Far left intellectualism

I mostly agree with you, especially point (1), but what are you talking about with "Hamas did genocide on Isreal last year"? They did a terror attack for sure, but that's not genocide. Wiping out significant percentage of a population because of their ethnicity or culture is genocide (see what Isreal is doing in Gaza) and it takes months to years.

Assuming it's a difference in scale argument, but it's hard to take the power dynamics out of the equation when rating "genocide".
Only one faction currently has the means to actually perform an extermination. I don't know if the "genocide of Israelis" sotuation would occur if the power dynamics were flipped, but that's getting to hypotheticals and ignoring other circumstances of their unlawful occupation of Palestinian lands.
- I don’t know if the “genocide of Israelis” sotuation would occur if the power dynamics were flipped
  "Death to the Jews" doesn't give you a clue?
  There's no good guys in this conflict except the civilians caught in the middle.
  
  Very disingenuous, Palestinians are fighting against Zionism, not Judaism, which are two very different things. Israel has always been the obstacle for peace, because it is a Settler Colonialist Ethnostate founded on, and ever continuing, ethnic cleansing.
  
  Hamas has already agreed to no longer govern the Gaza Strip, as long as Palestinians receive liberation and a unified government can take place.
  
  Hamas officials should be held accountable for all war crimes committed, same as all Israeli officials. That said, there are many parallels between the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and Gaza.
  In the Shadow of the Holocaust by Masha Gessen, the situation in Gaza is compared to the Warsaw Ghettos. The comparison was also made by a Palestinian poet who was later killed by an Israeli airstrike. Adi Callai, an Israeli, has also written on the parallels in his article The Gaza Ghetto Uprising and expanded upon in his corresponding video
  
  What the hell is so hard to understand about "Death to the Jews"? It's a pretty blunt statement. Doesn't need context or whatever red herrings you're throwing out.
  
  There are a few reasons. Most importantly, that kind of conflation of Judaism and Zionism needs to be called out, regardless of who says it. That includes any members of Hamas or any Israelis who conflate them, intentional or not.
  Secondly, trying to attribute a quote like that to an entire people, as an attempt to contextualize the Settler Colonialist violence of Israel towards Palestinians, is a terrible and disingenuous thing to do. It's attempting to imply that Palestinians are fighting back out of some inherent Antisemitism, which is completely untrue, instead of fighting back against ethnic cleansing for their livelyhood.
  Third, it's important to recognize where this conflation is coming from. Israel intentionally does this conflation to deflect any criticism as simply antisemitism, which comes at the expense of a rise of genuine antisemitism as they then point to the actions of Israel as representing all Jewish people. Which is obviously untrue. When the IDF destroys your house and kills your family, and then says it's in the name of all Jewish people, it becomes harder for those people to got their house destroyed to make that distinction between Judaism and Zionism. So it is equally important to condemn the conflation and understand the context behind it.
  The 1988 Charter, which is unreasonable for wanting Sharia Law and belief in the antisemitic conspiracy theory of the Elder Protocols of Zion, does not call for the extermination of all Jewish People. Which is what I'm guessing you are trying to reference.
  Hamas wants an end to Israel as an Apartheid State, not an extermination of all Israelis. Under Ahmed Yassin in the 1990's, truces were offered in exchange for Israeli to withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank to the 1967 borders. The 2017 Charter explicitly accepts a Two-State Solution of the 1967 Borders. Check Article 7 and 13 of the 1988 Charter to see yourself, compare it to Article 20 and 24-26 in the revised charter.
  
  Palestinians
  Fuck off with your conflation of Hamas and Palestinians. I specifically separated them into two groups.
  Hamas wants an end to Israel as an Apartheid State, not an extermination of all Israelis.
  I do not believe that and no reasonable person does. Any more than they believe Israel is acting purely in self defense. There are pleasant noises a government must make in the international political community no matter how horrific its true goals are.
  Make no mistake, if somehow magically Hamas came out on top, there would be a genocide happening in Israel right now.
Fact that they sucked ass at it doesn't change how that is 1,000,000% was what they intended to do.
Just because Israel has the momentum doesn't mean we should forget that Hamas, and I mean Hamas specifically not Palestine, because Palestinians actually despise Hamas and only have them in charge because they won an election over 20 years ago, wouldn't absolutely be doing exactly the same shit if the ball was in their court.
The victims are the civilians at the mercy of ideological men who will never see even a scrap of shrapnel if the war goes the way they envision it.

