156
So much winning! 🫲🍊🫱
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2026
156 points (89.8% liked)
Political Memes
2635 readers
280 users here now
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
"Do you want to go to the pizza place or the burger restaurant, Timmy?"
"I don't want either! I want macaroni and cheese!"
"Macaroni and cheese is not an option, Timmy, now pick from what's available or I'm deciding for you."
"No! I'm not picking!"
"Okay, we're going to the pizza place then."
(1 hour later) "This pizza sucks! It's all the burger place's fault for not appealing to me hard enough by serving macaroni and cheese."
Like asking a group with a vegan if they want to go to a steakhouse or a seafood restaurant and then blaming the vegan for not picking the one you wanted.
Libs can't help constantly telling on themselves by trivializing genocide to a mere personal preference.
"Take this gun Timmy, now do you want to murder these 10 people or those 11 people?"
"But I don't want to murder anyone."
"Fine then. If you're going to be a child about this, I'll murder the 11 people myself."
Suddenly makes it a lot more clear that Timmy is the reasonable and sane one when you don't trivialize mass murder into dinner preferences. But then, that would require seeing Palestinians as human beings.
Seems to be unpopular but I respect those voting 3rd party.
I live in the UK, voted for the green party even though they are not going to win where I live. I know they won't, but perhaps in time more people will as they start to see the number become less insignificant. Maybe eventually it will grow to a point they have a chance.
Then I look around where I live and realise no, this is one of the areas dumb enough to vote for reform.
You're behaving as if Kamala would have fundamentally changed federal laws protecting free speech the way the Trump admin has. She wouldn't have, nor would she have enacted Project 2025 in the way the Trump admin has.
Bottom line: not voting for Kamala was shooting yourself in the foot if you actually give a shit about protesting against Israel.
You mean the same Kamala that proudly stood behind Biden when he was arresting people for their speech?
Or the same Harris that gave up the easiest elections the Democrats have ever had to keep the genocide going?
Or the same Harris that that said Trump was being to easy on Iran?
Crazy, are whataboutisms all you have to offer?
Quick question - would Kamala have pushed Project 2025? Yes or no.
Edit: My next question will be 'Would she have attacked free speech the same way Trump has?" You might as well answer that too.
Your the one that brought up Harris and pretended that she wasn't a horrible monster. I was just pointing out data that contradicts that. You can call it "whataboutism" if you like, but I find it telling that Democrats still refuse to acknowledge that their failings are why people like Trump keep getting elected.
No, of course not.
The post is about Harris you muppet.
That being said, thank you for acknowledging that it would have been easier to protest Israel under Harris. You've proven my point for me.
Ah, so when you bring up Harris, its relevent. But when I bring up Harris, it's whataboutism. Got it.
I never said any such thing. In fact, I seem to recall a bunch of people being arrested for protesting Israel while Biden was president, despite Project 2025 not being in effect. Isn't it weird how Liberals keep forgetting these things? I wonder why that is....
Are you high?
Go drink some water dude, look at the post again - you're just fucking wrong.
Your whataboutisms are centered on not addressing any of my points until I reminded you about them in a second comment. You're a joke of a human being.
lol, I find it telling when Libs can't actually address the points being made, and jump to unrelated, ad hominem attacks. In fact, it reminds me of the way a certain president discusses things when he knows he can't defend his point of view....
Why would I address your points when you responded to mine with whataboutism?
You're a fucking MAGAt lmao, blue or red
Or... it could possibly be that you don't have any data to back yourself up, so you have to resort to name-calling to make yourself feel significant.
As someone who thinks things like genocide, rape, and bombing kids is bad, I always get a kick when Libs and Conservatives call me MAGA, or BlueMAGA, when I point out that their party supports those things. Yet for some reason, they never seem to have data to show that I'm wrong.
ShitLibs having actual morals instead of just vibes challenge: impossible
Oh, you're talking about Palestine.
In that case, would you rather have a candidate that does nothing but pay lip service to your cause, or a candidate that actively donates your resources to destroy it?
Tough choice, I'm sure.
I do not feel bad about facetiously trivialising an argument about death and bloodshed into one about dinner in order to highlight the ridiculousness of the logic used.
Huh? Are we pretending that we live in a fantasy world where the Biden administration didn't bypass congress to send Israel more weapons? Because here in reality, both candidates objectively fell into the second category.
The logic only looks ridiculous if you trivialize the stakes. You can make any logic look "ridiculous" if you compare it to something completely different.
No, the logic looks ridiculous when you try to bOtH sIdEs the two parties. Newsflash, there is more going on in the world besides the Israel Palestine conflict. Do you think Harris would have ended USAid? What about the Iran war?
The funding cuts to USAid alone are estimated to have lead to ~5-10x more deaths than anything in Gaza. Where is your outrage about that? Stop your bullshit.
I don't agree with this oversimplified, utilitarian framework you're using. "Lesser Evilism" is a specific philosophical and political framework, and one that is very naive and unexamined.
If a party is willing to screw over Palestinians today, then who will they screw over tomorrow? Trans people? Immigrants? Will you apply the same "lesser evilist" logic as minority groups get dropped off, one-by-one? This is exactly how the ruling class divides and conquers, and so long as that's the state of things, no one's rights could ever be secure.
Standing up for the lives of Palestinians is not only about Palestinians, it is about solidarity. Solidarity is a strategic decision to establish that no one will be abandoned and sold out, that we will not abandon the little guy just for the sake of securing an election. It is only through a foundation of solidarity that we will be able to build a successful movement that's worth fighting for. To abandon Palestine would also mean abandoning those who are trying to build such a movement, causing it to fracture and strengthening the ruling class.
You can blame me for the ruling class's actions all you want. If the only means I have to stop something they're doing is to fracture the working class and side with a genocidiare, then I simply don't consider that an option that's available to me, and from my perspective, I don't have any means to stop it. Except by working towards a future where ordinary people can unite with solidarity and take power back.
Suppose I had a suitcase nuke, and I could stop Trump from cutting USAID by setting it off in the middle of DC. Suppose that, when it's all said and done, I'd have saved more lives than I'd taken. If I say that setting off a nuclear weapon in a city full of innocent people is simply not on the table for me, that I refuse to even consider it, does that make me a bad person, a reprehensible monster? Am I responsible for all the people who died from Trump's cuts, because I didn't kill a city full of innocents to stop it? Surely not. But then, if I refuse to support the destruction of Gaza in an effort to stop the cuts, how is that any different?
Lesser Evilism is a moral framework and a political strategy, but it is not sound or defensible when it's identified as such and examined. But it generally isn't, and is instead presented as "common sense" or "just rational." Really, it's just a vacuous rhetorical device used to justify tribalism.
There’s a stark difference in your example and the reality from November 2022. In that world the only realistic choice was between voting for Harris or Trump as president, and given those two choices, there was an absolutely objectively better choice. That is unless you have the mindset of “just tear it all down”, in which case, you reek of hypocrisy. All the harm you think Harris would have done, Trump has done and so so much more.
All that being said, I sure hope to %insert_deity_here% that Harris doesn’t run again in 2028, or if she does, she gets destroyed in the primaries.