Its saying that the people who get angry at pro-palestinians for not voting how they wanted them to win a moral victory over that person but at the detriment of the palestinians we should be advocating for.

The linked video is solid and I recommend watching it. Essentially it's about how and why white liberals often forget the real material danger of the people they feel they are advocating for.

[–] sapphiria@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Basically, yeah. The example used in the video was about immigrant students potentially being doxxed by a conservative planning to give a speech at a university, with the "white moderates" being okay with this (not taking the "bluff") as a part of their strategy. The point being that "weaponizing or disregarding students of color is still racism."

The same kind of applies here. The commenter was using palestinians as a tool to attack the people they disagree with, completely disregarding the palestinians in the process.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 23 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Wait, what?

OK, help me understand your reasoning here.

People refuse to vote for Harris, because it would betray their principals to support the Dems when they refuse to call what's happening in Gaza a genocide (which it is).

They do this, despite knowing that this will help Trump win, who will actively encourage Israel's genocide, as opposed to the current Dem position of trying to (fairly ineffectively) somewhat temper it.

This is very much an example of what Ian is talking about in his video. (Typically) White progressive activists choosing their own principles over what will actually be most beneficial for the people they claim to be advocating for. The Dems are ultimately the better option for Palestinians, small though the difference may be.

But you seem to be arguing that actually the real villain here is some random commenter calling those people out for doing exactly that. And that said commentor is actually the one guilty of choosing principles over effective advocacy.

Do I have that right?

[–] sapphiria@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago

No, I'm not saying it's just one or the other. What you describe is another example of this.

What motivated me to make this though, is the sheer quantity of these types of comments, combined with the knowledge that many of those who were in that situation of not wanting to vote for Harris felt that way because they had family that were killed by the administration sending over weapons. I don't know about you, but if I had family that was gone as a result of this administration's actions, I'm not sure I'd be able to bring myself to vote for them. And the type of comment I used in the image strikes me as particularly insulting given that context. The existence of Palestinians is ignored while they are simultaneously being used as a tool in the discourse. And no good can possibly come from a comment like this, aside from the commenter temporarily feeling better about themselves.

And to reiterate, yes, white people disregarding the very real genocidal consequences of not voting is also an example. But a lot of that was blown out of proportion too. The lesser of two evils logic holds in swing states, sure. But in states guaranteed to vote one way or the other, a protest vote largely doesn't matter.

Hope that helped to clarify.

[+] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml -9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yes because we should have done EVERYTHING WE COULD TO PREVENT GENOCIDE AND WE DID NOT. We pretended it wasn't an issue that could be fought and let them be slaughtered. This country saw a genocide and said ah well, never the less and voted for the genocider. Voting the democrats into power never would have protected anyone. We could have prevented this genocide but too many people weren't willing to be uncomfortable for it.

So yes, they are saying that the people punching left over this issue are harming minorities and using them as a weapon to feel morally supperior. Because they are. The people who didn't vote or voted third party aren't because voting never would have changed a thing for these people (or any other minority longterm). The US will kill them regardless of which person was elected.

You need to get more radical, the right certainly is and you will be left behind. Find left leaning or leftist support networks you can trust and get a gun. This shit has been inevitable for a long time now and most of us have been too propagandized to see it. You cannot fight fascism through the ballot box, they will just fucking shoot you. The west has been far too comfortable for far too long and we have forgotten what our ruling class is willing to do to us.

[–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think you're confusing "Vote Harris" with "Vote Harris and do nothing else". Obviously voting for a slightly lesser genocider isn't sufficient, but she seems more open to changing than Trump which is worth something.

The Democratic party can occasionally be strong-armed into doing something less horrible, the Republican party would probably do the bad thing harder to spite you. I prefer the more malleable candidates for achieving my goals. That being said, there's no use yelling at people for not voting Harris, because what's done is done, and there's no lesson yelling will teach.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

We, the working class, should have voted for the anti-genocide candidate (there was one) and the fact that we didn't convince enough people that it is possible to elect them and to vote for them means we failed palestine. That is our failure.

We should have done better. Better was possible. We failed them.

But in the same way our government has failed us by not even having a non-genocide option that feels viable to most people. This is inherently democratic considering most people do not support genocide. You should be angry at the Democratic party most of all and you should be afraid because you now know that they are willing to abandon anyone they claim to protect. You should now know that their words are meaningless. If they are willing to slaughter these hundreds of thousands, what makes you thing they'll actually do anything to protect. Our rights are carrot they dangle in front of us and fascists are the stick they use to threaten us.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

you now know that they are willing to abandon anyone they claim to protect.

I don't think you feel irony here for anyone who is, say, LGBTQ, PoC, Ukranianian, Female or poor.

You should now know that their words are meaningless

Well... That could immediately be applied to anyone who helps get conservatives elected as well, wouldn't you say? Only to a much greater degree, since the people hurt are much more numerous.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I am not really abandoning anyone by not voting for her. Though I did, regardless, for my partners sake, not that it made any difference where I am but that's probably the only reason I felt comfortable doing it. I'm not abandoning anyone because democrats weren't going to save them. The moment the overton window shifted further right they'd abandon whatever group came next. They were already competing for who can be the most transphobic as far as I am concerned.

The fact that they never codified Roe v. Wade while they had a super majority should have been revealing enough for most people to realize they only value our rights so long as it they can be used as a tool to gain votes but alas

[–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 days ago

I already knew that party sucked, and our options in the election sucked. I've seen them move farther right to appeal to the mythical moderate rather than actually become something anyone would like to vote for. That does not change anything I said in the last reply.

My vote is not an endorsement, nor a signal that I trust them, it is merely one lever which I use tactically. Harris was the tactical vote.