• Cleggory@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      If you believe mindlessly endorsing genocide is the easy thing, we have little in common.

      If democrats as a group broadly endorse the genocide of Palestinians, how can they still be taken seriously regarding issues like abortion (rights ended during Dem presidency) and BLM?

      • Lyrl@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It sounds like you believe most people who identify as Democrats are actively rooting for the horrifyingly high number of Palestinian deaths, in the tens of thousands, to progress to the millions. Is that an accurate description of your viewpoint? If so, are there some key things that made you start believing that?

          • Lyrl@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I believe all humans, Democrats included, have capacity for fascism.

            Do you believe most Democrats are actively rooting for most of the millions of Palestinians to be killed?

            • Cleggory@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              I want to understand your question. Do you believe 50% is the only key threshold where support for genocide becomes problematic?

              If less than most Democrats support genocide, then there is no cause for concern?

              • Lyrl@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                I believe the fact that anyone, anywhere, of any group, supports mass murder for its own sake is damning of us as a species. I am looking to understand what you believe. I would be grateful for any details you are willing to share.

                • Cleggory@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Is there a reason you refuse to make your question more clear?

                  I want to understand your question. Do you believe 50% is the only key threshold where support for genocide becomes problematic?

                  If less than most Democrats support genocide, then there is no cause for concern?

            • Cleggory@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              You can still attempt an answer, I’m not trying to discourage you.

              If democrats as a group broadly endorse the genocide of Palestinians, how can they still be taken seriously regarding issues like abortion (rights ended during Dem presidency) and BLM?

              • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Oh, you meant that particular failure in logic of a question. Yeah nah, I’m not playing that game after your intentional disregard for what I said.

      • FatCrab@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you don’t believe that strategic voting is critical to achieving what are inherently long term goals, then we have little in common.

        • Cleggory@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          we have little in common

          Yes, I did say that.

          Democrats nominating a war monger was a sign of high minded strategy?

          • FatCrab@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago
            1. her position wrt Israel and Palestine wasn’t clear when she was nominated (though I don’t think it was all that hard to anticipate, but here we are); (2) the upcoming vote isn’t for her nomination to the democratic ticket, is it?

            No one is saying they don’t wish the practical reality in which we live was better, but we are looking at two realistic choices right now. One choice will not only greatly worsen the situation and almost undoubtedly lead to more suffering and death in the Levant, it is also quite literally the highly preferred choice by Netanyahu. The other has in the past, before soliciting as many US votes as possible, at least displayed a willingness to criticize the Israeli government and modulate US policies regarding it. So I dunno what to tell you. At the end of the day, I’m pro-Palestinians not being murdered, and could give a fuck about signaling on social media, so I make practical choices to facilitate my as-many-Palestinians-as-possible-not-being-murdered preference. Maybe you don’t have that in common with me.

            • Cleggory@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              How was her position unclear?

              Google:

              August 7, 2024 (Harris was certified by the Democratic National Committee)

              A previous report from August 15, 2024, stated that the death toll in Gaza had reached over 40,000.

              I have nothing in common who sees these innocent people dead as a sign Harris somehow shares a value of “pro-Palestinians not being murdered”.

              • FatCrab@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Ah, so you’re actively avoiding engaging reasonably with what I and others are saying. Good luck to you. Sorry to hear you’re comfortable with more Palestinians being murdered so you can signal on social media.