™t see past the poison that is the two party system to understand that itā€™s not even part of this discussion. Genocide. No. End it. Thatā€™s the conversation. And you keep bringing up a person not currently involved in it.

            If thatā€™s what the conversation I jumped into was, then this conversation and my point would be different. Check it out, Iā€™ve made this point many times because Iā€™ve seen this situation being leveraged to tilt the election away from Biden. BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION.

            Making this conversation, where people are putting pressure on the president to save lives and stop a genocide, about bidenā€™s opponent in the upcoming election is wrong. Itā€™s a nuanced difference, but I canā€™t make it any more clear. You either get that or you donā€™t. And so far you donā€™t seem like youā€™re getting it.

            • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              Ā·
              7 months ago

              Not missing the point. Yes heā€™s complicit, never said he wasnā€™t. I donā€™t know why you think that that is what I think. Ignoring what can happen in November is short sighted. Iā€™m not saying to stop putting pressure, hell they need to ramp it up. You either get that, or you donā€™t, and so far it doesnā€™t seem like youā€™re getting it.

              • TheFriar@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                Ā·
                7 months ago

                Jesus Christ, man. When the conversation is ā€œ_____ is ______.ā€ and your entire argument is, ā€œwell, what about _____#2?ā€ Then youā€™re not agreeing. Youā€™re altering the topic of conversation, which runs cover for the initial topic by muddying the waters.

                NOW youā€™re backtracking. But your contribution to the conversation was diverting blame. Until we all started calling you out. Maybe you do agree with us. But that wasnā€™t what you were saying.

                • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  Ā·
                  7 months ago

                  Conversation regarding topics arenā€™t binary, taking into account alternatives is not muddying the waters. Iā€™m not sure why you think I was back tracking, and youā€™re the only person who " called me out". Funny you could have said something along the lines of at least we agree on bidens handling of this and that would have been that.

                  • TheFriar@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    Ā·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    This isnā€™t an attempt to be binary. And I jumped in to the end of a conversation you were having with someone else.

                    And Iā€™m not saying that weā€™re still disagreeing about Biden. Iā€™m trying to get you to understand the nuance of this subject. Not the subject of whoā€™s culpable here, but the conversation itself is the subject Iā€™ve been trying to get you to see sense on.

                    Yes, itā€™s great you agree that whatā€™s happening is terrible. Butā€¦assuming thatā€™s the end of the conversation? That is trying to make this conversation binary.

                    The nuance here is that you dragging the electionā€”not even the election, but the other candidate in a future electionā€” into a conversation about what the current govt is doing (regardless of what other US presidents have done and will continue to do with Israel) is ignoring the basic fact that this is our recourse. And what your initial, like, five contributions to the conversation were, was to bring up someone else.

                    Whether you agree with the general idea or not, you were running cover by muddying the waters. Which kinda makes you complicit in complicity.

                    This isnā€™t just a ā€œyou agree with us or youā€™re against usā€ situation. This is a ā€œthe way you engage with this topic is subtly undermining the people youā€™re claiming to support and muddying the waters of the conversation while undercutting the efficacy and possible future support of ending the genocide.ā€

                    Iā€™ll try to go back into my comment history to find where Iā€™ve taken a similar position to yours. But thatā€™s what I mean by nuance. Itā€™s not as simple as ā€œagree. Convo over.ā€ Itā€™s, yes, I technically do agree that trump would be far worse for Palestine and piling domestic controversy after domestic controversy on top of the current laser focus on this one situation would derail the movement and diffuse the pressure. But right now, under this administration, we have a chance to pressure this admin to save some lives. I know you agree. That isnā€™t my point. My point is that how we discuss the topic matters, and you bringing up technically unrelated things in the conversation about the issue is problematic.

                    Again, itā€™s nuanced. Weā€™re both technically agreeing on the overarching issue. But the conversation is the topic and thatā€™s what Iā€™m trying to get you to see. The fact that you think agreeing on bidenā€™s problematic behavior would be the end of the conversation is further proof youā€™re not getting my point.