Cost of Doing Business Rule : 196

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago

No, seriously. What was the benefit to Gaza in letting America fall to a fascist who cares even less about Gaza? They're not even gonna get lip service. Israeli politicians are already like 'what few restraints we had are now gone, let's do it once and for all.'

The situation over there wouldn't be much better, if y'all had stopped telling people not to vote against a fascist - but it would be better. Nevermind how much better we'd all be, over here, where you fucking live. This was a course of action with no material benefit to anyone you care about. How the fuck is it our fault, for pointing out that's what would happen?

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 42 points 1 day ago (3 children)

To the accelerationists the lives of the Palestinian people are the cost of doing business. Dirtying their hands by voting Democrat would inconvenience them by violating their moral compass. Even though Harris pledged to do everything in her power to end the war in Gaza. The magnitude and scope of an indefinite genocide were immaterial to accelerationists. By contributing to Harris' loss they achieved a moral victory over the progressives and socialists who are also anti-racist, but were willing to leverage power for the benefit of the Palestinian people.

Read this comment section and what the users arguing against democracy had to say. Then watch the video and see how the video is talking about their arguments and their refusal to leverage power for the benefit of others. Their arguments have to twist the video's words and hope you don't watch it.

In a democracy, voting is how we leverage power in elections. When we show up, we win. The accelerationists weren't willing to show up for Palestinians, who they professed to care about. They aren't going to show up for Palestinians, trans people, or anyone for elections in 2026 and 2028. A user argues, in this comment section, against utilizing elections.

Assuming we continue to have elections, please reject accelerationism. Things do not get better by making them worse. Things only get better by learning from our mistakes and using that knowledge to make things better.

[–] Grainne@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Kamala “I Won't Change Biden's Israel Policy” Harris pledged to do everything in her power did she?

Is that the same power Biden has, such as overriding congress to ship weapons to Israel? Or maybe it was rejecting Palestine voices at the DNC events?

Harris and the Dems were never going to reverse course on Palestine. They’d already taken their millions in J Street and AIPAC bribes, and their action and lack of advocacy has been clear since day 1.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Harris promised to do everything in her power to end the war in Gaza.

“This year has been difficult, given the scale of death and destruction in Gaza and given the civilian casualties and displacement in Lebanon, it is devastating. And as president, I will do everything in my power to end the war in Gaza, to bring home the hostages, end the suffering in Gaza, ensure Israel is secure, and ensure the Palestinian people can realise their right to dignity, freedom, security and self-determination,” Harris said to applause during a rally in East Lansing city of Michigan, home to 200,000 Arab Americans.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/4/harris-says-will-end-gaza-war-in-final-election-appeal-to-arab-americans

Harris was running for president, not Biden. All the information we had suggested that Harris' presidency would be vastly different than Trump's second term.

Yet Trump has repeatedly urged to Israel “finish the job” and destroy Hamas — but hasn’t said how.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-mideast-netanyahu-israel-gaza-iran-wars-2e37305522d19bdc34e956586cce99bd

[–] Grainne@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Harris also promised to do nothing differently than Biden.

she would not alter the Biden administration's policies on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Gaza war, stressing the need to secure a cease-fire/hostage release deal.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-08-30/ty-article/harris-tells-cnn-no-change-in-bidens-israel-policy-we-have-to-get-cease-fire-deal-done/00000191-a0fd-d172-abd9-eaff68f80001

Harris is so hopeless on the Gaza situation that she won’t even call it a genocide, but she will stress Israel’s security and rights to “defend itself”.

You’re only kidding yourself if you think she would have meaningfully been different to the people in Gaza from Trump, both are carte blanche levels of support of Israel.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It wasn't useful for Harris to call it a genocide, because it would have hurt her chances of getting elected. Even Bernie refers to it as a war, probably so he doesn't get censored by the Senate.

Harris called for a ceasefire multiple times. Here's a comment that said it best.