I think most third party voters just assume Dems want to earn their vote. They don't. They want to earn the vote of undecided people, and republicans that are still somewhat open to another side. It's the whole reason the Dems are as center-right as they are.

They won't see people voting third party and go "Oh my god, we need to get these further-left-than-us voters to agree with us!" They'll go, "We need to pull moderate voters in the swing states that actually dictate our elections over to our side, not only giving us a vote, but negating a vote for Trump too!"

History has proven this time and time again. When faced with a loss, the Dems will always look towards the center to gain voters. Because like it or not, the left wing is heavily outnumbered by moderates who are more focused on their own lives than the intricacies of world and domestic politics.
- That's just a bell curve. It's a normal distribution.
  In order to see the Dems move policy left, we need a ranked choice voting system of some type where you can actually vote for the candidate you want without throwing it away if they don't win.
- Not to mention that moderates can be counted on to actually get off their asses and vote most of the time.
  I swear I am convinced at this point that we won't see major progressive initiative in the democratic party until those of us that actually show up find our 20 closest friends and drag them by the hair to register and cast the ballot during the primaries, and then do it again in the general because by then they'll be saying their own guys are shitlibs or whatever excuse to not be accountable to the cause.

There's a lot you're saying that I agree with, but it's undeniable that sending weapons to Isreal is not solving this problem it's directly causing the problem. Biden is incredibly ineffective at solving this and is not holding any sort of red line for real. He needs to hold Isreal accountable for their actions. We have sent billions and billions of dollars of weapons to Isreal, and we likely aren't stopping anytime soon even if Kamala is elected. We need to hold their feet to the fire and show them this is unacceptable.

It doesn't matter. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict isn't even in the top 10 major threats to our country.
You can be unhappy about it, but this election is literally deciding whether the US will be a fascist, theocracic dictatorship.
- I agree with your stance, but it's a hell of a hard pill to swallow when both action and inaction directly support the continued financing of a genocide.
  Vote for the lesser evil now, but make up for it by holding them to account to the fullest of your ability once they're in.
  
  No politician is going to please everyone. All we can do is keep choosing the less bad option until there's finally a good option.
  Ranked choice voting would be nice, but for that to ever be an option we need the left to overpower the right.
  
  All we can do is keep choosing the less bad option
  That's absolutely not the case. For the Democrats to pull back towards the left, their viability as a choice for left-leaning voters needs to be threatened. It's too late for this election, so vote Dem, but in the medium term it means taking action to support a better third party that actually champions progressive and egalitarian governance and peaceful foreign policy, and also challenging the Democrats with protests and campaigns.
  Waiting did not get women the vote. Waiting did not achieve the victories of the Civil Rights movement. Waiting will not stop US proxy genocide in the Middle East.
  
  Not enough people will ever vote 3rd party to threaten the democrats. It's a nice thought, but the amount of people who actually care enough to make the switch is still going to be extremely low even with massive campaigning.
  Also, times are different; the government and population is vastly different than it was in the 20th century. And the threat of a 3rd party wasn't what made the change anyways.
  
  it’s a hell of a hard pill to swallow
  Welcome to being a functioning adult. Life sucks, and it sucks worse when you throw temper tantrums instead of pursuing harm reduction when you can.
  
  That's fair. I have very little patience for people who need to be handheld through making sane, rational decisions. That's a me problem. It would be more effective if I were more empathetic.
  
  your high horse is a mule
  
  "Donkey" was right there
  
  falling on my sword right now
  
  Oooo someone got the big mad
  
  You forgot to change alts.
There are extremists on both sides that would ve killing civilians with sticks and stones if they had no other means. Parties like Iran are sending one sided weapons to help them win. The US sending weapons to the other is not the only factor 'causing' this problem.
- You can't both sides a genocide, especially when one side clearly started it by settling the other one's territory, taking their land, and displacing hundreds of thousands of people, without their input. Hamas only popped up decades into Israel taking more and more territory, after many Palestine tried many other ways to fight back but failed.
  
  clearly started it by settling the other one's territory
  That's a very simplistic take on the history
  
  It's not simplistic, it's factual. It's more complicated than some people think, but way more simple than Zionists make it look, who try to I jegt artificial nuance to make people look away. And it's worked up until the internet has made it easier to see the genocide than ever before. I'd recommend looking into the British Mandate of Palestine, how a state was promised to Palestinians than reneged by the West to keep the Middle East in chaos, Herzl and the history of Jewish immigration to Israel (and alternative places they were considering like Africa), and the Nakba. Someone around here has a lot of good links, too. I'd also recommend looking into the US, Canadian, and Australian history to find out what settler colonialism is and see how it applies to Palestine.
  
