I guess I'll die, metaphorically or physically
I guess I'll die, metaphorically or physically
Trump winning supports the genocide of every LGBTQ+ person in all of North America, be it directly or indirectly. No one wants what is happening in Gaza. But, I have to say the potential genocide (in the sense of complete erasure of culture as well as open murders with little to no consequences sense) here is even higher.
I have the unfortunate circumstance of being a trans woman in GA. I already have had to completely shut off most contact with people, both work and personal.
I’ve already had rocks thrown at me in an attempt to kill me (this was years ago, even). I already feel like I have to carry a gun. If things go the way they seem, I will even have to order in groceries because it will further empower the people that hate my existence.
The foreign policy is shit, no question. However, I don’t like the possibility of being raped and murdered by some asshole that thinks he understands Co² emissions after watching some video.
I have a lot to say here, especially as a very blue collar machinist. I will refrain, though.
In conclusion: by “avoiding” the genocide in Gaza (which would have in my opinion had a much higher chance of being resolved with Democratic policies), you have also doomed people like me to maybe live in fear for the rest of our lives.
You're viewing a single thread.
I feel for your very unfortunate situation, but maybe you should've demanded more from your party, instead of putting the blame on people who draw the line at genocide. If the choice is between the number of genocides, maybe we should take a step back and reflect a little because this doesn't stop anywhere. Next time there will be two, three...
Republicans can go as fascist as they want, but if the Democrats are drugged in this race to the right, they will lose. They endorsed the wall, they did nothing about the immigrants and they 100% backed a genocide no questions asked, ever, what difference is an immigrant or Arab supposed to see from this?
No matter how much you accuse the people who didn't vote, the truth of the matter is that nothing will change if you don't demand from your party to stand for some values. For now, they follow Trump moving to the right.
I don't understand why only one group of people can be blamed.
Trump voters, non voters, the democratic party, etc all have varying amounts of blood on their hands. Be it the blood of Gazaouites, queer folks, immigrants, or simply women.
Because the democrats didn't stand by any values that supposedly differentiated them from the republicans like I explained, but you don't seem to really care. You can put it on non-voters or third party voters all you want, the truth is that Netanyahu got anything he ever wanted and asked for by the US under Biden and Harris and not acknowledging this is part of the problem. Immigrants got the same treatment under them as well, which I also mention and you don't really care.
That's the issue with not having any red line, you will always play by the rules of the far right. And that will make you indistinguishable from them which will alienate the people who want change. They don't see an alternative to a very very dark situation. In good faith, you would very much understand why endorsing the wall, genocide Gaza and standing proudly by it, supporting Israel unwaveringly, not promoting any substantial progressive economic or ecological policies and in general why having an extreme neoliberal agenda would not compel people to vote for you.
It's not on the disappointed voters that you people can't understand what having a red line means. Consequentialism simply does not hold up when the difference are so miniscule and the evil is so big.
I'm really tired of going over this again and again, if you could feel a fraction of the pain the democrats and their oligarchs brought by committing the worst crime against humanity of the 21st century and how the millions of pleas for embargo went ignored this past year and a month, you wouldn't be asking this.
Truth is, no, I don't care. Liberals and progressives arent a viable coalition, the Democratic party is cooked
I think there's a slight misunderstanding. And a good part of it is on me.
First and foremost: democrats sucks. They suck so hard it's honestly mind boggling that the republicans manage to beat them to the punch.
My point is that in that instance of first past the post election they're the slightly less worst choice on a lot of issues, including Palestine (and yeah that previous slightly is doing a lot pf legwork). This is why one should vote for them. This is also why they need to be shamed and harassed into better stances.
I know it's a heart wrenching choice. I should have worded my previous comment differently in order to establish that non voters where on the very bottom rung of the blame ladder.
But the US is a reprensentative Republic with a fucked up version of first past the post winner takes all voting (which is already fucked up in its own right). There are absolutely no good choices in that election. Only slightly less bad ones and whatever one can get away with while still retaining a modicum of sleep.
There should be riots about the Democrats, riots about the republicans, riots about how fragile the entire American political system is, riots about the election system where your vote only matters in a few select states, and some more riots for an unending list of reasons.
