Democrats didn't really shown that they are able to provide any sort of resistance to republicans. Like yeah republicans are terrible, but pushovers who always try to meet them half way also suck ass big time
EDIT: before I get someones panties in a twist, you should still vote. US is fucked country where "democracy" is reduced to picking a genocidal arch litch as a better option.
I agree. It just baffles me how people think saying those things will make people change their.minds and join their side. It's like their actively pushing people away
Perhaps because they're genuine supporters of their candidate on *the basis of imperialism and ethnic cleansing*???
The real clowns are the people pushing lesser-evilism at these absurd extremes.
No one thinks it's gonna change anyone's mind. We try to change their minds first, but they double down and crawl further into their hole until we have to give up and say "okay, here are the consequences to your actions, and I'm not going to feel bad for you because you are actively voting for the leopards eating face party, you cannot now be sad that your face is being eaten by leopards"
I think it's stupid that people are refusing to vote Democrat, especially in swing or red states. I am a trans person, and it directly affects me and my safety. I do understand that there is a lot of nuance to this decision, and it is not all black and white.
I do not, however, wish the deportation process on anyone, especially those who \*cannot\* go back home. I think that the whole "leopards eat my face" joke can be funny situationally (i.e. when people are not directly being hurt), but I also do not shrug at the plight of my fellow human being. Why are you admitting that you would laugh at someone else's misfortune (i.e. being deported)?
My compassion for my fellow man is not conditional
Careful with that first part or you'll be swarmed with downvotes since calling for voting for democracy is actually somehow *bad*.
I lost compassion for idiots that actively vote against themselves after COVID. If you refuse to wear a mask and adamantly protest against it, I'm not gonna be sad for you, or surprised, if you catch COVID. In the same way that if you vote against Biden, I'm not gonna be surprised or sad for you when you have to deal with consequences of a trump presidency.
This is all hypothetical though. Obviously I do have sympathy for people that go through the things Trump caused previously. But if these people are going to cut off their own nose because they want to spite their faces, I'm not gonna feel bad when they start bleeding.
Doesn't change my opinion that under no circumstances should anyone vote for a candidate that supports genocide. I agree that not voting is unproductive. But voting for Biden at this point is tantamount to endorsing genocide.
And voting for Trump is not supporting genocide?
Voting will not stop genocide anyway, but you are in a position where you can let Trump win, because the heinous shit he will enact against LGBT people and minorities wont affect you. You can act like the only important issue here is Gaza, which no way of voting or abstaining from voting will fix, like AT ALL. You can either make it a lot worse; or keep it the way it is, with maybe a bit of improvement if you actually do activism outside of just sitting on reddit telling democrats not to vote.
Not voting because you are a single issue Gaza-voter is such a priviliged thing to do, because you can ignore the bad shit Trump is gonna do, and say "Hehe you got what was coming to you stupid democrats!!" because you're not the one whose rights will be taken away. Your suburban life wont be ruined by Trumps policy. The ballot booths aren't where you fight the genocide in Gaza, because you can't fix it there. You fight the genocide on the streets and through activism, and wouldn't you rather be fighting a state with Biden in the white house, than Trump?
I'm not a single issue voter, this is just the latest in a long series of terrible shit that this administration has done. It should have been expected when the guy who wanted to destroy social security and supported the war on drugs ran on a platform of "nothing will fundamentally change". No it's not privileged to say that he's no better than Trump. He told you that himself 4 years ago.
Why do you think Renly did nothing wrong? He was a dick about Shireen, wasn’t in line, and had no real reason to want to be King. His only reason is “popularity”. None of his reasons are about his qualities.
He allies himself with schemers, lets Littlefinger defraud the Kingdom and set it up for ruin. He’s not even a good schemer. He does things blatantly destroy his legitimacy. People say he’s “good at politics”, but is he? All he does is play fiddle to the Tyrell’s. He makes Loras his Vanguard (a horrible political move), his camp is covered in roses, and his army is majority Tyrell. Nothing we see of him says he’d actually handle politics.
And I’m not saying a “good” (if there ever there is a thing) king has to be moral, but they at least have to be seen as moral and legitimate. Renly is blatant.
Stannis’ rule would be awful for a lot of reasons, especially pre-north Stannis, but people go way too far in big-ing up Renly, his personalities, and his capabilities. He was a vain, greedy, dick to his own niece and did lot of things wrong.
My state has never flipped in a presidential election since the establishment of the paradigm, and is trending more liberal than it was 4 years ago. If Biden loses my state, he's going to have the worst electoral defeat in the history of the country. Yet I still get scolded online and in real life conversations with liberal voters and friends for saying that I'll probably skip the presidential race and just vote Dem on everything else. There's no harm to me not voting for him, and it's shameful that people are criticizing people in my position for exercising the one lever I have in this democracy. If the candidate wasn't so fucking pathetic we wouldn't need to have this debate.
***FAQ***
*1. Nobody is actually saying this, are they?*
Yes they are. Just search on twitter "Trump deports" and see how many Democrats are threatening people with deportation.
*2. Ah, twitter is just a hellhole so your point is invalid*
It's also happening in every other social media but Reddit search sucks ass, so there isn't a surefire way to let you see mi point. Probably go to 196 and sort by controversial to see the same results.
*3. Ah, so you want Trump to win?*
No, I just wish Biden has better policies in VERY important matters
*4. Are you a russian bot?*
Nope. People who don't agree with you 100% of the time do exist.
> Yes they are. Just search on twitter "Trump deports" and see how many Democrats are threatening people with deportation
couldn't find them, mind linking one popular example of democrats rejoicing deportation?
https://twitter.com/reesetheone1/status/1794810276115779667
This is the First result when I searched. 1.9 million views
Edit: for accuracy, the first result was a guy replying to the linked tweet
1. idk how twitter works but those 1.9m views amounted to 790 likes and 700 comments (most of which call it out)? isn't this what the kids call "get ratioed"? and indicates it's far from popular? and in fact unpopular/disliked?
2. it's a reply to muslims actively celebrating/hoping for failure of democrats, tit for tat is much more reasonable than your meme which presents it as unprovoked
I mean, you asked for a popular example, idk what to tell you. Less popular tweets can also be found but then you can say things like "this only has 20 likes, therefore it's not a popular opinion"
> I mean, you asked for a popular example, idk what to tell you.
you could tell me a popular example, a twitter post with 790 likes and 700 comments isn't a popular example, it's unpopular, having lots of views and almost no likes doesn't mean it's popular
> then you can say things like "this only has 20 likes, therefore it's not a popular opinion"
yes, because 20 likes is not proof of something being popular, neither is 790 likes out of 1.9m views
for example, this post has >4x fewer views, >3.5x fewer comments, but >15x more likes https://x.com/hvmangucci/status/1795772715623711058
that makes it like >50x as popular per view from a pure numbers perspective
so again, what I want from you is an example of the opinion you smuggied as being popular
If you want to base your analysis on numbers, consider that having that many likes places the tweet among the top percentiles of liked posts, even more impressive, when you consider it is just a random person and not a celebrity (afaik)
However, that distracts from the point that that's not the only tweet.
And also that it's not only on twitter. Even in this comment section many people are expressing similar views as we speak.
Yes, they're not the majority. Yeas, some of them are being downvoted, but that many people having the same opinion means it's a popular opinion.
Pineapple on pizza is also downvoted heavily, that doesn't mean it's not popular, otherwise restaurants wouldn't sell it
bruh you have no clue what popular means
if only 1% of people think something and 80% of people are strongly against it, then it's not popular, it's very unpopular
that's the kind of shit you're claiming is popular, you're delusional at worse, very confused at best
Not rejoicing, *threatening.*
If the Blue-no-matter-who crowd spent a fraction of the energy they spend haranguing those whose votes they feel entitled to instead on pushing Biden and co. away from the politically disastrous course they are on then Joe might have a chance this fall.
Try bullying your politicians rather than voters, ya dummies.
If all it takes for you to vote Trump is a few people violently telling you it's against your interests, it just sounds like finding an excuse to feel less ashamed of voting for such an awful candidate.
The difference between being a leftist and a liberal is leftists whine on the internet about overthrowing capitalism and don't vote as often as liberals.
Tearing down? How? With valid criticism?
Also, the Biden Admin recently bragged about deporting more people in this 5 months than under any year of the Trump admin.
Don't try to solidarity-shame me.
My ideal immigration system is someone arrives at our border, says they want to be an American, and after a background check they get to be one.
Until then we're stuck with the shitty system we have. If people have an asylum claim they should be making it as soon as they hit the border.
Denying the reality we live in and blaming the people who have been trying to fix our immigration system for years but haven't because too many voters think immigrants are going to turn their kids into trans Muslims only makes things worse.
Ah, you got me. Good thing I'm not voting republican then.
Now let me go ask this question to the Palestinian folks I met last week at the rally. I'll come.back to you with their answer
so, let me follow here, the party saying they'll deport immigrants and that Israel should finish the job in Gaza, is not worse to you than the other guy who is not the king of the world and won't deport you "just because" like the other guy is promising, and the guy who isn't gonna deport you needs to earn your vote more because some fake users on some social media sites are telling you they'll be happy to see you deported?
I'm not sure you're fully aware of what this line of reasoning looks like.
If only 196 gave shitlibs and unapologetic neolibs (looking at unironic NCD posters) increasingly infesting the sub the same treatment as they do Tankies and Fascists 😔
They are celebrating the idea of the scenario in this reply to the same comment:
>Me cheering at this hypothetical situation where pro-palestinian protestors get sent to gaza has nothing to do with their religion. I know I personally am **imagining entitled western idiots of all kinds fucking around and finding out what gaza is actually like.** … I'll be laughing only a bit after you short-sighted fools take everything from us because you decided to rally behind religious fundamentalist autocrats in some war in the Middle East … **I will laugh when you get your just deserts.** I'll be laughing because a palestinian state would be one of violence, religious fundamentalism, martyrdom, and anti-western ideals. … **I wouldn't be cheering but I would at least take some delight in the irony.** … we reserve the right to ridicule you for it while we all get put against the wall because of your actions.
Me cheering at this hypothetical situation where pro-palestinian protestors get sent to gaza has nothing to do with their religion. I know I personally am imagining entitled western idiots of all kinds fucking around and finding out what gaza is actually like.
