I think it's a bookmark. There is a star on comments and posts now that acts as a favorite button, but maybe people haven't noticed it.
ToastedPlanet
I have seen no material evidence to this effect.
Here's a user's comment that listed three sources:
https://lemmy.world/comment/13069715
She’s taken a stance, multiple times. The left doesn’t want to hear it.
March - https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1234822836/kamala-harris-benny-gantz-gaza-cease-fire-israel-hamas
July - https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/25/harris-netanyahu-israel-cease-fire-00171315
If you're sitting on the October Surprise please share it. All the evidence we have suggests that Harris wants a ceasefire. While Trump wants a christo-fascist dictatorship and is content to watch Israel complete its genocide. The candidates have distinct positions despite your argument's attempt to conflate the two.
TLDR If you care about the Palestinians then vote for Harris because her being president is useful for reaching a ceasefire.
The other post about this topic got locked as I was typing a reply. I feel like my comment is relevant to this discussion so I would like to leave it here. I would think this reply, the original comment, and this post are tightly related and are all about the same thing.
One thing I’ve learned this election cycle is how few people have any knowledge of utilitarianism. Genocide is better than genocide+1. Not acting is a moral choice, and frequently a cowardly one.
There is utilitarianism the ethical philosophy and there is utility. Utilitarianism is still a form a moral reasoning as it subjectively elevates the maximization of happiness and well-being. And what constitutes happiness and well-being is not universal. Utility is a method of analysis used to determine how effectively a stated action advances a stated goal. Utility relies on empirical evidence, observation and math, and is goal agnostic.
For many people on Lemmy, their goals are probably roughly summarized by wanting to end Israel's genocide, Palestinian statehood, and general prosperity for the Palestinian people. Harris has stated multiple times that she wants a ceasefire. Trump has stated he thinks Israel needs to be allowed to finish what they started. Trump has also stated he's going to be a dictator on day one and that his followers are never going to have to vote again.
Moral reasoning that is consistent with our goals paralyzes us in this case. Voting for a candidate whose administration oversaw and contributed to a genocide of Palestinians is subjectively immoral. Voting for a candidate who is threatening to complete a genocide of Palestinians is subjectively immoral. Not voting or voting third party when the candidate threatening to complete a genocide of Palestinians is favored by the electoral college in a FPTP system is subjectively immoral. We can subjectively state one of these options to be the lesser evil, but we have no empirical way to measure evil. Thus in theory, there is no way to form a consensus with subjective moral reasoning alone.
For people whose goal is to support the Palestinian people, it is useful to elect Harris, because someone in power who wants a ceasefire is a useful step to actually getting a ceasefire. Where as Trump will allow Israel to complete it's genocide and end our democracy. This would allow Israel to continue it's genocide indefinitely without US citizens ever being able to influence US foreign policy again.
Everyone is prone to moral reasoning. It's intuitive and philosophers have been doing it since ancient times. In this case, there is a consensus around wanting to help the Palestinian people. But any given moral reasoning derived from our goal doesn't necessarily lead us to a course of action that can help them. With a clear goal in mind, utility provides a clear-cut and consistent answer in the form of voting for Harris. edit: typo
That went over my head for a second.
When it comes to Iran I think it's a case of Israel would if they could. But Iran is out of their reach.
It looks like the response was limited this time. That's not to say that there won't be a next time where they go overboard.
To be fair, Adventure Time is set a 1000 years after the apocalypse, so they've had a lot time to build.
Considering the number of accelerationists on lemmy, it's important to point out a distinction. What's improved this situation is the new knowledge that was gained not the fact that something bad happened to these people. These people could have learned this without having to experience it. And if they had experienced this but not understood the context behind that experience, they would have learned nothing.
If Republicans succeed in their christo-fascist dictatorship this election, a lot of us are going to learn a lot of lessons. But we won't necessarily be able to act on those lessons. And a lot of people will be dead or continue to be in information silos. So if we manage four more years of democracy we need to use that time to educate people. That's the only way this gets better.
Fuck me. I just came in from yard work. "I was touching grass." It's not any better.
100% I have no confidence in Israel's ability to comply with international law or humanitarian norms. As a jew, I am less safe because of Israel's genocide of the Palestinians. There is no interest in self-defense or defeating terrorists. Netanyahu wants to prolong the war to stay out of prison and to create a greater Israel. Israel attacking the UN troops has really ticked me off too.
To give an example of this, if someone wanted a peaceful nation state without violating privacy, but then accomplished peace through an invasive surveillance program they didn't actually accomplish their goal.
As long a person's goals aren't mutually exclusive like wanting to eat lots of ice cream and also never eating ice cream or violates physics like wanting more ice cream than there are atoms in the universe there is most likely a way to accomplish a person's goals. edit: typo