this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
346 points (99.4% liked)

196

16725 readers
2160 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
346
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by spujb@lemmy.cafe to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
 

The US primaries and the general election are two different things. Voting uncommitted in the primary expresses support for the Palestinian plight and does not give Republicans any ground.

The uncommitted movement presents a safe and effective avenue for voters to voice dissatisfaction with President Biden’s policies, particularly with the Israel-Hamas conflict. By doing so in the primary, voters can signal discontent without risking a Republican victory in the general election. The purpose is to send a wake-up call to the Biden administration that it is failing to address issues and effectively engage with the party, vis a vis that Biden is enabling a genocide.

That being said, anyone who calls for an uncommitted or third-party vote in the general election i will personally kick in the gender neutral balls (in Minecraft).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There's no such thing as a good state. All states gradually trend toward fascism, at varying rates. But this quote from "Anarchism and Its Aspirations" by Cindy Milstein really helped me parse situations like this, especially since it cites Palestine as an example:

If we understand this sense of negative and positive freedom, what appears as a contradictory stance within anarchism makes perfect sense. An anarchist might firmly believe that the Palestinian people deserve to be liberated from occupation, even if that means that they set up their own state. That same anarchist might also firmly believe that a Palestinian state, like all states, should be opposed in favor of nonstatist institutions. A complete sense of freedom would always include both the negative and positive senses—in this case, liberation from occupation and simultaneously the freedom to self-determine. Otherwise, as both actually existing Communist and liberal regimes have demonstrated, “freedom from” on its own will serve merely to enslave human potentiality, and at its most extreme, humans themselves; self-governance is denied in favor of a few governing over others. And “freedom to,” on its own, as capitalism has shown, will serve merely to promote egotistic individualism and pit each against each; self-determination trumps notions of collective good. Constantly working to bring both liberation and freedom to the table, within moments of resistance and reconstruction, is part of that same juggling act of approximating an increasingly differentiated yet more harmonious world.

[–] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

She is a treasure and that quote makes perfect sense to me. I loved her “Try Anarchism for Life” book.

I've got that on my reading list!