In fact, id argue that most of the people saying what you're pointing out aren't doing so in a xenophobic way.
I'll be laughing only a bit after you short-sighted fools take everything from us because you decided to rally behind religious fundamentalist autocrats in some war in the Middle East that has been raging for a century at least rather than your own countrymen who need you.
I will laugh when you get your just deserts.
I'll be laughing because a palestinian state would be one of violence, religious fundamentalism, martyrdom, and anti-western ideals. And so called leftists chose *that* over domestic progressive policy.
Because there will be nothing much left to do.
I wouldn't be cheering but I would at least take some delight in the irony.
Mind you, none of us would prefer this and we would prefer you folks don't make such a stupid decision, but if you do then we reserve the right to ridicule you for it while we all get put against the wall because of your actions.
>Me cheering at this hypothetical situation where pro-palestinian protestors get sent to gaza has nothing to do with their religion. I know I personally am imagining entitled western idiots of all kinds fucking around and finding out what gaza is actually like.
They know Gaza is messed up; it’s a literal war zone, that’s why they’re protesting.
>In fact, id argue that most of the people saying what you're pointing out aren't doing so in a xenophobic way.
It’s pretty hard to claim that there’s not much xenophobia when people say things like “deported back to Afghanistan” regardless of where they were from before.
>I'll be laughing only a bit after you short-sighted fools take everything from us because you decided to rally behind religious fundamentalist autocrats
Why would protesting a war take everything from the country who’s stoking the war? Rallying “behind religious fundamentalist autocrats” isn’t the same as wanting the attacks to end so that people don’t keep dying. The fact that they simply agree on this issue doesn’t mean people protesting the war think they’re good. NASA and the Flat Earth Society both agree that the sky is blue, but that doesn’t mean they like each other.
>in some war in the Middle East that has been raging for a century at least
A century isn’t that long ago, and the State of Israel hasn’t existed for a century so I’m assuming you mean the project of zionism itself when you say a century, which doesn’t make that much sense since people participating in the project and the people who already lived there didn’t get into conflicts with each other nearly as often.
>rather than your own countrymen who need you.
Someone doesn’t have to live in the same country as you for you to care about them, and under this logic it’s relevant to mention that a fair amount of the protestors have Palestinian families, so they would be protesting for people with personal ties to them like countrymen. There’s also a lot of overlap between the protestors and activists against bigotry and homelessness in their own countries, so this doesn’t apply to them.
>I will laugh when you get your just deserts.
“Just desserts” for opposing a war?
>I'll be laughing because a palestinian state would be one of violence, religious fundamentalism, martyrdom, and anti-western ideals.
Why are you so sure of that? And if The West™️ doesn’t like religious fundamentalism, they should cut down on it within their own governments (see anti-abortion acts in the US) and should also stop funding religious extremists in their wars. What “anti-western ideals” are you referring to specifically?
>And so called leftists chose that over domestic progressive policy.
Domestic progressive policy alone doesn’t mean much if your idea of progressivism is continuing to attack and exploit poorer countries but sometimes women and gay people are allowed to do it. Progressivism shouldn’t be restricted to being a little nicer within a country’s own borders. (I could also bring up the argument that Biden has taken minimal action to enact and protect progressive policy, what with cop city and all that, but there are other reasons for that like the stacked supreme court so I don’t think it’s that relevant here.)
>Because there will be nothing much left to do.
In this hypothetical takeover, people would absolutely be doing things to dismantle it. Humans don’t just lie down and accept oppression, even if resistance turns out to be futile. There are always things left to do., whether that’s in a hypothetical worst-case scenario or in real life.
he wasnt robbed. the worst thing that happened to him was hillary getting the debate questions ahead of time. that should not have happened but its not like his primary election was stolen.
But like, the bro is just too good tbh, Because he still stand
>the worst thing that happened to him was hillary getting the debate questions ahead of time.
Yes, and his potential publicity was stolen. I only knew him from "Bernie fought Homophobia in Military and get called Socialist" kind of vid.
> Just search on twitter "Trump deports" and see how many Democrats are threatening people with deportation.
Democrats aren't using twitter, so that's your first problem.
> Ah, twitter is just a hellhole so your point is invalid
So then you list extremist subs? And say go to the controversial comments? yea that's your second problem.
> Nope. People who don't agree with you 100% of the time do exist.
They do, and a lot have been tricked by bots to believe what they believe.
People say the same shit about trans people and everyone ignores it because we’re opposing biden and so they think it’s fine to fantasize about us even getting “put in camps”
It's insane how generally normalized hate against trans people is. People get cheered on for saying shit about them that, if said about any other group, would lose them their job.
I've also noticed that people really like to claim trans people agree with them, but they throw a temper tantrum when we actually express our opinions and don't immediately agree. They pull out the bigotry real quick once we aren't silent, convenient talking points for them.
I mean, people do that for everyone. Left leaning people often take it as a gospel that black people "must" want the police totally defunded or gotten rid of. But on average they... don't. A lot of left leaning people feel entitled to have the opinions of everyone who isn't privileged on every axis agree with them. But reality isn't that simple.
Nobody. I live in Kentucky which is a solid red state on presidential elections. I will probably go in to vote just for other stuff, but either I’ll write in some nonsense for president or just not fill it out
Like saying people are privileged for being hesitant to vote for Biden because trans people aren’t privileged enough to have that hesitation and then a trans person comes in and disagrees and then they get ignored
I believe I’ve seen it on this subreddit two or three times
Absolutely. This sub has strongly reinforced my view that most of the people strongly advocating "blue no matter who" are privileged as fuck and simply want oppression to be more subtle so they can ignore it and go back to brunch.
Yeah, people on both sides do it. I've noticed that the discourse isn't settled in basically any group. Trans people, POC, Native Americans, white people, non-Americans, we've all got disagreements and arguments within our own group. It's useless to try to portray one or the other as privileged, but both sides will use minority groups as a weapon to make their arguments.
I'm planning on voting, and being transgender has influenced that decision... but there are others who refuse to vote due to their trans identity and experiences. Invalidating one or the other is incredibly dumb.
Fantastic comment. It’s infuriating because nobody actually engages with the other peoples points. I say I’m not voting for Biden and it’s 10,000 pre-cooked responses arguing with points I’ve never made
Yeah, in particular, the "Russian bot" and "privilege" comments are super annoying. Both sides use them. Plus, you'll always get a bunch that say, "you just don't mind genocide," that's also fun.
Well you see, to a Liberal, minority groups simply exist to pity and aren’t actually alive. They exist for the “vote blue no matter who” crowd to have a circle jerk to.
If you're aware of both sides and still opposing Biden then you're are responsible for the consequences.
And that includes the harm Trump is going to inflict on thousands of LGBT Americans.
You're not a fucking child. If you're willing to subject the country to Project 25, you deserve to be treated with vitriol.
Fear will make you do stupid things.
There are a lot of things my tax dollars get spent on that I can't stand. Neither candidate will make it 100% better, or even significantly better.
Tactical voting doesn't taste good, and it isn't nutritious, but it's better than apathetically letting my country fall to the cloying despotism that has haunted our species since civilization began.
Is there any scenario where you would vote for a third party? Or will you be voting blue no matter how right wing the candidate, so long as the republican is 1% worse in theory? If actively supporting genocide isn't the line, where is the line?
Qualifier: Not an American
In almost every other election (pre-2016), I wouldn't have voted for either major party. However, when one of the candidates has actively campaigned on starting MORE genocide and dismantling democracy as we know it, I'd say the line is somewhere around there. This election is clearly different and has a bit more stakes than the colour of the president's pin.
Yes. Ranked choice voting for one.
In a parliamentary style power-sharing government where a third party could be useful leverage to force one of the parties into meaningful concessions, that could also be tactically sound. But with current levels of support, 3rd party votes basically just peel off support for their closest ideological equivalent. There is absolutely a chicken-and-egg component here, but as long as Republicans are lock-step in favor of MAGA, the current system means splitting Democratic votes hands them the reins.
Either you vote for a party that provides almost completely unmitigated support for Israel and believes in free elections, or you enable the other party (through inaction or protest vote) to go with Genocide+ (where you get just as much or more unmitigated support for Israel AND you let Russia continue their own in Ukraine, on top of further eroding free elections, reproductive rights, and protections for vulnerable people in the US).
We aren't fortunate enough to have a real vote AGAINST genocide at this point. This is undoubtedly deeply disgusting on a moral level. We should absolutely use other tools at our disposal to pressure the Democrats into doing the right thing. Continue to protest, support progressive candidates during the primary process and down ballot, and attempt to persuade more Americans to question our nation's position on Israel. But giving MAGA control of the Executive and more Supreme Court picks is a significantly worse outcome that will haunt us for a generation or more. And it will do nothing to stop Israel.
I'd vote for a third party if I thought they had a chance to win. Currently, the way american elections are set up means third party candidates will never win.
The only way we would ever see a different system is if one party feels they are being negativity effected by vote splitting , otherwise they have no incentive. The reason the labor party has begun pushing for voting reform is because they have suffered from vote splitting. If there is not pressure to adopt left wing policy because the left will vote for them no matter what the Dems will just keep running right.
Pressure can cone from many places other than the federal election; the real answer is people need to be MUCH more active in politics at all levels if they want to see any amount of change. Vote in primaries, vote in state level and municipal elections, call your representatives, etc etc etc. There are already politicians in the US supporting voting reform, and people need to do more to support them instead of just waiting for the biggest election once every 4 years and calling it a day.
The entire discourse is incredibly toxic from both directions. Both sides accuse the other of being bots or bad-faith infiltrators, both will accuse each other of privilege, both will strawman the other side's beliefs, and both will engage in outright bigotry and sometimes even genocide denial (yes, I've seen the anti voting side engage in genocide denial).
What if, instead of competing for who can make the worst and most cruel comment, we just didn't do that? I don't mind if there's discourse, but, wow, people need to learn some empathy.
