Why are you so intent on keeping the conversation about the election? I’m trying to tell you your time and energy is better spent on other things. It’s unproductive to respond to people complaining about how all our candidates support genocide by basically telling them to shut up and choose.

Electoral politics are not the only way to change things. In fact, it’s a very poor way, as evidenced by the fact that genocide is now the only option. Every bit of progress that’s been made has been achieved through mass movements; protesting, coalition building, engaging in direct action or civil disobedience… until the politicians are forced to appease them in order to keep hold of their power. Would electoral politics have ended segregation, were it not for the civil rights movement? Would women have been granted the right to vote, were it not for the suffragette movement?

You would not recognize the reality we’d be living in today if everyone from back then thought like you that all they can do about injustice is vote for the “lesser evil.”

My take? Vote your conscience, or not at all if that’s where your conscience leads you. I can’t bring myself to fault anyone for refusing to vote for a “lesser evil”. At the end of the day, electoral politics just isn’t worth the amount of time and energy people give to it. That time and energy is better spent engaging in direct action, community building, and just general activism. I have long been disillusioned that electoral politics can bring about meaningful progress.

Would you prefer more or less genocide.

That this is the choice our “elected representatives” are asking us to make is sick beyond measure. I actually want to just thank you for cutting the bullshit and just asking the question directly so I can respond to it in the way any sane person should, by rejecting the premise that these are our only options. The answer is no, not more or less, none. I acknowledge that the third option of no genocide is not achievable through electoral means, which is why I support the protests, encampments, and uncommitted delegates.

Make the consequences you want to see in the world.

Christian (conservative) values do not differentiate between fear and respect. Preachers harp on their equivalence at the pulpit on a regular basis. They are taught by their respected authority figures that to fear is to respect, and they reinforce those values in their children. It’s no wonder that authority figures in communities that hold these values are some of the most abusive.

I love this, what is it from?

For starters, all liberals have Reddit and Lemmy.world, which are large. Where do leftists have?

I agree that lemmy.world is a primarily liberal instance, but I haven’t seen the same level of censorship on lemmy.world as I have on hexbear, though I’m open to evidence to the contrary. You can create a space for a specific ideology without resorting to such an extreme level of censorship and lemmy.world is proof of that. Also see my home instance slrpnk.net, we’re a primarily anarchist instance and we haven’t had to resort to extreme censorship to achieve that.

Secondly, this comment is indistinguishable from concern-trolling. I’d have to read through your post history or go back and forth with you to know if you were an honest actor or just a troll.

By what method do you distinguish concern-trolling from legitimate concern? Concern-trolls generally want to shut down discussion, and the whole reason for my concern is that censorship shuts down discussion.

Thirdly, most of us know your views, and have rejected them.

They’re not my views, did you miss the part of my comment where I said I disagree with the comments that got them banned?

We don’t live in a tame world, lots of people have deeply problematic viewpoints. When someone who expresses such viewpoints is otherwise well-intentioned it’s better to address them directly and potentially change some minds (or at least plant the seed) than to shun them and further entrench them into a problematic worldview.

I disagree with those comments, but they seem pretty mild to have been banned. I just don’t see how it’s productive to ban all liberals the moment they try to explain their views. All that does is push people away who could potentially have been a future ally.

I don’t think this comic explains it well. I don’t like the “it is a paradox but we just have to make an exception” approach. A better solution to the paradox of tolerance is to explain that it isn’t a paradox at all, that tolerance is a contract, not an absolute rule. A tolerant society agrees to tolerate you so long as you tolerate others, and if you violate the contract you lose its’ protection.

Judge argued it wasn’t relevant to the case. Obviously I disagree, and so did the prosecutors. The prosecution mentioned it during the trial anyway and was scolded by the judge, which was later used by the defense to try calling a mistrial.

There was a video from 15 days before the incident where he fantasized out loud about shooting some people he believed to be shoplifters. The prosecution tried to admit the video to evidence in order to demonstrate his mental state but was denied.