I do care, even if I'm not a US citizen and live in one of the regions where I'm the most sheltered against American tomfoolery (western Europe).
I just think that voting democrats in this election was the least uneffective way to do harm reduction.
I'm not disagreeing on the facts. The democrats truly are the lesser evil and they truly are very evil. They did awful and Trump will do worse. There should be protests and everything.
All that is good. I don't know about you, you seem more open minded than the average user here, but most democrat supporters cannot understand the idea that someone can decide whether to vote and what to vote for with a different logic/philosophy - not with different facts.
Most of the time we judge things with a consequentialist mindset, it's the default for most people. It goes like this: what action out of all the possibilities produces the best results, positive or negative, it doesn't matter as long as one is above the other? I choose that. That's very standard but it has problems and there are a lot of philosophers who have criticised consequentialism/utilitarianism. One criticism is what time in the future are you assessing the consequences? It can be a year, it can be ten years. If Harris had won, would the LGBTQ rights be protected more? Yes, but would the democrats become more unhinged in Gaza, as they basically got away with a genocide? Also yes. Would that further move them to the right(because that's what the oligarchs who fund them want and since they met no resistance), adopting extreme far right policies, like endorsing the wall? So would they in the long term turn out worse and worse? Yes. Someone can argue therefore, that a crushing defeat can maybe help them move to the left even a little bit finally, which in the long term can be more beneficial.
Another criticism is that for a lot of people like I said there is a red line. That's following the deontological framework, where basically the means justify the end, the opposite of consequentialism where the end justifies the means. I'm not saying one framework is better than the other, I believe both have their merits and can be applied in different contexts. In this particular example where the democrats have done so absolutely horrific on all fronts but especially on Palestine, voting for them cannot be justified. They have crossed too many lines to be justified by the end. That end being miniscule differences, basically non existent on anything other than a handful of social issues.
It's ok if you disagree, I'm not going to tell you what to believe, the issue is not recognising the different perspective, which is just not going to lead you anywhere. I'm going to keep explaining this and you(or anyone in your place) will keep repeating the same consequentialist argument. It will not get you anywhere cause it's not a matter of misunderstanding or not realising the consequences, it's a matter of framework and a matter of ideology at the end of the day.
So, your argumentation is sound. The problem is that demonology is not a tennable position. Not quite sure where you got the idea that consequentialism is the default either, but thats an aside
I wasn't the first to ask the question, but I haven't heard an answer: If the genocide of Palestine is an acceptable price to pay to get a Democrat elected, then why wouldn't trans genocide also be an acceptable price because of the threat to cis women? The utilitarian ethical calculation still works just fine.
You could ask that question, but the answer doesnt matter politically. Women, cis and trans, are on the same side in that if the genocide of the latter is plausible, the former is already pretty hard done by. A worsening of one position necessarily accompanies the other. Gaza does not work like this. Republicans are obviously the worse choice there too. You can argue about red lines and such, but thats not how realpolitik works. We get two options, nothing more or less, zero alternatives. The consensus necessary to change this is not possible in the current political climate. Denying support to the lesser evil on the basis of said evil when their opponent will do that same evil but more is not logical.
Tangentially relatee, there are those who sacrifice trans women for the sake of cis women. We call them terfs, and they've largely backed rightwing parties
I think you are asking the wrong person, I'm the one saying the Palestinian genocide crosses the line. Although I don't 100% understand the logic behind this. What's the threat to cis women?
Although I'm suspecting the answer someone would give you is that it's because the trans genocide will happen to "us the US citizens" not some Arabs at the other side of the world we don't really care that much about.
Oh yes, sorry, I try to use Lemmy as a place for discussion, not an arena for rhetorical warfare. I had enough of that at the red site. So, I'm not challenging you, but building on your point.
Thanks for the Devil's Advocate explanation. That's what I suspect the two answer is, too.
Our party? Democrats are no more my party than Republicans are. They are objectively the better option for someone like me given the alternative, but in no way do they represent me. They are just another element of the capitalist corporate hegemony, and I'm just a consumer to them.