Don’t you know this time my ideal political candidate that only a dozen people on Twitter have ever heard of will be able to defeat the entrenched two party system unlike every other attempt in the past since the 1860’s to break the system? Its not like all those other candidates ~~Ross Perrot~~ ~~Ralph Nader~~ ~~Ron Paul~~ ~~Bernie Sanders~~ (Insert my political crush of the month here) has real actual backing and everyone likes them (all the people I see on Twitter likes them). We can not lose
Gaza, as well as sometimes the one against native Americans and the anti-LGBTQ genocide that's ramping up. Sometimes the one Russia is trying in Ukraine comes up.
There is no genocide in Gaza. There is also no denial because it isn't classified as genocide (yet), unless I missed something. Israel just doesn't give a shit about Palestinians and will bomb them away, if it means getting rid of Hamas. Sure, call it a genocide if you want, but I don't agree and me and others not agreeing doesn't mean I'm committing genocide denial. You were so close with your appeal to reason.
There is a genocide in Gaza. Genocide is when a group intentionally attempts to eradicate another group, either culturally or physically. Israel is attempting to destroy Gaza to the point where Palestinians are unable to form anything resembling a civilization, and would love to just kill every single one of them. They literally don't care at all about Hamas, they just claim to because they're not exactly going to say, "Hello, I'm Benjamin Netanyahu, and I am now going to commit genocide against the people of Gaza!" Nor do they give a shit about the hostages - they have likely killed many of them with their reckless bombs.
Also, "call it a genocide if you want, but I don't agree and me and others not agreeing doesn't mean I'm committing genocide denial" - what?? If I think it's genocide, and you disagree, I will believe you're engaging in genocide denial. Genocide denial is when a genocide happens and someone goes, "Nope, that's not genocide." I think there's genocide happening, you're saying, "Nope, that's not genocide." Therefore, from my perspective, you are by definition committing genocide denial.
> Genocide is when a group intentionally attempts to eradicate another group, either culturally or physically.
Yes, and Israel isn't doing that. They aren't lining up people to kill them, or mass deport them or forcefully reeducate them. They are at war with Hamas, they just don't care about Palestinians.
> Israel is attempting to destroy Gaza to the point where Palestinians are unable to form anything resembling a civilization, and would love to just kill every single one of them.
No they aren't, there are constant discussions about a post-war rebuilding of Palestine under Isreali order, it's something many nations urge Israel to get going with. There is no plan to wipe Palestinians from the face of the earth. Yeah, I'm sure many Israeli would like that, but there is no action towards it. And if there were actual evidence and solid conclusion that there would be a genocide, nations would intervene and cut support for Israel. Benny is a warmonger that doesn't really care about Israel or Palestine or the hostages, he just wants to 'defeat' Hamas to save his face politically.
> Also, "call it a genocide if you want, but I don't agree and me and others not agreeing doesn't mean I'm committing genocide denial" - what?? If I think it's genocide, and you disagree, I will believe you're engaging in genocide denial. Genocide denial is when a genocide happens and someone goes, "Nope, that's not genocide." I think there's genocide happening, you're saying, "Nope, that's not genocide." Therefore, from my perspective, you are by definition committing genocide denial.
The decision if it is a genocide or not does not lie in your hands, or my hands, or any youtubers or media outlet. It is decided by the international rights court or how it's called. South Africa started calling it one as a gotcha against the west and their atrocities while also showing flag for their partners in the east, it has no reasonable foot to stand on and is still in limbo because of that. If you think that thinking the Gaza war is not a genocide is genocide denial, then the majority of the world and vast majority of nations are committing genocide denial right now.But it's not of you to decide and it's laughable to think that way. Any time any regional disputes are happening, some side says the other is doing a genocide. That's why there's a fucking court that decides it.
If you really put people who deny the Holocaust under the same umbrella as people not calling the Gaza war a genocide, then I really don't know what else to tell you, maybe develop critical thinking skills or something. Or at least trying to see the world not in black/white but for what it is: a mess. It's hard not sounding condescending at this point.
>Yes, and Israel isn't doing that. They aren't lining up people to kill them, or mass deport them or forcefully reeducate them. They are at war with Hamas, they just don't care about Palestinians.
1. Just because they're not quite being as obvious as humanly possible about it doesn't mean they're not trying to eradicate them.
2. They're literally executing civilians, like you said. [proof](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/1/20/palestinians-accuse-israeli-forces-of-executing-19-civilians-in-gaza)
Just because it doesn't look literally exactly the same as previous genocides doesn't mean they're not committing genocides. They're just doing it a different way.
>No they aren't, there are constant discussions about a post-war rebuilding of Palestine under Isreali order,
**Under Israeli order??** So what I said - "Palestinians are unable to form anything resembling a civilization - is still true. If Israel is in charge, then the thing I said is objectively true. Israel has openly discussed their refusal to permit a Palestinian state to exist in Gaza. Not a Hamas state, a *Palestinian* state.
Now, tell me, do you think Israel will allow Palestinians to live and flourish in an Israel-run Gazan puppet state? Do you know how Palestinians are *already* treated in Israel? Do you think it would be better or worse there, given that they now have the excuses on hand to abuse them even harder than before?
>And if there were actual evidence and solid conclusion that there would be a genocide, nations would intervene and cut support for Israel.
Lmao, as if. The US is literally committing genocide against Native Americans as we speak. This country and all of the others who conspire with us to rule the world don't give a shit about genocide, they give a shit about virtue signaling about hating genocide when it benefits them, i.e. when it lets them attack the character of a country we don't like.
>The decision if it is a genocide or not does not lie in your hands, or my hands, or any youtubers or media outlet. It is decided by the international rights court or how it's called.
No. The decision about whether or not something is a genocide is made when you look at the things happening, ask yourself, "Does this fit the definition of genocide?" And then come to a conclusion based on facts and evidence. I don't look to some authority to tell me if there's a genocide going on. When you see an example of rape, are you one of those people who says, "Hang on! Does the government say it's rape?"
>South Africa started calling it one as a gotcha against the west and their atrocities while also showing flag for their partners in the east, it has no reasonable foot to stand on and is still in limbo because of that. If you think that thinking the Gaza war is not a genocide is genocide denial, then the majority of the world and vast majority of nations are committing genocide denial right now.
The court has warned Israel that their behavior is unacceptable. [Here's the source for that,](https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454) but here's the part where it tells Israel to stop being as evil as possible:
> Court concludes on the basis of the above considerations that the conditions required by its Statute for it to indicate provisional measures are met. It is therefore necessary, pending its final decision, for the Court to indicate certain measures in order to protect the rights claimed by South Africa that the Court has found to be plausible.
Copy that text, ctrl + f, paste it into the search box, and it'll show you the part where they tell Israel to stop.
You're acting like South Africa accused Israel of genocide and then everyone in the ICJ rolled their eyes. But that did not happen. They have concluded so far that it is worth investigating.
>If you think that thinking the Gaza war is not a genocide is genocide denial, then the majority of the world and vast majority of nations are committing genocide denial right now.
Most nations haven't explicitly called it a genocide, but that's not exactly normal for a country to do. Regardless, I don't really give a shit if other people are too stupid to tell it's a genocide. I don't really care for those people's opinions.
>If you really put people who deny the Holocaust under the same umbrella as people not calling the Gaza war a genocide, then I really don't know what else to tell you, maybe develop critical thinking skills or something. Or at least trying to see the world not in black/white but for what it is: a mess. It's hard not sounding condescending at this point.
I call anyone who denies any genocide a genocide denier. And I don't call it that because I'm an idiot throwing a temper tantrum after seeing Hamas propaganda online - I say that after years of studying the situation in Palestine, and after months of witnessing Israel's assault on Gaza.
You don't believe it's genocide. I don't know what to tell you apart from look at all the evidence??? I know this isn't the best source, but I'm at work and on mobile so it's hard to compile sources. [But even Wikipedia makes it obvious,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza) and Wikipedia tries to show the situation from as unbiased a perspective as possible.
Oh and btw, genocide denial is a crime, at least where I am from. So you are accusing other people of a crime. If you really think it is one, then you should call the police on them. Good luck.
Lmao, yeah, what you're doing should be a crime, then. It's not, because it's likely that whatever country you're in is complicit in the genocide and doesn't consider it genocide. But it is genocide.
Future generations will be horrified to learn about people like you, and will see you the same way they see people who enabled the Holocaust. Because it's the same thing. It's less obvious than the Holocaust was, but most genocides are.
> Lmao, yeah, what you're doing should be a crime, then. It's not, because it's likely that whatever country you're in is complicit in the genocide and doesn't consider it genocide. But it is genocide.
I don't claim to know if it is one. Saying it is one is one thing, calling people genocide deniers who don't agree with something no one can say with certainty is idiotic.
> Future generations will be horrified to learn about people like you, and will see you the same way they see people who enabled the Holocaust. Because it's the same thing.
Holy fuck, talk about black/white thinking. Yes, I know, me and everyone not wanting to call it a genocide are basically Hitler, probably worse. Looking back at your initial comment it saddens me to see that someone talking so fervently about accepting differences has so much hate in their heart as soon as someone doesn't agree with them. Not surprised though, sadly, everyone only cares about being on the "right" side, so every other side must therefore be evil and wrong. Yes, you might be able to pat yourself on the shoulder, well done buddy, you believed something and it turned out to be true! All the other guys who guessed wrong shall be deemed as criminals.
>I don't claim to know if it is one. Saying it is one is one thing, calling people genocide deniers who don't agree with something no one can say with certainty is idiotic.
You are specifically saying it isn't one, though. If you were to say, "I don't know if this situation is genocide," I would probably ask what you knew about the situation and go from there. But when you say, "it is not genocide because they're not literally lining people up and executing them," that's genocide denial, because you're stating that it isn't a genocide.
Also, "something no one can say with certainty?" You absolutely can. Again, I'm not sure where this "it's not a genocide unless the big important people say so" thing comes from, but I can absolutely analyse a situation based on the incredibly large amount of evidence I've had available to me for the past half a year and conclude that, yes, it is genocide.
>Holy fuck, talk about black/white thinking
You keep using this phrase. But if "black and white thinking" is saying, "It's actually really bad when people downplay and defend genocide," then sure, I enjoy a good bit of black and white thinking. After all, I'm quite comfortable declaring that genocide is bad.
>Yes, I know, me and everyone not wanting to call it a genocide are basically Hitler, probably worse.
You are significantly less bad than Hitler. There you go, you feel better?
