• PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 month ago

    What’s strange is that the totally-different-and-very-cool party keeps finding themselves in situations wherein they’re totally forced into committing atrocities themselves, but end up being OK because somehow there’s someone worse right behind them

    Yes, definitely, what’s going on is the Democratic Party decided to commit atrocities out of the blue. This definitely isn’t a long-standing US policy that was, until very recently, widely supported on all sides of the electorate. Wow, it’s a good thing politics are something simple that Manicheans with short attention spans can learn by half-paying attention to news reels for a month, otherwise we’d really be fucked, wouldn’t we?

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      And it’s never actually their fault because there’s just too many people who support their totally unavoidable atrocities and if they don’t do them they’ll lose to the totally-worse-and-different monster party

      This definitely isn’t a long-standing US policy that was, until very recently, widely supported on all sides of the electorate.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 month ago

        Sorry that the idea of democracy reflecting the opinions of the majority is so alien to you. I understand autocracy might be more your speed.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          So it’s acceptable to support genocide as long as it’s a majority opinion? Are we morally relativistic now? It’s that what’s happening?

          • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 month ago

            I’m sorry, do you think that candidates for election should be supporting opinions that the majority opposes? Is that where we’re at? The point of democracy is to reflect the will of the people; if you don’t like the will of the people, it’s your job, as a dissenter, to try to change it. The idea that candidates in a democratic system should be running on platforms that say “To hell with what the people think” is some really absurd Soviet style shite.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              The point of democracy is to reflect the will of the people; if you don’t like the will of the people, it’s your job, as a dissenter, to try to change it.

              Oh my god were so close buddy, let’s bring it home

              What’s the correct course of action for dissenters? I’m doubting that it’s whipping votes for the candidate you’re dissenting against but you seem like an expert so I’ll ask you

              The idea that candidates in a democratic system should be running on platforms that say “To hell with what the people think” is some really absurd Soviet style shite.

              So you’re saying supporting the Palestinian genocide is the will of the people, and as such Biden should continue doing it? Is that the real take here? Was the disgust with genocide the fake indignation I thought it was?

              • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 month ago

                What’s the correct course of action for dissenters?

                Protest, for one. Which is ongoing.

                I’m doubting that it’s whipping votes for the candidate you’re dissenting against but you seem like an expert so I’ll ask you

                Haven’t we already been over this? Limited choices, mass support, lesser evil, all that jazz?

                So you’re saying supporting the Palestinian genocide is the will of the people, and as such Biden should continue doing it? Is that the real take here? Was the disgust with genocide the fake indignation I thought it was?

                No, I’m saying that support for the Palestinian genocide remains widespread, and thus the idea that a politician with a realistic-but-narrow-shot at being elected should suddenly, and without consultation of popular opinion, reverse the stance, or else you’ll vote for the one who wants MORE genocide, is deeply unserious at best. As voters in the minority, we cannot realistically expect our opinions to be represented by candidates who must win the vote of the majority.

                I would be deeply upset at the prospect of voting for someone who thought that gay rights didn’t matter, but if you ask me who to vote for in 1948, I’m sure as shit not going to make any decision that puts Strom Thurmond in office no matter how badly I want to make a protest vote.

                • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Protest, for one. Which is ongoing.

                  In your opinion, what does protest look like? Is it flowery parades, or are they loud and threatening? It’s there an implication of disobedience, or is it accompanied by the reassurance that you’ll still support them if the protest fails?

                  Haven’t we already been over this? Limited choices, mass support, lesser evil, all that jazz?

                  I’m not talking about how you’re actually voting, I’m talking about what you’re doing right now.

                  No, I’m saying that support for the Palestinian genocide remains widespread, and thus the idea that a politician with a realistic-but-narrow-shot at being elected should suddenly, and without consultation of popular opinion, reverse the stance, or else you’ll vote for the one who wants MORE genocide, is deeply unserious at best

                  A- were not talking about voting for the opposition, we’re talking about not supporting Biden, and while I realize that’s the same thing to you it is not the same thing to tens of millions of infrequent or undecided voters who will sooner not vote for Biden than vote for Trump

                  B- I think the suggestion that Biden’s stance on israel has ever been based on popular opinion is itself deeply unserious, but it also makes Biden himself seem deeply unserious for doing something so goddamn depraved just because he thinks it’ll make him more popular.

                  I have zero expectation that my opinion will be represented by Biden or the dems, but not because I think they’re unpopular (they’re not) or because I withhold my vote (it won’t). But I expect that by highlighting the depravity of electoral bullshit I might create enough discontent that one or two people get off their ass and join a socialist organization, and that’s worth it.