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

September - https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/harris-trump-presidential-debate-election-2024/card/harris-calls-for-ceasefire-in-gaza-while-trump-claims-she-hates-israel--isokhfqmy6EgRGrUOSuK

Despite your argument's attempt to conflate the two, it was evident from examining the evidence that Harris wanted a ceasefire and would be better than Trump on this issue. To end the genocide we need a president who wants it to end before all the Palestinians are dead.

[–] Grainne@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Saying you want a ceasefire while you keep arming and funding the side causing the violence is not better, it's the same thing but with a layer of PR on top that gullible fools believe.

To end the genocide, you need a president that doesn't support Israel.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 day ago

Biden wasn't running for president. Harris was and as VP she doesn't have the power to change the US' relationship with anyone.

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Even though Harris pledged to do everything in her power to end the war in Gaza

Source?

I'm asking sincerely.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago

Harris promised to do everything in her power to end the war in Gaza.

“This year has been difficult, given the scale of death and destruction in Gaza and given the civilian casualties and displacement in Lebanon, it is devastating. And as president, I will do everything in my power to end the war in Gaza, to bring home the hostages, end the suffering in Gaza, ensure Israel is secure, and ensure the Palestinian people can realise their right to dignity, freedom, security and self-determination,” Harris said to applause during a rally in East Lansing city of Michigan, home to 200,000 Arab Americans.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/4/harris-says-will-end-gaza-war-in-final-election-appeal-to-arab-americans

Trump wants Israel to finish the job.

Yet Trump has repeatedly urged to Israel “finish the job” and destroy Hamas — but hasn’t said how.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-mideast-netanyahu-israel-gaza-iran-wars-2e37305522d19bdc34e956586cce99bd

[–] sapphiria@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

sigh We shouldn't have to constantly bring up every possible angle, every possible nuance, just to avoid accusations like this. The accelerationists are for sure another example of this. I wrote a more detailed explanation in another comment.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Accelerationism is a self-defeating strategy that harms us all. Part of the bare minimum of doing the work between elections is calling out accelerationism's false promises. It takes little effort, but it's important to highlight the uselessness of this ideology. If we do not learn from all the failures of this election we will be doomed to repeat them in the future.

People are arguing against participating in elections to help minorities in this comment section. The video is in no small part about people refusing to leverage power to help minorities. This is not an issue of nuance. The arguments the video is referring to and the arguments in this comment section are a one to one match.

The meme misrepresents the video, which in facts calls out people for their inaction the same way the commenter in the meme is doing. It is in fact this meme that is attempting, unsuccessfully for another moral victory at the expense of the Palestinians. This meme does nothing to help the Palestinians, it is just seeking moral victory over those who would leverage power for the Palestinians.

The commenter's argument and the video's argument are the same argument. So the meme is arguing against the video's argument. edit: typos

[–] sapphiria@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm like 50% sure you're trolling me here. Was there something specific in the comment I referenced that didn't make sense? Or did you not read it?

There's no moral victory in what I posted. I'm trying to call attention to these useless attacks that disregard Palestinians.

And I only see one person mentioning not to participate in elections, unless somehow people I've blocked are allowed to comment or something?

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 day ago

I read your comments and watched the video. This isn't my first time watching this video.

I’m trying to call attention to these useless attacks that disregard Palestinians.

The attacks, your argument refers to, are against accelerationism. Not everyone is going to use that term, but it's clear based on the statement that is what they are referring to. Gaza was the single issue accelerationists focused on. The accelerationists and this meme are disregarding the Palestinians.

The commenter's message and the video's message are the same. We need to leverage power to help minorities. Arguing against that message is more accelerationism.

[–] Commiunism@beehaw.org 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It can also be reversed - there were some popular far-left YouTubers who were advocating for not voting or voting third party as a protest against Gaza genocide, yet things that mattered domestically like LGBT, women's rights weren't even considered or mentioned there. The cost of doing business, baby.

[–] sapphiria@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 day ago

Indeed - in retrospect, I probably should have illustrated both.

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 days ago

Hate to say that video has been on my mind pretty much constantly these last 6 or so months...

[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't get it.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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 1 day 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 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 1 day 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 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 1 day 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 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 1 day 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.