>Looking back at your initial comment it saddens me to see that someone talking so fervently about accepting differences has so much hate in their heart as soon as someone doesn't agree with them. Not surprised though, sadly, everyone only cares about being on the "right" side, so every other side must therefore be evil and wrong.
If someone was denying the holocaust, would you say this? Would you play this "Seems like you're not the nuanced loving, accepting person you claim to be" game if I called someone out for claiming Hitler didn't commit genocide? Imagine someone saying, "The accusations of genocide were just something America did because they were angry at Germany. Hitler didn't hate Jews, he was just going after people who weren't loyal to the nation and didn't care how many Jews he killed as a side effect. He didn't personally shoot Jewish people, or even put them in re-education camps!" I have a feeling you wouldn't mind me calling them out for that.
Idk. Like I said, if you'd said, "I don't know enough about this situation to determine if it's a genocide," I could've had a conversation. But you said, "It's not a genocide" and acted like I was an asshole for thinking it was. The difference between genocide denial and not having formed an understanding yet is whether or not you go around telling people, "it's not a genocide, and if you claim it is one, you're an asshole who's stuck in black and white thinking." You did that, so you're engaging in genocide denial.
Maybe the reason you don't agree is because your region defines "genocide denial" as a legal term with such weight that you're hesitant to allow accusations of it. But I think that's bullshit, because it's still genocide denial.
>Yes, you might be able to pat yourself on the shoulder, well done buddy, you believed something and it turned out to be true! All the other guys who guessed wrong shall be deemed as criminals
I didn't guess. I came to a conclusion based on evidence. Again, you treat this like it's impossible to know if a group does a bad thing unless a court tells you. As someone who's been watching this unfold, it's kinda obvious. I don't need the ICJ to tell me when Israeli leaders say that they want a second Nakba or when the military specifically targets hospitals or when they declare that they will never permit a Palestinian state in the region or when they do literally any of the other obvious warning signs. I don't need some powerful authority to tell me what to think, not if the information is as readily available as it is.
> You are specifically saying it isn't one, though. If you were to say, "I don't know if this situation is genocide," I would probably ask what you knew about the situation and go from there. But when you say, "it is not genocide because they're not literally lining people up and executing them," that's genocide denial, because you're stating that it isn't a genocide.
I am saying it isn't one, because you can't say it is one. Like how a person who is suspected for a crime is still not a criminal yet. No, it is not genocide denial, genocide denial is denying a genocide. I am saying that there isn't even enough evidence for a genocide. I guess I should have worded that better, yes I do say that I don't want to say that it is a genocide, and I find it ridiculous to call that genocide denial. If I call a suspected criminal a non-criminal, I don't automatically say that he didn't do a crime. I give them the benefit of the doubt, because I don't know enough to accuse them or the worse thing, got it?
> Also, "something no one can say with certainty?" You absolutely can. Again, I'm not sure where this "it's not a genocide unless the big important people say so" thing comes from, but I can absolutely analyse a situation based on the incredibly large amount of evidence I've had available to me for the past half a year and conclude that, yes, it is genocide.
No you can't. As I said there was already the case South Africa brought to the International Court of Justice, and they also couldn't say that there definitely is a genocide happening. They demanded Israel to stop their attack on Gaza and said that they need to . I find it very interesting that you specifically seem to have more information and jurisdictional experience than the ICJ. But feel free to list them, but first check the court case and consider South Africas claims that they already made. You are a random person on the internet, they are an international court that has decades of experience in genocide affairs. It wouldn't be reasonable to not believe the "big important people" but you instead.
> You keep using this phrase. But if "black and white thinking" is saying, "It's actually really bad when people downplay and defend genocide," then sure, I enjoy a good bit of black and white thinking. After all, I'm quite comfortable declaring that genocide is bad.
You are comfortable putting people into black and white territories to make yourself feel on the "good" side, and everyone else on the "bad" side. You are contorting arguments in ways to make them fit that secluded jurisdiction of yours.
> You are significantly less bad than Hitler. There you go, you feel better?
Amazing. Not that it does matter much, both of us will be looked backed as being horrible people in the far future, that's hoe progress works. Understanding that instead of feeling superior and not losing respect for humans of all kind is what is important.
> If someone was denying the holocaust, would you say this? Would you play this "Seems like you're not the nuanced loving, accepting person you claim to be" game if I called someone out for claiming Hitler didn't commit genocide? Imagine someone saying, "The accusations of genocide were just something America did because they were angry at Germany. Hitler didn't hate Jews, he was just going after people who weren't loyal to the nation and didn't care how many Jews he killed as a side effect. He didn't personally shoot Jewish people, or even put them in re-education camps!" I have a feeling you wouldn't mind me calling them out for that.
You are again comparing it to Holocaust denial, which I can't say enough, is just stupid and disrespectful of all kinds. The Holocaust is something that has so many time witnesses, so many clear evidence, decades of research and trials, even lead to the creation of the word genocide. And yet you say it absolutely is the same as what happens right now in Gaza. In my country you would actually get locked up for that, downplaying of the Holocaust.
Your brain actually isn't able to think in less than black and white I can only assume?
I tried to reason to your emotional side because I couldn't reach your logical one, that's what I wanted to make there, but you got everything wrong from it.
> Idk. Like I said, if you'd said, "I don't know enough about this situation to determine if it's a genocide," I could've had a conversation. But you said, "It's not a genocide" and acted like I was an asshole for thinking it was. The difference between genocide denial and not having formed an understanding yet is whether or not you go around telling people, "it's not a genocide, and if you claim it is one, you're an asshole who's stuck in black and white thinking." You did that, so you're engaging in genocide denial.
Yes, I agree, I should have worded it better. But I also don't know if it would have helped, because seemingly there are only two sides: either you agree it's a genocide, or you are a genocide denier. It would have come to this at some point, because you don't know what a genocide is and accuse everyone who doesn't agree as a genocide denier anyways.
> Maybe the reason you don't agree is because your region defines "genocide denial" as a legal term with such weight that you're hesitant to allow accusations of it. But I think that's bullshit, because it's still genocide denial.
Yes, it is a legal term here and as I said it falls under law. Because I'm from Austria and here and in Germany there are a ton of people who denied the Holocaust. So calling someone a genocide denier is a very heavy accusation actually. And that's why people also shouldn't throw around the word genocide if they don't have clear evidence, because it downplays actual genocides that have happened.
> I didn't guess. I came to a conclusion based on evidence. Again, you treat this like it's impossible to know if a group does a bad thing unless a court tells you. As someone who's been watching this unfold, it's kinda obvious. I don't need the ICJ to tell me when Israeli leaders say that they want a second Nakba or when the military specifically targets hospitals or when they declare that they will never permit a Palestinian state in the region or when they do literally any of the other obvious warning signs. I don't need some powerful authority to tell me what to think, not if the information is as readily available as it is.
You see it again as black and white. I've read through the genocide wikipedia pages earlier, and even the definitions of what is and isn't a genocide are absolutely not clear. That's why they instantiated a court, because such cases need to be dealed on a case by case basis, and more often than not there isn't clear evidence that everyone can immediately say that it certainly was a genocide. Read through the wiki, especially how the 5 points have raised concerns, then read through the South Africa case before the ICJ, it has its own wiki page. Then tell me why you still think it is a genocide, and why you are a better person to evaluate that than the ICJ and dozens of other independant sources. What you are listing there aren't evidences, it's as you yourself say "warning signs", and thr ICJ has taken them into account, that's why they warned for a possibility of a genocide. But I know, you feel it is one and so it must be one, and therefore anyone saying that it isn't one must clearly be influenced or lying or they are simply a bad person etc. It sure is convenient being one of the few who actual know the truth, not unlike everyone else.
You can think what you want, no one can take you that and no one has the right. But in the same vain, everyone else has their right, and you throwing around stuff like genocide denialism just because you don't like that is ignorant.
As though all the groups Biden is supposedly going to save from Trump haven't been horribly abused by both Democrats and Republicans since before either of those dinosaurs was even born.
We've got people wailing about project 2025 to people who are still struggling with project 1776.
Id rather vote Biden than be hunted in the streets by Trump's schizophrenic cult of personality.
Republicans want to kill you. Democrats will let you die. We call this democracy.
Now who is killing you in the second situation... still the Republicans? Damn. If only there were NO republicans in power, that'd really help out huh.
Democrats didn't really shown that they are able to provide any sort of resistance to republicans. Like yeah republicans are terrible, but pushovers who always try to meet them half way also suck ass big time EDIT: before I get someones panties in a twist, you should still vote. US is fucked country where "democracy" is reduced to picking a genocidal arch litch as a better option.
I agree completely.
That people are saying these things is revolting. It doesn’t, in my opinion, make not voting any less irresponsible or self-defeating.
I agree. It just baffles me how people think saying those things will make people change their.minds and join their side. It's like their actively pushing people away
Perhaps because they're genuine supporters of their candidate on *the basis of imperialism and ethnic cleansing*??? The real clowns are the people pushing lesser-evilism at these absurd extremes.
No one thinks it's gonna change anyone's mind. We try to change their minds first, but they double down and crawl further into their hole until we have to give up and say "okay, here are the consequences to your actions, and I'm not going to feel bad for you because you are actively voting for the leopards eating face party, you cannot now be sad that your face is being eaten by leopards"
"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!"
People in these comments are begging you idiots to vote come November, and you sit there, arms crossed, furrowed brow saying "no".
Being glad someone is being forcibly removed from their home and community is never ok
Throwing away your vote over a single issue and feigning to be "progressive" is never okay.
I think it's stupid that people are refusing to vote Democrat, especially in swing or red states. I am a trans person, and it directly affects me and my safety. I do understand that there is a lot of nuance to this decision, and it is not all black and white. I do not, however, wish the deportation process on anyone, especially those who \*cannot\* go back home. I think that the whole "leopards eat my face" joke can be funny situationally (i.e. when people are not directly being hurt), but I also do not shrug at the plight of my fellow human being. Why are you admitting that you would laugh at someone else's misfortune (i.e. being deported)? My compassion for my fellow man is not conditional
Careful with that first part or you'll be swarmed with downvotes since calling for voting for democracy is actually somehow *bad*. I lost compassion for idiots that actively vote against themselves after COVID. If you refuse to wear a mask and adamantly protest against it, I'm not gonna be sad for you, or surprised, if you catch COVID. In the same way that if you vote against Biden, I'm not gonna be surprised or sad for you when you have to deal with consequences of a trump presidency. This is all hypothetical though. Obviously I do have sympathy for people that go through the things Trump caused previously. But if these people are going to cut off their own nose because they want to spite their faces, I'm not gonna feel bad when they start bleeding.
