Skip Navigation

You're viewing a single thread.

45 comments

  • Forgot to add Lemmy.world, doesn’t support genocide unless the democrats are doing it.

    • Bruh, the Israeli genocide was deeply unpopular on .world basically any time after November 2023, when it became increasingly apparent to normies that Israel wasn't doing anything vaguely resembling security operations.

      But "Trump will be worse on both that issue and literally every other one out there, so we have to rally around the only other viable candidate" was taken as support of genocide, instead of opposition to more genocide.

      • I mean I've seen way too many people either playing dumb or being dumb by saying that Biden wasn't the president of Israel and so there's nothing he could do. .world genocide apologia did not, and does not, end with "let's rally around the only other viable candidate". And don't get me started on the gloating over (so far imagined) Trump-caused Palestinian misery. I mean hell you can't open a news thread with Trump and Palestine in the headline without someone saying "leopards eating faces" and thinking it makes them smart.

        • I mean I’ve seen way too many people either playing dumb or being dumb by saying that Biden wasn’t the president of Israel and so there’s nothing he could do.

          Most often I saw that in response to "BIDEN could END THE GENOCIDE ANY TIME HE WANTED" style agitation.

          And don’t get me started on the gloating over (so far imagined) Trump-caused Palestinian misery.

          Oh, we're just imagining Trump openly declaring that he's going to back the total expulsion of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip. Cool. Anything else that I've been imagining? I'd like to've been imagining that past few months entirely, honestly.

          I mean hell you can’t open a news thread with Trump and Palestine in the headline without someone saying “leopards eating faces” and thinking it makes them smart.

          Considering the many people on here crowing about "I'm not voting Dem because of Israel genocide; this will really improve things!"

          Uh, there's a reason for that.

          • See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm tired of debating these things so I won't, but even if everything you said was true that doesn't excuse gloating and circlejerking over the miserable days that will surely come for Gazans any day now, and denying that the Democrats hold a lot of responsibility for enabling it is just... What? Team politics are one thing but this is ridiculous.

            Oh, we're just imagining Trump openly declaring that he's going to back the total expulsion of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip. Cool.

            As I said above I'm tired of debating this, so just call me when it actually happens.

            • See? This is exactly what I’m talking about. I’m tired of debating these things so I won’t, but even if everything you said was true that doesn’t excuse gloating and circlejerking over the miserable days that will surely come for Gazans any day now, and denying that the Democrats hold a lot of responsibility for enabling it is just… What? Team politics are one thing but this is ridiculous.

              Most people were not denying the Dems were responsible in the sense that they were on the side of the long-standing, disgustingly bipartisan support of Israel, but that the sudden and unilateral opposition desired by many talking about how important it was to 'vote against genocide' was not a realistic expectation.

              My favorite part was early on in the genocide, when the talking point du jour was "All I need is for the Dem presidential candidate to call for a ceasefire! Just that little thing, and then I could vote against fascism! But they will never do that!", and once Biden, and then Harris, began calling for a ceasefire, that was quietly dropped.

              As I said above I’m tired of debating this, so just call me when it actually happens.

              Big "Call me when LGBT folk are being rounded up into camps; until then, you're just fearmongering about Trump, lib!" energy

              • Most people were not denying the Dems were responsible in the sense that they were on the side of the long-standing, disgustingly bipartisan support of Israel, but that the sudden and unilateral opposition desired by many talking about how important it was to 'vote against genocide' was not a realistic expectation.

                Counterargument: Reagan. You probably already know what I'm referring to by that.

                Big "Call me when LGBT folk are being rounded up into camps; until then, you're just fearmongering about Trump, lib!" energy

                I mean one of these is more likely than the other. There are real reasons Trump won't be able to put into action his Gaza plan, but as I said I can't be assed to explain those anymore, so I'll just leave it at this: If Trump manages to put his moronic plan into action, I'll eat my words, but the misplaced schadenfreude can at least wait until it actually happens.

                • Counterargument: Reagan. You probably already know what I’m referring to by that.

                  I can make a lot of connections there, but I'm legit not sure which is the one you most want me to make.

                  • Reagan making a phone call to stop Israeli retaliation against Palestinian targets in Lebanon during a ceasefire (as an example of how much power the president supposedly has over Israel; my counter is that it's not even close to the situation at hand - Israel lost very little by respecting the ceasefire other than a chance for macho chest-pounding, and Reagan threatened them with nothing; the Palestinian genocide, on the other hand, is a long-standing goal that Israel is now disgustingly close to completing, having been given both the excuse and a leader, in Bibi, desperate to execute it in totality to avoid answering politically for his domestic crimes)
                  • The sharp increase in support for Israel under Reagan (as an example that policy can change, quickly, and in a bipartisan manner; my counter would be that moderate bipartisan support of Israel had been the standard for a decade at that point, the policy change is not as sharp as sometimes thought, even if it is also not as enduring and eternal as sometimes thought by others)
                  • Reagan supporting apartheid against public opinion and his own party (as an example of going 'against the grain' which a president can do; my counter would be that it is not a reasonable thing to expect to happen, not that it is impossible)
                  • Any number of the dogshit decisions made by Reagan that involved compromises with Dems that ultimately undermined Dem electability (as an example of why bipartisan policy is often a dogshit choice; my argument is not against that bipartisan policy often IS a dogshit choice, because bipartisan policy often is a dogshit choice, simply that changing dogshit policy, even just for one party, is difficult to do on a dime without overwhelming consensus, which we did not and even now, at this horrific point, still do not have)

                  There are real reasons Trump won’t be able to put into action his Gaza plan, but as I said I can’t be assed to explain those anymore, so I’ll just leave it at this: If Trump manages to put his moronic plan into action, I’ll eat my words, but the misplaced schadenfreude can at least wait until it actually happens.

                  People With Tasty Faces: "Government needs to stop trying to help genocide! I'm going to let this leopard get into government who is openly professing how much he wants to help genocide!"

                  Leopard-run Government: [tries to help genocide even harder]

                  Us: "We fucking told you so"

                  What we said would happen is happening. The consequences have yet to shake out fully, but they are almost certain to be something along the lines of "worse than what we pleaded, cajoled, coaxed, pressured, browbeat, and begged these people to vote for".

45 comments