Kyle Rittenhouse showed up to a protest armed with an AR-15 intending to defend property that was not even his with lethal force, having been encouraged to do so by other militant conservative groups on social media. He then proceeded to shoot and kill two unarmed people who were attempting to disarm him and injured another who was armed with a pistol and who was also attempting to disarm him.

Yesterday, at Union Station in Washington, D.C. we saw despicable acts by unpatriotic protestors and dangerous hate-fueled rhetoric.     I condemn any individuals associating with the brutal terrorist organization Hamas, which has vowed to annihilate the State of Israel and kill Jews. Pro-Hamas graffiti and rhetoric is abhorrent and we must not tolerate it in our nation.    I condemn the burning of the American flag. That flag is a symbol of our highest ideals as a nation and represents the promise of America. It should never be desecrated in that way.    I support the right to peacefully protest, but let’s be clear: Antisemitism, hate and violence of any kind have no place in our nation.

Her statement on the protests frames them as pro-Hamas, anti-Semitic, unpatriotic, and violent by focusing entirely on a few bad-faith actors. Spending the entire statement condemning the minority of protestors and saying nothing of the majority who were there simply to protest genocide is disingenuous.

To take a page out of her book,

You exist in the context of all in which you live and what came before you

The condemnation of Hamas and anti-Semitism isn’t the issue, it’s the context in which it is done, absent of support for the protest as a whole. The best we get is

I support the right to peacefully protest, but

As a qualifier at the end of the statement. If she were truly committed to justice for Palestinians she would have pushed back against the framing of those who defend them as anti-semitic and pro-Hamas.

It isn’t so much what she said, but what she didn’t.

While she is better than Biden, her condemnation of student protestors still rubbed lots of gen Z the wrong way, myself included. It won’t stop me from voting, but it does dispel the delusion that Kamala is anything more than another corporate liberal.

I think this is an instance of people failing to think from a systems perspective rather than an individual perspective. Kamala Harris was a functionary of an oppressive system and chose the easy path of not challenging it from within. That in itself may not inspire confidence in her potential presidency, but it does not discount her completely. She is still an individual who has changed her views over the years in a way that suggests hope for her being a better president than she was an Attorney General.

Would you rather appease them and win, or not appease them and lose?

Sacrificing your values to win is no true victory.

Here’s the way I see it:

If you’re right and there are too many closet racists/sexists for a black woman to win, and we run her anyway, then we lose. If we don’t run her in order to appease the racists and we “win” we’ve actually still lost because we sacrificed a core value. That sacrifice will haunt the Democrats as the decay that was already happening will accelerate.

It’s the same cowardice that has plagued the Democrats for decades. Choosing appeasement for political convenience over and over, each time removing a section of their spines until there’s none of it left. Do not let fear control you.

While I don’t care what sex they are or color or whatever, a fuckload of garbage twats in this country sure as fuck do

This is my least favorite argument I keep seeing for why Biden shouldn’t drop out. The racist shit-heels you’re referring to were always going to vote for Trump regardless of who the Democratic candidate is. There is no reason for Democrats to try and appeal to racists, and even if there were it would be immoral to do so. Sacrificing your values to win is no true victory.

You’re losing your nerve, and while that’s understandable, it’s self-sabotage.

Kamala is going to be able to put a bullseye on Trump

I agree with you but this is an interesting choice of words given other recent events lol.

Hillary undermined his whole presidency.

Yes, the fact that Russia ran a coordinated disinformation campaign that favored Trump does undermine his legitimacy a bit, but let’s not miss the forest for the trees. The fact that Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 and lost the election entirely in 2020 is more significant.

Al Gore tried to use law to win election.

61,000 ballots were not counted by mistake. Gore used the law to try and have them counted and the conservative supreme court interfered for political reasons. Gore was in the right.

Conspiracy theory

The amount of evidence supporting this theory rivals the theory of gravity.