“Wow, I don’t understand how you can defend the guy who doesn’t want to commit genocide in the US, and is less gung-ho about the ongoing genocide in Gaza than the opposition?”
It’s weird. I know, I should apparently support all genocide, everywhere, as often as possible, to be a good leftist according to these new standards, but for some reason, I keep gravitating towards the “Let’s not start up death camps in the US and run sorties over the West Bank and ensure as many Ukrainians are murdered as possible” option.
Very strange, I know, seemingly incomprehensible to the Very Serious Leftist Brigade here on Lemmy.
What’s strange is that the totally-different-and-very-cool party keeps finding themselves in situations wherein they’re totally forced into committing atrocities themselves, but end up being OK because somehow there’s someone worse right behind them
And it’s never actually their fault because there’s just too many people who support their totally unavoidable atrocities and if they don’t do them they’ll lose to the totally-worse-and-different monster party
And the people who totally oppose the atrocities have no choice but to support the party conducting the atrocities because if they don’t, more atrocities will be done by the totally different and bad party and maybe actually against them and not the faceless foreigners they can forget about
What’s strange is that the totally-different-and-very-cool party keeps finding themselves in situations wherein they’re totally forced into committing atrocities themselves, but end up being OK because somehow there’s someone worse right behind them
Yes, definitely, what’s going on is the Democratic Party decided to commit atrocities out of the blue. This definitely isn’t a long-standing US policy that was, until very recently, widely supported on all sides of the electorate. Wow, it’s a good thing politics are something simple that Manicheans with short attention spans can learn by half-paying attention to news reels for a month, otherwise we’d really be fucked, wouldn’t we?
And it’s never actually their fault because there’s just too many people who support their totally unavoidable atrocities and if they don’t do them they’ll lose to the totally-worse-and-different monster party
This definitely isn’t a long-standing US policy that was, until very recently, widely supported on all sides of the electorate.
I’m sorry, do you think that candidates for election should be supporting opinions that the majority opposes? Is that where we’re at? The point of democracy is to reflect the will of the people; if you don’t like the will of the people, it’s your job, as a dissenter, to try to change it. The idea that candidates in a democratic system should be running on platforms that say “To hell with what the people think” is some really absurd Soviet style shite.
Yeah, I’ve never denied the sarcasm. Sorry that you find tone policing more important than genocide.
Idk really seems like a stretch too suggest your impassioned defenses of the guy supporting the genocide is an indication of your outrage
“Wow, I don’t understand how you can defend the guy who doesn’t want to commit genocide in the US, and is less gung-ho about the ongoing genocide in Gaza than the opposition?”
It’s weird. I know, I should apparently support all genocide, everywhere, as often as possible, to be a good leftist according to these new standards, but for some reason, I keep gravitating towards the “Let’s not start up death camps in the US and run sorties over the West Bank and ensure as many Ukrainians are murdered as possible” option.
Very strange, I know, seemingly incomprehensible to the Very Serious Leftist Brigade here on Lemmy.
What’s strange is that the totally-different-and-very-cool party keeps finding themselves in situations wherein they’re totally forced into committing atrocities themselves, but end up being OK because somehow there’s someone worse right behind them
And it’s never actually their fault because there’s just too many people who support their totally unavoidable atrocities and if they don’t do them they’ll lose to the totally-worse-and-different monster party
And the people who totally oppose the atrocities have no choice but to support the party conducting the atrocities because if they don’t, more atrocities will be done by the totally different and bad party and maybe actually against them and not the faceless foreigners they can forget about
So strange
Yes, definitely, what’s going on is the Democratic Party decided to commit atrocities out of the blue. This definitely isn’t a long-standing US policy that was, until very recently, widely supported on all sides of the electorate. Wow, it’s a good thing politics are something simple that Manicheans with short attention spans can learn by half-paying attention to news reels for a month, otherwise we’d really be fucked, wouldn’t we?
Sorry that the idea of democracy reflecting the opinions of the majority is so alien to you. I understand autocracy might be more your speed.
So it’s acceptable to support genocide as long as it’s a majority opinion? Are we morally relativistic now? It’s that what’s happening?
I’m sorry, do you think that candidates for election should be supporting opinions that the majority opposes? Is that where we’re at? The point of democracy is to reflect the will of the people; if you don’t like the will of the people, it’s your job, as a dissenter, to try to change it. The idea that candidates in a democratic system should be running on platforms that say “To hell with what the people think” is some really absurd Soviet style shite.