They have the ability to, but if they won’t, then we still end up with the same two choices. And if picking the other side won’t make them change their mind, then whatever they can do is irrelevant in a conversation about what will produce the best tangible outcome.
Then I suppose you simply must reject the world we live in right now.
Both sides are going to continue the genocide, we know that, it’s their stated positions. The most we can do with our votes in the current election is take a stance of harm reduction, since that’s the only choice available. Anything else won’t make a change to the system of oppression facing the Palestinians today.
There is no “harm reduction”. I do reject the parts and people of the world that revel in or even accept the wholesale slaughter of children. Bargaining with their lives is moral bankruptcy, and signifies a total lack of value. Let me ask you a question: can you imagine anything that would cause you to not vote for the democrats? If full throated support for genocide isn’t a bridge too far, I have to wonder if you have any absolute principles at all.
There most certainly is. If one side is worse than the other, voting for the one that does less harm reduces (but doesn’t eliminate or fix) the harm being done.
I’m not saying it’s a solution, it’s definitely a bandage on a bleeding wound, but a bandage is better than letting it bleed out.
can you imagine anything that would cause you to not vote for the democrats? If full throated support for genocide isn’t a bridge too far, I have to wonder if you have any absolute principles at all.
If the Democrats implemented policies that would cause greater overall harm than the Republicans, then I would vote the other direction, but that would imply a total switch in partisan policies. (for an example of some policies I support to give you a general idea of what I consider to be harm, I’m a socialist, utilitarian, I believe all lives have equal value, I’m pro-abortion, anti-fascist, I hope you get the gist.)
Voting for the greater evil never gives you a beneficial edge. Voting for nobody when the greater evil benefits from that won’t give you a higher likelihood of implementing positive policy in the future.
I absolutely don’t support the Democrat’s endorsement of a genocide, but acting as if they’re the only ones doing it is silly. Trump is very clearly even more genocidal, and would not only implement even worse policy with regard to the Palestinian people, but would also do numerous other genocidal acts here, and in other locations abroad.
Statistically speaking, the only thing that would give the genocide a higher likelihood of ending, when the only two possibilities in this election are Democrats or Republicans, is the Democrats, because they will likely do the least amount of genocide by comparison. If we want any hope of actually stopping the genocide, we first want the most sympathetic party to that idea in power.
But of course, if you don’t believe harm reduction as a concept even exists, then I wouldn’t expect this argument to convince you. It’s fine if you aren’t though. You’re absolutely entitled to your own opinion, however wrong I may think it to be.
It’s not that I don’t believe in harm reduction as a concept, I just think it is cynically misapplied to genocide. There is no reducing the harm of genocide. There is zero reason to think that the democrats won’t see it through to its conclusion.
Why doesn’t it apply to genocide? What’s the defining line?
Trump has not only supported the actions of the US in relation to Israel, but he’s very clearly heavily racist, an ethnostatist, and would like nothing more than to increase Israel’s power as a US ally by letting them genocide the Palestinian population completely regardless of any complaints by his constituents.
Genuinely, which side do you think is more likely to stop if pressured enough by the American people, or by international orgs? Trump, or Kamala? Because, at least personally, I doubt Trump would be more likely to stop it, let alone even just give it less support in general.
If we only have these two candidates to pick between, I’d rather go for the one that we at least have a chance of convincing to stop, rather than one that we know will likely just ignore the American people in favor of his own ideals.
But will they, that’s the question.
They have the ability to, but if they won’t, then we still end up with the same two choices. And if picking the other side won’t make them change their mind, then whatever they can do is irrelevant in a conversation about what will produce the best tangible outcome.
I reject and condemn any system that says I can only choose between two genocidal monsters. There is no redeeming value to be had.
Then I suppose you simply must reject the world we live in right now.
Both sides are going to continue the genocide, we know that, it’s their stated positions. The most we can do with our votes in the current election is take a stance of harm reduction, since that’s the only choice available. Anything else won’t make a change to the system of oppression facing the Palestinians today.
There is no “harm reduction”. I do reject the parts and people of the world that revel in or even accept the wholesale slaughter of children. Bargaining with their lives is moral bankruptcy, and signifies a total lack of value. Let me ask you a question: can you imagine anything that would cause you to not vote for the democrats? If full throated support for genocide isn’t a bridge too far, I have to wonder if you have any absolute principles at all.
There most certainly is. If one side is worse than the other, voting for the one that does less harm reduces (but doesn’t eliminate or fix) the harm being done.
I’m not saying it’s a solution, it’s definitely a bandage on a bleeding wound, but a bandage is better than letting it bleed out.
If the Democrats implemented policies that would cause greater overall harm than the Republicans, then I would vote the other direction, but that would imply a total switch in partisan policies. (for an example of some policies I support to give you a general idea of what I consider to be harm, I’m a socialist, utilitarian, I believe all lives have equal value, I’m pro-abortion, anti-fascist, I hope you get the gist.)
Voting for the greater evil never gives you a beneficial edge. Voting for nobody when the greater evil benefits from that won’t give you a higher likelihood of implementing positive policy in the future.
I absolutely don’t support the Democrat’s endorsement of a genocide, but acting as if they’re the only ones doing it is silly. Trump is very clearly even more genocidal, and would not only implement even worse policy with regard to the Palestinian people, but would also do numerous other genocidal acts here, and in other locations abroad.
Statistically speaking, the only thing that would give the genocide a higher likelihood of ending, when the only two possibilities in this election are Democrats or Republicans, is the Democrats, because they will likely do the least amount of genocide by comparison. If we want any hope of actually stopping the genocide, we first want the most sympathetic party to that idea in power.
But of course, if you don’t believe harm reduction as a concept even exists, then I wouldn’t expect this argument to convince you. It’s fine if you aren’t though. You’re absolutely entitled to your own opinion, however wrong I may think it to be.
It’s not that I don’t believe in harm reduction as a concept, I just think it is cynically misapplied to genocide. There is no reducing the harm of genocide. There is zero reason to think that the democrats won’t see it through to its conclusion.
Why doesn’t it apply to genocide? What’s the defining line?
Trump has not only supported the actions of the US in relation to Israel, but he’s very clearly heavily racist, an ethnostatist, and would like nothing more than to increase Israel’s power as a US ally by letting them genocide the Palestinian population completely regardless of any complaints by his constituents.
Genuinely, which side do you think is more likely to stop if pressured enough by the American people, or by international orgs? Trump, or Kamala? Because, at least personally, I doubt Trump would be more likely to stop it, let alone even just give it less support in general.
If we only have these two candidates to pick between, I’d rather go for the one that we at least have a chance of convincing to stop, rather than one that we know will likely just ignore the American people in favor of his own ideals.