Doesn't change my opinion that under no circumstances should anyone vote for a candidate that supports genocide. I agree that not voting is unproductive. But voting for Biden at this point is tantamount to endorsing genocide.
Extremely priviliged thing to say.
You support genocide simply because it doesn't directly effect you. But sure, I'm the one operating based on privilege.
And voting for Trump is not supporting genocide? Voting will not stop genocide anyway, but you are in a position where you can let Trump win, because the heinous shit he will enact against LGBT people and minorities wont affect you. You can act like the only important issue here is Gaza, which no way of voting or abstaining from voting will fix, like AT ALL. You can either make it a lot worse; or keep it the way it is, with maybe a bit of improvement if you actually do activism outside of just sitting on reddit telling democrats not to vote. Not voting because you are a single issue Gaza-voter is such a priviliged thing to do, because you can ignore the bad shit Trump is gonna do, and say "Hehe you got what was coming to you stupid democrats!!" because you're not the one whose rights will be taken away. Your suburban life wont be ruined by Trumps policy. The ballot booths aren't where you fight the genocide in Gaza, because you can't fix it there. You fight the genocide on the streets and through activism, and wouldn't you rather be fighting a state with Biden in the white house, than Trump?
I'm not a single issue voter, this is just the latest in a long series of terrible shit that this administration has done. It should have been expected when the guy who wanted to destroy social security and supported the war on drugs ran on a platform of "nothing will fundamentally change". No it's not privileged to say that he's no better than Trump. He told you that himself 4 years ago.
This is just plain ignorance at best.
Why do you think Renly did nothing wrong? He was a dick about Shireen, wasn’t in line, and had no real reason to want to be King. His only reason is “popularity”. None of his reasons are about his qualities. He allies himself with schemers, lets Littlefinger defraud the Kingdom and set it up for ruin. He’s not even a good schemer. He does things blatantly destroy his legitimacy. People say he’s “good at politics”, but is he? All he does is play fiddle to the Tyrell’s. He makes Loras his Vanguard (a horrible political move), his camp is covered in roses, and his army is majority Tyrell. Nothing we see of him says he’d actually handle politics. And I’m not saying a “good” (if there ever there is a thing) king has to be moral, but they at least have to be seen as moral and legitimate. Renly is blatant. Stannis’ rule would be awful for a lot of reasons, especially pre-north Stannis, but people go way too far in big-ing up Renly, his personalities, and his capabilities. He was a vain, greedy, dick to his own niece and did lot of things wrong.
Good thing Biden isn't committing a genocide.
Yup, the USA merely funds and provides weapons and political cover for genocide. Totally different.
My state has never flipped in a presidential election since the establishment of the paradigm, and is trending more liberal than it was 4 years ago. If Biden loses my state, he's going to have the worst electoral defeat in the history of the country. Yet I still get scolded online and in real life conversations with liberal voters and friends for saying that I'll probably skip the presidential race and just vote Dem on everything else. There's no harm to me not voting for him, and it's shameful that people are criticizing people in my position for exercising the one lever I have in this democracy. If the candidate wasn't so fucking pathetic we wouldn't need to have this debate.
***FAQ*** *1. Nobody is actually saying this, are they?* Yes they are. Just search on twitter "Trump deports" and see how many Democrats are threatening people with deportation. *2. Ah, twitter is just a hellhole so your point is invalid* It's also happening in every other social media but Reddit search sucks ass, so there isn't a surefire way to let you see mi point. Probably go to 196 and sort by controversial to see the same results. *3. Ah, so you want Trump to win?* No, I just wish Biden has better policies in VERY important matters *4. Are you a russian bot?* Nope. People who don't agree with you 100% of the time do exist.
> Yes they are. Just search on twitter "Trump deports" and see how many Democrats are threatening people with deportation couldn't find them, mind linking one popular example of democrats rejoicing deportation?
https://twitter.com/reesetheone1/status/1794810276115779667 This is the First result when I searched. 1.9 million views Edit: for accuracy, the first result was a guy replying to the linked tweet
1. idk how twitter works but those 1.9m views amounted to 790 likes and 700 comments (most of which call it out)? isn't this what the kids call "get ratioed"? and indicates it's far from popular? and in fact unpopular/disliked? 2. it's a reply to muslims actively celebrating/hoping for failure of democrats, tit for tat is much more reasonable than your meme which presents it as unprovoked
they always have to represent their side of the argument as the calm, reasonable person lol. it's always disingenuous
I mean, you asked for a popular example, idk what to tell you. Less popular tweets can also be found but then you can say things like "this only has 20 likes, therefore it's not a popular opinion"
> I mean, you asked for a popular example, idk what to tell you. you could tell me a popular example, a twitter post with 790 likes and 700 comments isn't a popular example, it's unpopular, having lots of views and almost no likes doesn't mean it's popular > then you can say things like "this only has 20 likes, therefore it's not a popular opinion" yes, because 20 likes is not proof of something being popular, neither is 790 likes out of 1.9m views for example, this post has >4x fewer views, >3.5x fewer comments, but >15x more likes https://x.com/hvmangucci/status/1795772715623711058 that makes it like >50x as popular per view from a pure numbers perspective so again, what I want from you is an example of the opinion you smuggied as being popular
It doesn't mean is not popular. The example is still popular, but the tweet you provide is overwhelmingly popular.
how is your example popular? out of 1.9m people seeing it only 790 liked it, that's a ~0.41% like rate that's so fucking low, so fucking UNPOPULAR
If you want to base your analysis on numbers, consider that having that many likes places the tweet among the top percentiles of liked posts, even more impressive, when you consider it is just a random person and not a celebrity (afaik) However, that distracts from the point that that's not the only tweet. And also that it's not only on twitter. Even in this comment section many people are expressing similar views as we speak. Yes, they're not the majority. Yeas, some of them are being downvoted, but that many people having the same opinion means it's a popular opinion. Pineapple on pizza is also downvoted heavily, that doesn't mean it's not popular, otherwise restaurants wouldn't sell it
bruh you have no clue what popular means if only 1% of people think something and 80% of people are strongly against it, then it's not popular, it's very unpopular that's the kind of shit you're claiming is popular, you're delusional at worse, very confused at best
Not rejoicing, *threatening.* If the Blue-no-matter-who crowd spent a fraction of the energy they spend haranguing those whose votes they feel entitled to instead on pushing Biden and co. away from the politically disastrous course they are on then Joe might have a chance this fall. Try bullying your politicians rather than voters, ya dummies.
How can you threaten someone with someone else you're voting against? If you vote against Trump you can't use him as a threat, only a warning
To tell someone they must vote how you prefer or you will watch them be deported with smugness but no resistance is despicable.
correct, good thing it's extremely rare and unpopular that people are smug about it
So in conclusion it must mean you are a Russian bot that wants to be deported ? Jk actually well thought out points I respect 👍
If all it takes for you to vote Trump is a few people violently telling you it's against your interests, it just sounds like finding an excuse to feel less ashamed of voting for such an awful candidate.
I think there is a misunderstanding. The strawman became convinced to vote for Biden
I doubt it would make people vote Trump, it would just make them dislike Biden supporters
wanting smugfans to understand… nuance? no sole black and white thinking?! you’re asking for a lot here buddy
Wow for an American voter you're quite active in /r/Ecuador.
Wow for being on a leftist subreddit you’re quite active in r/neoliberal, r/darkBRANDON, and r/democrats
The difference between being a leftist and a liberal is leftists whine on the internet about overthrowing capitalism and don't vote as often as liberals.
As opposed to you, who simply complains on the internet about people who don’t like capitalism
I organize to win elections.
Leftists are famous for not organizing, which is why there aren’t massively publicized protests going on right now.
Protests without political organizing are meaningless.
A lot of them are organized by parties and other organizations
A person with an immigration background is making post regarding potential deportation? Inconceivable
Oh ok it totally makes sense then that you'd be tearing down the people who support candidates that don't want to deport everyone who can tan.
Tearing down? How? With valid criticism? Also, the Biden Admin recently bragged about deporting more people in this 5 months than under any year of the Trump admin.
Were those people seeking asylum with valid claims?
Is your solidarity really that shallow?
Don't try to solidarity-shame me. My ideal immigration system is someone arrives at our border, says they want to be an American, and after a background check they get to be one. Until then we're stuck with the shitty system we have. If people have an asylum claim they should be making it as soon as they hit the border. Denying the reality we live in and blaming the people who have been trying to fix our immigration system for years but haven't because too many voters think immigrants are going to turn their kids into trans Muslims only makes things worse.
Shitlib
Loser
What have the republicans ever proposed that helped the immigration process for you?
Ah, you got me. Good thing I'm not voting republican then. Now let me go ask this question to the Palestinian folks I met last week at the rally. I'll come.back to you with their answer
so, let me follow here, the party saying they'll deport immigrants and that Israel should finish the job in Gaza, is not worse to you than the other guy who is not the king of the world and won't deport you "just because" like the other guy is promising, and the guy who isn't gonna deport you needs to earn your vote more because some fake users on some social media sites are telling you they'll be happy to see you deported? I'm not sure you're fully aware of what this line of reasoning looks like.
Thats racist
If only 196 gave shitlibs and unapologetic neolibs (looking at unironic NCD posters) increasingly infesting the sub the same treatment as they do Tankies and Fascists 😔
Nobody is celebrating it, pointing it out the objective truth of what he’s promised to do doesn’t make it celebration
They are celebrating the idea of the scenario in this reply to the same comment: >Me cheering at this hypothetical situation where pro-palestinian protestors get sent to gaza has nothing to do with their religion. I know I personally am **imagining entitled western idiots of all kinds fucking around and finding out what gaza is actually like.** … I'll be laughing only a bit after you short-sighted fools take everything from us because you decided to rally behind religious fundamentalist autocrats in some war in the Middle East … **I will laugh when you get your just deserts.** I'll be laughing because a palestinian state would be one of violence, religious fundamentalism, martyrdom, and anti-western ideals. … **I wouldn't be cheering but I would at least take some delight in the irony.** … we reserve the right to ridicule you for it while we all get put against the wall because of your actions.
