Yes we're missing two things
- Anonymous ID / Reputation system to tell it's a human
- Community-run moderation. So some chronically online sadsack can't ban you from a significant portion of lemmy for life because you disagreed with them.
auraithx
joined 2 weeks ago
Examples? Top posts of the past month for r/politics there’s literally nothing. Got bored scrolling.
They’re annexing it in the capitalist sense not the government one. He’ll have cut a deal with them to carve up Gaza and sell it to the highest bidder with Trump getting the commission.
Those other things you mentioned aren’t being talked about any less either.
Most Palestine spaces banned anyone who explained why Trump was objectively worse so yes, the ones who created those echo chambers and participated spreading those narratives to the wider population deserve to be called on it.
We are. Your options were genocide and uber genocide.
I don’t think the dems care about leftists it’s other leftists who are saying yous have been had.
Why do they get a say
I was well aware of it. Talking about the global spotlight. MSM coverage. That is when real change is possible. It's not an excuse it's reality.
That change in the analogy does not work because they were already going after all Palestinians, my dude. So who is the family is this analogy?
Well, they weren't. They ramped up settlements in the west bank, using the tricks they learned in Gaza, and now are going to ethnically clense the entire population of gaza. The analogy holds.
Clearly you and I just disagree on a fundamental level. I don’t care what noises someone makes with their mouth while committing heinous acts, and I do not see a moral difference between committing a genocide and arming the people that you know are committing a genocide. Would you also make excuses for the people who knowingly worked with Nazis and made weapons for them?
Well there is a difference, of course. Not everything is binary, there is always nuance. I'd tell you to vote for the nazi' if they were running against a worse oponent, yes. Just like I'd suggest voting for Trump if he was running against Hitler.
Public pressure has been around for decades, and the democrats were still supplying them with weapons.
Not really it hasn't been in the spotlight until Oct7th. That's when real change can happen.
Two people stomp on you. One says “I want the violence to stop”, the other calls you a slur. They are both still stomping on you. There is no real difference to the person being stomped.
Two people stomping at you, one pulls out a knife and says 'lets get this vermin and his family too'. There is a clear difference.
Go look at maps of Palestine over the decades, please. Palestine was already being erased. This is like if we clean up the entire room together but then I let you put the broom away, and now you claim you were the one to clean the entire room. Just because Reps are the ones finishing the job does not mean the Dems were better - we know they were not because we just saw them actively supporting the genocide.
'actively supporting the genocide' isn't the worst thing you can do. What Trump is doing is objectively worse.
Put it this way.
- Kamala came out and said: 'Israel has a right to defend itself, and how it does so matters'
- If she had instead said 'Let's clean this filth out I'm gonna put a hotel here. All sanctions and blocks are cancelled. Please hurry up I have money to make. We'll provide some troops to help if needd'
Which is worse?
Neo-proudhonian mutualist with a dash of agorist praxis via non-violent counter-economic (r)evolution.
Changing the system by voting is not possible. The best we can do is pick the one closest aligned with our values, that will allow us to effectively organise (vs Trump turning the military on protestors/leftists), buy the Palestinians some time (vs literal cheering for ethnic clensing).
Faulting the people against the genocide for the scenario being our reality, and not the people who wouldn’t break with the idea that the genocide was something to support? You’re not an anarchist, you’re a bootlicker.
They're statists and authoritarians—I don’t expect them to listen to reason, and I can’t change that. My criticism is directed at those who actively pushed for a worsening of the genocide by enabling that screwball to take power, rather than supporting actual anti-genocide leftists who understand that, flawed as it is, liberalism is still preferable to outright fascism. You should know better. Instead, you keep shifting between shill gambit, baseless accusations and bad-faith comparisons.
Chomsky also acknowledged pragmatic short-term engagement with existing structures (e.g., voting for the lesser evil) while aiming for long-term abolition of oppressive institutions, FYI.
In the 2016 and 2020 U.S. elections, he argued that it was morally imperative to vote for the Democratic candidate because the alternative would be worse for marginalized communities, climate policy, and global stability.
https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting
Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.
Actually it's the most effective way.
I read a great biography of William Lloyd Garrison (the American abolitionist) a couple of years ago and it made it clear how he, and other radicals, dramatically changed the course of history through their constant focus and activism on how slavery was wrong. Their radicalism shifted the middle. That's what "extreme" views do, they make it easier for people in the middle to move towards embracing justice.
We (most of us) don't remember all the people who said "Yeah, slavery is wrong but we have to be practical," or "I would like to end slavery but we have to compensate owners," or "But what will we do with all the black people?" These were real positions within the anti-slavery movement. When Garrison began his career, they were the dominant positions and he spent much of his career being vilified by gradualists who thought he was too extreme.
They wanted to end slavery "someday." And they didn't want those who claimed to own other humans to be too uncomfortable. We don't remember gradualists today. We remember the men and women with the courage and ethical wisdom to look at slavery and say "This is wrong. It needs to stop." And their "extremism" is part of why it did stop, because the moral pressure they exerted made the South conclude it was inevitable that slavery would end unless they broke free of the Union.
I think we have to be careful in drawing parallels between veganism and past social justice movements, but there is a valuable lesson for us here. We can serve animals by not being in the middle because by being extreme, we can change what the middle even is. Today it is becoming mainstream to critique things like gestation crates or foie gras. We did that. We changed the middle. (This "we," obviously, is broad).
&
view more: next ›
Doesn't really work once spaces are established. Most of reddits problems aren't the admins, it's the volunteer subreddit mods which function just the same as lemmy.