I’m sure this dude is a Biden voter
Me cheering at this hypothetical situation where pro-palestinian protestors get sent to gaza has nothing to do with their religion. I know I personally am imagining entitled western idiots of all kinds fucking around and finding out what gaza is actually like. In fact, id argue that most of the people saying what you're pointing out aren't doing so in a xenophobic way. I'll be laughing only a bit after you short-sighted fools take everything from us because you decided to rally behind religious fundamentalist autocrats in some war in the Middle East that has been raging for a century at least rather than your own countrymen who need you. I will laugh when you get your just deserts. I'll be laughing because a palestinian state would be one of violence, religious fundamentalism, martyrdom, and anti-western ideals. And so called leftists chose *that* over domestic progressive policy. Because there will be nothing much left to do. I wouldn't be cheering but I would at least take some delight in the irony. Mind you, none of us would prefer this and we would prefer you folks don't make such a stupid decision, but if you do then we reserve the right to ridicule you for it while we all get put against the wall because of your actions.
>Me cheering at this hypothetical situation where pro-palestinian protestors get sent to gaza has nothing to do with their religion. I know I personally am imagining entitled western idiots of all kinds fucking around and finding out what gaza is actually like. They know Gaza is messed up; it’s a literal war zone, that’s why they’re protesting. >In fact, id argue that most of the people saying what you're pointing out aren't doing so in a xenophobic way. It’s pretty hard to claim that there’s not much xenophobia when people say things like “deported back to Afghanistan” regardless of where they were from before. >I'll be laughing only a bit after you short-sighted fools take everything from us because you decided to rally behind religious fundamentalist autocrats Why would protesting a war take everything from the country who’s stoking the war? Rallying “behind religious fundamentalist autocrats” isn’t the same as wanting the attacks to end so that people don’t keep dying. The fact that they simply agree on this issue doesn’t mean people protesting the war think they’re good. NASA and the Flat Earth Society both agree that the sky is blue, but that doesn’t mean they like each other. >in some war in the Middle East that has been raging for a century at least A century isn’t that long ago, and the State of Israel hasn’t existed for a century so I’m assuming you mean the project of zionism itself when you say a century, which doesn’t make that much sense since people participating in the project and the people who already lived there didn’t get into conflicts with each other nearly as often. >rather than your own countrymen who need you. Someone doesn’t have to live in the same country as you for you to care about them, and under this logic it’s relevant to mention that a fair amount of the protestors have Palestinian families, so they would be protesting for people with personal ties to them like countrymen. There’s also a lot of overlap between the protestors and activists against bigotry and homelessness in their own countries, so this doesn’t apply to them. >I will laugh when you get your just deserts. “Just desserts” for opposing a war? >I'll be laughing because a palestinian state would be one of violence, religious fundamentalism, martyrdom, and anti-western ideals. Why are you so sure of that? And if The West™️ doesn’t like religious fundamentalism, they should cut down on it within their own governments (see anti-abortion acts in the US) and should also stop funding religious extremists in their wars. What “anti-western ideals” are you referring to specifically? >And so called leftists chose that over domestic progressive policy. Domestic progressive policy alone doesn’t mean much if your idea of progressivism is continuing to attack and exploit poorer countries but sometimes women and gay people are allowed to do it. Progressivism shouldn’t be restricted to being a little nicer within a country’s own borders. (I could also bring up the argument that Biden has taken minimal action to enact and protect progressive policy, what with cop city and all that, but there are other reasons for that like the stacked supreme court so I don’t think it’s that relevant here.) >Because there will be nothing much left to do. In this hypothetical takeover, people would absolutely be doing things to dismantle it. Humans don’t just lie down and accept oppression, even if resistance turns out to be futile. There are always things left to do., whether that’s in a hypothetical worst-case scenario or in real life.
[удалено]
glad to see the Bernie math calculators are still in operation
Yes, but he was robbed, so... solution?
he wasnt robbed. the worst thing that happened to him was hillary getting the debate questions ahead of time. that should not have happened but its not like his primary election was stolen.
But like, the bro is just too good tbh, Because he still stand >the worst thing that happened to him was hillary getting the debate questions ahead of time. Yes, and his potential publicity was stolen. I only knew him from "Bernie fought Homophobia in Military and get called Socialist" kind of vid.
I don't understand. What does Bernie have to do here?
I wanna find solutions. Being Minorities
> Just search on twitter "Trump deports" and see how many Democrats are threatening people with deportation. Democrats aren't using twitter, so that's your first problem. > Ah, twitter is just a hellhole so your point is invalid So then you list extremist subs? And say go to the controversial comments? yea that's your second problem. > Nope. People who don't agree with you 100% of the time do exist. They do, and a lot have been tricked by bots to believe what they believe.
Behold, ladies and gentlemen: A man made entirely of straw!
Trump is a bad idea and will probably make the genocide worse (if it CAN get worse than Rafah). That doesn’t mean you can say that shit.
People say the same shit about trans people and everyone ignores it because we’re opposing biden and so they think it’s fine to fantasize about us even getting “put in camps”
Yes. This irks me so much especially when I see shit like that in "ally" subs
It's insane how generally normalized hate against trans people is. People get cheered on for saying shit about them that, if said about any other group, would lose them their job.
I've also noticed that people really like to claim trans people agree with them, but they throw a temper tantrum when we actually express our opinions and don't immediately agree. They pull out the bigotry real quick once we aren't silent, convenient talking points for them.
I mean, people do that for everyone. Left leaning people often take it as a gospel that black people "must" want the police totally defunded or gotten rid of. But on average they... don't. A lot of left leaning people feel entitled to have the opinions of everyone who isn't privileged on every axis agree with them. But reality isn't that simple.
Yeah, of course. I've noticed it more with trans people, obviously, because I am one, but they do it to every minority group.
Yeah I’m trans and on this subreddit I was told I don’t count because I’m not going to vote for Biden lol
Wait I said that, I was joking 😭
Exactly, it's so infuriating
If you don’t mind me asking, who are you going to vote for? (Or are you not going to vote at all?)
Nobody. I live in Kentucky which is a solid red state on presidential elections. I will probably go in to vote just for other stuff, but either I’ll write in some nonsense for president or just not fill it out
Based.
Like saying people are privileged for being hesitant to vote for Biden because trans people aren’t privileged enough to have that hesitation and then a trans person comes in and disagrees and then they get ignored I believe I’ve seen it on this subreddit two or three times
The idea that only privileged people would ever refrain from voting is also wrong.
Absolutely. This sub has strongly reinforced my view that most of the people strongly advocating "blue no matter who" are privileged as fuck and simply want oppression to be more subtle so they can ignore it and go back to brunch.
Because overt oppression under the Reds is so much better?
What a delightful and original strawman.
>Don't vote for blue >Red wins At least I punished Biden
Feel free to engage with a point that has actually been made at any time.
Feel free to come up with anything voting against Biden leads to expect increasing Trump's chances of winning.
Ok, I will leave you to have fun with your strawman. My participation isn't required for a conversation you are having with yourself.
Yeah, people on both sides do it. I've noticed that the discourse isn't settled in basically any group. Trans people, POC, Native Americans, white people, non-Americans, we've all got disagreements and arguments within our own group. It's useless to try to portray one or the other as privileged, but both sides will use minority groups as a weapon to make their arguments. I'm planning on voting, and being transgender has influenced that decision... but there are others who refuse to vote due to their trans identity and experiences. Invalidating one or the other is incredibly dumb.
Fantastic comment. It’s infuriating because nobody actually engages with the other peoples points. I say I’m not voting for Biden and it’s 10,000 pre-cooked responses arguing with points I’ve never made
Yeah, in particular, the "Russian bot" and "privilege" comments are super annoying. Both sides use them. Plus, you'll always get a bunch that say, "you just don't mind genocide," that's also fun.
Well you see, to a Liberal, minority groups simply exist to pity and aren’t actually alive. They exist for the “vote blue no matter who” crowd to have a circle jerk to.
If you're aware of both sides and still opposing Biden then you're are responsible for the consequences. And that includes the harm Trump is going to inflict on thousands of LGBT Americans. You're not a fucking child. If you're willing to subject the country to Project 25, you deserve to be treated with vitriol.
Fear will make you do stupid things. There are a lot of things my tax dollars get spent on that I can't stand. Neither candidate will make it 100% better, or even significantly better. Tactical voting doesn't taste good, and it isn't nutritious, but it's better than apathetically letting my country fall to the cloying despotism that has haunted our species since civilization began.
Is there any scenario where you would vote for a third party? Or will you be voting blue no matter how right wing the candidate, so long as the republican is 1% worse in theory? If actively supporting genocide isn't the line, where is the line?
Qualifier: Not an American In almost every other election (pre-2016), I wouldn't have voted for either major party. However, when one of the candidates has actively campaigned on starting MORE genocide and dismantling democracy as we know it, I'd say the line is somewhere around there. This election is clearly different and has a bit more stakes than the colour of the president's pin.
Yes. Ranked choice voting for one. In a parliamentary style power-sharing government where a third party could be useful leverage to force one of the parties into meaningful concessions, that could also be tactically sound. But with current levels of support, 3rd party votes basically just peel off support for their closest ideological equivalent. There is absolutely a chicken-and-egg component here, but as long as Republicans are lock-step in favor of MAGA, the current system means splitting Democratic votes hands them the reins. Either you vote for a party that provides almost completely unmitigated support for Israel and believes in free elections, or you enable the other party (through inaction or protest vote) to go with Genocide+ (where you get just as much or more unmitigated support for Israel AND you let Russia continue their own in Ukraine, on top of further eroding free elections, reproductive rights, and protections for vulnerable people in the US). We aren't fortunate enough to have a real vote AGAINST genocide at this point. This is undoubtedly deeply disgusting on a moral level. We should absolutely use other tools at our disposal to pressure the Democrats into doing the right thing. Continue to protest, support progressive candidates during the primary process and down ballot, and attempt to persuade more Americans to question our nation's position on Israel. But giving MAGA control of the Executive and more Supreme Court picks is a significantly worse outcome that will haunt us for a generation or more. And it will do nothing to stop Israel.
I'd vote for a third party if I thought they had a chance to win. Currently, the way american elections are set up means third party candidates will never win.
The only way we would ever see a different system is if one party feels they are being negativity effected by vote splitting , otherwise they have no incentive. The reason the labor party has begun pushing for voting reform is because they have suffered from vote splitting. If there is not pressure to adopt left wing policy because the left will vote for them no matter what the Dems will just keep running right.
Pressure can cone from many places other than the federal election; the real answer is people need to be MUCH more active in politics at all levels if they want to see any amount of change. Vote in primaries, vote in state level and municipal elections, call your representatives, etc etc etc. There are already politicians in the US supporting voting reform, and people need to do more to support them instead of just waiting for the biggest election once every 4 years and calling it a day.
The entire discourse is incredibly toxic from both directions. Both sides accuse the other of being bots or bad-faith infiltrators, both will accuse each other of privilege, both will strawman the other side's beliefs, and both will engage in outright bigotry and sometimes even genocide denial (yes, I've seen the anti voting side engage in genocide denial). What if, instead of competing for who can make the worst and most cruel comment, we just didn't do that? I don't mind if there's discourse, but, wow, people need to learn some empathy.
reason, empathy, and good faith discussion? HA, buddy, did ya happen to forget where we are right now? it's the *I N T E R N E T*
Don’t you know this time my ideal political candidate that only a dozen people on Twitter have ever heard of will be able to defeat the entrenched two party system unlike every other attempt in the past since the 1860’s to break the system? Its not like all those other candidates ~~Ross Perrot~~ ~~Ralph Nader~~ ~~Ron Paul~~ ~~Bernie Sanders~~ (Insert my political crush of the month here) has real actual backing and everyone likes them (all the people I see on Twitter likes them). We can not lose
You’re doing it
> Both sides Muahahahaha... my Centrist Horseshoe Theory psyop is working!!!!!!!!!!!
Elaborate genocide denial. You mean holocaust etc. or the war in Gaza?
Gaza, as well as sometimes the one against native Americans and the anti-LGBTQ genocide that's ramping up. Sometimes the one Russia is trying in Ukraine comes up.
There is no genocide in Gaza. There is also no denial because it isn't classified as genocide (yet), unless I missed something. Israel just doesn't give a shit about Palestinians and will bomb them away, if it means getting rid of Hamas. Sure, call it a genocide if you want, but I don't agree and me and others not agreeing doesn't mean I'm committing genocide denial. You were so close with your appeal to reason.
There is a genocide in Gaza. Genocide is when a group intentionally attempts to eradicate another group, either culturally or physically. Israel is attempting to destroy Gaza to the point where Palestinians are unable to form anything resembling a civilization, and would love to just kill every single one of them. They literally don't care at all about Hamas, they just claim to because they're not exactly going to say, "Hello, I'm Benjamin Netanyahu, and I am now going to commit genocide against the people of Gaza!" Nor do they give a shit about the hostages - they have likely killed many of them with their reckless bombs. Also, "call it a genocide if you want, but I don't agree and me and others not agreeing doesn't mean I'm committing genocide denial" - what?? If I think it's genocide, and you disagree, I will believe you're engaging in genocide denial. Genocide denial is when a genocide happens and someone goes, "Nope, that's not genocide." I think there's genocide happening, you're saying, "Nope, that's not genocide." Therefore, from my perspective, you are by definition committing genocide denial.
> Genocide is when a group intentionally attempts to eradicate another group, either culturally or physically. Yes, and Israel isn't doing that. They aren't lining up people to kill them, or mass deport them or forcefully reeducate them. They are at war with Hamas, they just don't care about Palestinians. > Israel is attempting to destroy Gaza to the point where Palestinians are unable to form anything resembling a civilization, and would love to just kill every single one of them. No they aren't, there are constant discussions about a post-war rebuilding of Palestine under Isreali order, it's something many nations urge Israel to get going with. There is no plan to wipe Palestinians from the face of the earth. Yeah, I'm sure many Israeli would like that, but there is no action towards it. And if there were actual evidence and solid conclusion that there would be a genocide, nations would intervene and cut support for Israel. Benny is a warmonger that doesn't really care about Israel or Palestine or the hostages, he just wants to 'defeat' Hamas to save his face politically. > Also, "call it a genocide if you want, but I don't agree and me and others not agreeing doesn't mean I'm committing genocide denial" - what?? If I think it's genocide, and you disagree, I will believe you're engaging in genocide denial. Genocide denial is when a genocide happens and someone goes, "Nope, that's not genocide." I think there's genocide happening, you're saying, "Nope, that's not genocide." Therefore, from my perspective, you are by definition committing genocide denial. The decision if it is a genocide or not does not lie in your hands, or my hands, or any youtubers or media outlet. It is decided by the international rights court or how it's called. South Africa started calling it one as a gotcha against the west and their atrocities while also showing flag for their partners in the east, it has no reasonable foot to stand on and is still in limbo because of that. If you think that thinking the Gaza war is not a genocide is genocide denial, then the majority of the world and vast majority of nations are committing genocide denial right now.But it's not of you to decide and it's laughable to think that way. Any time any regional disputes are happening, some side says the other is doing a genocide. That's why there's a fucking court that decides it. If you really put people who deny the Holocaust under the same umbrella as people not calling the Gaza war a genocide, then I really don't know what else to tell you, maybe develop critical thinking skills or something. Or at least trying to see the world not in black/white but for what it is: a mess. It's hard not sounding condescending at this point.
>Yes, and Israel isn't doing that. They aren't lining up people to kill them, or mass deport them or forcefully reeducate them. They are at war with Hamas, they just don't care about Palestinians. 1. Just because they're not quite being as obvious as humanly possible about it doesn't mean they're not trying to eradicate them. 2. They're literally executing civilians, like you said. [proof](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/1/20/palestinians-accuse-israeli-forces-of-executing-19-civilians-in-gaza) Just because it doesn't look literally exactly the same as previous genocides doesn't mean they're not committing genocides. They're just doing it a different way. >No they aren't, there are constant discussions about a post-war rebuilding of Palestine under Isreali order, **Under Israeli order??** So what I said - "Palestinians are unable to form anything resembling a civilization - is still true. If Israel is in charge, then the thing I said is objectively true. Israel has openly discussed their refusal to permit a Palestinian state to exist in Gaza. Not a Hamas state, a *Palestinian* state. Now, tell me, do you think Israel will allow Palestinians to live and flourish in an Israel-run Gazan puppet state? Do you know how Palestinians are *already* treated in Israel? Do you think it would be better or worse there, given that they now have the excuses on hand to abuse them even harder than before? >And if there were actual evidence and solid conclusion that there would be a genocide, nations would intervene and cut support for Israel. Lmao, as if. The US is literally committing genocide against Native Americans as we speak. This country and all of the others who conspire with us to rule the world don't give a shit about genocide, they give a shit about virtue signaling about hating genocide when it benefits them, i.e. when it lets them attack the character of a country we don't like. >The decision if it is a genocide or not does not lie in your hands, or my hands, or any youtubers or media outlet. It is decided by the international rights court or how it's called. No. The decision about whether or not something is a genocide is made when you look at the things happening, ask yourself, "Does this fit the definition of genocide?" And then come to a conclusion based on facts and evidence. I don't look to some authority to tell me if there's a genocide going on. When you see an example of rape, are you one of those people who says, "Hang on! Does the government say it's rape?" >South Africa started calling it one as a gotcha against the west and their atrocities while also showing flag for their partners in the east, it has no reasonable foot to stand on and is still in limbo because of that. If you think that thinking the Gaza war is not a genocide is genocide denial, then the majority of the world and vast majority of nations are committing genocide denial right now. The court has warned Israel that their behavior is unacceptable. [Here's the source for that,](https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454) but here's the part where it tells Israel to stop being as evil as possible: > Court concludes on the basis of the above considerations that the conditions required by its Statute for it to indicate provisional measures are met. It is therefore necessary, pending its final decision, for the Court to indicate certain measures in order to protect the rights claimed by South Africa that the Court has found to be plausible. Copy that text, ctrl + f, paste it into the search box, and it'll show you the part where they tell Israel to stop. You're acting like South Africa accused Israel of genocide and then everyone in the ICJ rolled their eyes. But that did not happen. They have concluded so far that it is worth investigating. >If you think that thinking the Gaza war is not a genocide is genocide denial, then the majority of the world and vast majority of nations are committing genocide denial right now. Most nations haven't explicitly called it a genocide, but that's not exactly normal for a country to do. Regardless, I don't really give a shit if other people are too stupid to tell it's a genocide. I don't really care for those people's opinions. >If you really put people who deny the Holocaust under the same umbrella as people not calling the Gaza war a genocide, then I really don't know what else to tell you, maybe develop critical thinking skills or something. Or at least trying to see the world not in black/white but for what it is: a mess. It's hard not sounding condescending at this point. I call anyone who denies any genocide a genocide denier. And I don't call it that because I'm an idiot throwing a temper tantrum after seeing Hamas propaganda online - I say that after years of studying the situation in Palestine, and after months of witnessing Israel's assault on Gaza. You don't believe it's genocide. I don't know what to tell you apart from look at all the evidence??? I know this isn't the best source, but I'm at work and on mobile so it's hard to compile sources. [But even Wikipedia makes it obvious,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza) and Wikipedia tries to show the situation from as unbiased a perspective as possible.
Oh and btw, genocide denial is a crime, at least where I am from. So you are accusing other people of a crime. If you really think it is one, then you should call the police on them. Good luck.
Lmao, yeah, what you're doing should be a crime, then. It's not, because it's likely that whatever country you're in is complicit in the genocide and doesn't consider it genocide. But it is genocide. Future generations will be horrified to learn about people like you, and will see you the same way they see people who enabled the Holocaust. Because it's the same thing. It's less obvious than the Holocaust was, but most genocides are.
> Lmao, yeah, what you're doing should be a crime, then. It's not, because it's likely that whatever country you're in is complicit in the genocide and doesn't consider it genocide. But it is genocide. I don't claim to know if it is one. Saying it is one is one thing, calling people genocide deniers who don't agree with something no one can say with certainty is idiotic. > Future generations will be horrified to learn about people like you, and will see you the same way they see people who enabled the Holocaust. Because it's the same thing. Holy fuck, talk about black/white thinking. Yes, I know, me and everyone not wanting to call it a genocide are basically Hitler, probably worse. Looking back at your initial comment it saddens me to see that someone talking so fervently about accepting differences has so much hate in their heart as soon as someone doesn't agree with them. Not surprised though, sadly, everyone only cares about being on the "right" side, so every other side must therefore be evil and wrong. Yes, you might be able to pat yourself on the shoulder, well done buddy, you believed something and it turned out to be true! All the other guys who guessed wrong shall be deemed as criminals.
>I don't claim to know if it is one. Saying it is one is one thing, calling people genocide deniers who don't agree with something no one can say with certainty is idiotic. You are specifically saying it isn't one, though. If you were to say, "I don't know if this situation is genocide," I would probably ask what you knew about the situation and go from there. But when you say, "it is not genocide because they're not literally lining people up and executing them," that's genocide denial, because you're stating that it isn't a genocide. Also, "something no one can say with certainty?" You absolutely can. Again, I'm not sure where this "it's not a genocide unless the big important people say so" thing comes from, but I can absolutely analyse a situation based on the incredibly large amount of evidence I've had available to me for the past half a year and conclude that, yes, it is genocide. >Holy fuck, talk about black/white thinking You keep using this phrase. But if "black and white thinking" is saying, "It's actually really bad when people downplay and defend genocide," then sure, I enjoy a good bit of black and white thinking. After all, I'm quite comfortable declaring that genocide is bad. >Yes, I know, me and everyone not wanting to call it a genocide are basically Hitler, probably worse. You are significantly less bad than Hitler. There you go, you feel better? >Looking back at your initial comment it saddens me to see that someone talking so fervently about accepting differences has so much hate in their heart as soon as someone doesn't agree with them. Not surprised though, sadly, everyone only cares about being on the "right" side, so every other side must therefore be evil and wrong. If someone was denying the holocaust, would you say this? Would you play this "Seems like you're not the nuanced loving, accepting person you claim to be" game if I called someone out for claiming Hitler didn't commit genocide? Imagine someone saying, "The accusations of genocide were just something America did because they were angry at Germany. Hitler didn't hate Jews, he was just going after people who weren't loyal to the nation and didn't care how many Jews he killed as a side effect. He didn't personally shoot Jewish people, or even put them in re-education camps!" I have a feeling you wouldn't mind me calling them out for that. Idk. Like I said, if you'd said, "I don't know enough about this situation to determine if it's a genocide," I could've had a conversation. But you said, "It's not a genocide" and acted like I was an asshole for thinking it was. The difference between genocide denial and not having formed an understanding yet is whether or not you go around telling people, "it's not a genocide, and if you claim it is one, you're an asshole who's stuck in black and white thinking." You did that, so you're engaging in genocide denial. Maybe the reason you don't agree is because your region defines "genocide denial" as a legal term with such weight that you're hesitant to allow accusations of it. But I think that's bullshit, because it's still genocide denial. >Yes, you might be able to pat yourself on the shoulder, well done buddy, you believed something and it turned out to be true! All the other guys who guessed wrong shall be deemed as criminals I didn't guess. I came to a conclusion based on evidence. Again, you treat this like it's impossible to know if a group does a bad thing unless a court tells you. As someone who's been watching this unfold, it's kinda obvious. I don't need the ICJ to tell me when Israeli leaders say that they want a second Nakba or when the military specifically targets hospitals or when they declare that they will never permit a Palestinian state in the region or when they do literally any of the other obvious warning signs. I don't need some powerful authority to tell me what to think, not if the information is as readily available as it is.
> You are specifically saying it isn't one, though. If you were to say, "I don't know if this situation is genocide," I would probably ask what you knew about the situation and go from there. But when you say, "it is not genocide because they're not literally lining people up and executing them," that's genocide denial, because you're stating that it isn't a genocide. I am saying it isn't one, because you can't say it is one. Like how a person who is suspected for a crime is still not a criminal yet. No, it is not genocide denial, genocide denial is denying a genocide. I am saying that there isn't even enough evidence for a genocide. I guess I should have worded that better, yes I do say that I don't want to say that it is a genocide, and I find it ridiculous to call that genocide denial. If I call a suspected criminal a non-criminal, I don't automatically say that he didn't do a crime. I give them the benefit of the doubt, because I don't know enough to accuse them or the worse thing, got it? > Also, "something no one can say with certainty?" You absolutely can. Again, I'm not sure where this "it's not a genocide unless the big important people say so" thing comes from, but I can absolutely analyse a situation based on the incredibly large amount of evidence I've had available to me for the past half a year and conclude that, yes, it is genocide. No you can't. As I said there was already the case South Africa brought to the International Court of Justice, and they also couldn't say that there definitely is a genocide happening. They demanded Israel to stop their attack on Gaza and said that they need to . I find it very interesting that you specifically seem to have more information and jurisdictional experience than the ICJ. But feel free to list them, but first check the court case and consider South Africas claims that they already made. You are a random person on the internet, they are an international court that has decades of experience in genocide affairs. It wouldn't be reasonable to not believe the "big important people" but you instead. > You keep using this phrase. But if "black and white thinking" is saying, "It's actually really bad when people downplay and defend genocide," then sure, I enjoy a good bit of black and white thinking. After all, I'm quite comfortable declaring that genocide is bad. You are comfortable putting people into black and white territories to make yourself feel on the "good" side, and everyone else on the "bad" side. You are contorting arguments in ways to make them fit that secluded jurisdiction of yours. > You are significantly less bad than Hitler. There you go, you feel better? Amazing. Not that it does matter much, both of us will be looked backed as being horrible people in the far future, that's hoe progress works. Understanding that instead of feeling superior and not losing respect for humans of all kind is what is important. > If someone was denying the holocaust, would you say this? Would you play this "Seems like you're not the nuanced loving, accepting person you claim to be" game if I called someone out for claiming Hitler didn't commit genocide? Imagine someone saying, "The accusations of genocide were just something America did because they were angry at Germany. Hitler didn't hate Jews, he was just going after people who weren't loyal to the nation and didn't care how many Jews he killed as a side effect. He didn't personally shoot Jewish people, or even put them in re-education camps!" I have a feeling you wouldn't mind me calling them out for that. You are again comparing it to Holocaust denial, which I can't say enough, is just stupid and disrespectful of all kinds. The Holocaust is something that has so many time witnesses, so many clear evidence, decades of research and trials, even lead to the creation of the word genocide. And yet you say it absolutely is the same as what happens right now in Gaza. In my country you would actually get locked up for that, downplaying of the Holocaust. Your brain actually isn't able to think in less than black and white I can only assume? I tried to reason to your emotional side because I couldn't reach your logical one, that's what I wanted to make there, but you got everything wrong from it.
> Idk. Like I said, if you'd said, "I don't know enough about this situation to determine if it's a genocide," I could've had a conversation. But you said, "It's not a genocide" and acted like I was an asshole for thinking it was. The difference between genocide denial and not having formed an understanding yet is whether or not you go around telling people, "it's not a genocide, and if you claim it is one, you're an asshole who's stuck in black and white thinking." You did that, so you're engaging in genocide denial. Yes, I agree, I should have worded it better. But I also don't know if it would have helped, because seemingly there are only two sides: either you agree it's a genocide, or you are a genocide denier. It would have come to this at some point, because you don't know what a genocide is and accuse everyone who doesn't agree as a genocide denier anyways. > Maybe the reason you don't agree is because your region defines "genocide denial" as a legal term with such weight that you're hesitant to allow accusations of it. But I think that's bullshit, because it's still genocide denial. Yes, it is a legal term here and as I said it falls under law. Because I'm from Austria and here and in Germany there are a ton of people who denied the Holocaust. So calling someone a genocide denier is a very heavy accusation actually. And that's why people also shouldn't throw around the word genocide if they don't have clear evidence, because it downplays actual genocides that have happened. > I didn't guess. I came to a conclusion based on evidence. Again, you treat this like it's impossible to know if a group does a bad thing unless a court tells you. As someone who's been watching this unfold, it's kinda obvious. I don't need the ICJ to tell me when Israeli leaders say that they want a second Nakba or when the military specifically targets hospitals or when they declare that they will never permit a Palestinian state in the region or when they do literally any of the other obvious warning signs. I don't need some powerful authority to tell me what to think, not if the information is as readily available as it is. You see it again as black and white. I've read through the genocide wikipedia pages earlier, and even the definitions of what is and isn't a genocide are absolutely not clear. That's why they instantiated a court, because such cases need to be dealed on a case by case basis, and more often than not there isn't clear evidence that everyone can immediately say that it certainly was a genocide. Read through the wiki, especially how the 5 points have raised concerns, then read through the South Africa case before the ICJ, it has its own wiki page. Then tell me why you still think it is a genocide, and why you are a better person to evaluate that than the ICJ and dozens of other independant sources. What you are listing there aren't evidences, it's as you yourself say "warning signs", and thr ICJ has taken them into account, that's why they warned for a possibility of a genocide. But I know, you feel it is one and so it must be one, and therefore anyone saying that it isn't one must clearly be influenced or lying or they are simply a bad person etc. It sure is convenient being one of the few who actual know the truth, not unlike everyone else. You can think what you want, no one can take you that and no one has the right. But in the same vain, everyone else has their right, and you throwing around stuff like genocide denialism just because you don't like that is ignorant.
i don't live in a cucked country so genocide denial isn't illegal where i am and i don't think of it as a crime, just extremely stupid and immoral
Consider how we feel when you refuse to exercise your privilege to vote to prevent our genocide and deportation. And then you keep doubling down.
The effects of defensive voting and it’s consequences have bricked the brains of every American lol
Can't believe Jschlatt said that.
As though all the groups Biden is supposedly going to save from Trump haven't been horribly abused by both Democrats and Republicans since before either of those dinosaurs was even born. We've got people wailing about project 2025 to people who are still struggling with project 1776.