  What would you say to the zionist jews that were already living in Palestine? Or to those in neighbouring states of the Ottoman empire that moved within those borders to find a place with less oppression? Did they 'colonize' their own country?
  What would you say to someone that survived a pogrom in Russia and migrated the remains of their family to a collectivist farm in an empty piece of desert, merely as survival because they had nowhere else to go?
  There's a lot of nuance to be found if you are willing to look a little deeper into it
  
  They weren't Zionist just because they were Jewish people. They integrated into Palestinian society, they did not ethnically cleanse the Territory like the early Zionists.
  
  There were jews already living there that wanted their muslim and christian neighbours replaced with jews, and there were jewish immigrants that were happy to build a kibbutz out in the desert and trade with their Arab neighbours.
  What of the jews that were ethnically cleansed out of their Arab and North African countries? Where should they have moved?
  
  a western colony
  Israel grew out of an existing jewish presence, and the first waves of immigrants came from Russia and Yemen, while under Ottoman control. Whoever told you it's a 'western colony' was lying to you
  where the money was
  Most arrived with nothing and worked long hours in collectivist communes
  The arabs never expelled anybody.
  You can find some nice sourced examples in here
  And again: where do you suggest they should have moved?
  
  There were a lot of different kibbutz types and many hired Arab workers. Some of the attacked kibbutzes last year even still had Arab workers from Gaza (not since though).
  Here's an interesting article (paywalled though) on the subject
  
  Well most of the jews that were living there in the 1880's will probably be dead by now, so it was mostly a hypothetical question of you travelling back in time and telling someone who was born in Palestine, from parents who were born in Palestine, that they were foreign settlers and had to leave
  
  Did Hamas put down their weapons after Oslo?
  Did Israel pull settlers out of Hebron?

Based

3 - Participating in and commenting on the voting mechanism is just one bit of the overall development of political, social and cultural history.

What seems to be "normal" or "acceptable" or "possible" to a given person/part of a population, is the outcome of discourse and maybe more important: concrete options.

Tangible options to participate in something solidary that's useful and provides meaningful participation, make left values and ideas soo much more credible and "in reach".

IMO these options and experiences can at the moment only really be created from below. Neither corporations nor the government (any time soon) will provide the people with democratic economic solitutions, neighboorhood solidarity, labor organization, collective housing, social movements etc.

You are so much more than voters. You can organize the practical and ideological negation of the BS you oppose so rightfully.

Be it a better third option or leftshifting the dems, anyway the whole voting part of history will become more fun that way, too.

What's insane is that the US is supporting a genocide and the fascist israel government and there's still people who have the guts to take government side. Shame on you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Israel_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war

1 - USA is already helping israel with "whatever it needs". The support of fascist israel government is already tripled up. There's a disaster already, kids are being murdered daily right now.

2 - Less than a click is needed, usa just have to say that they will stop sending money and weapons to israel if they don't stop and israel government will have to stop. Israel government is waging war because they have the back of USA.

If you don’t vote for Harris over a mess in the Middle East that we didn’t directly create

Learn your history.

I'm supporting Harris, but I think people miss the real argument for Trump on Israel. Honestly, a good case can be made that Trump has a better chance of pulling US away from Israel than Harris will. Historically, Republicans have actually stood up to Israel better than Democrats have. Reagan for instance wasn't afraid to use US military aid as leverage to rein in Israel.

But moreover, I think the core of the argument for why Trump might be better for Harris on Palestine is that fundamentally, it is extremely unlikely that Harris will do anything to rein in Netanyahu. She will likely continue Biden's policies and continue to give him carte blanche to do whatever he wants. Anything short of complete ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population of Gaza and the West Bank will see Kamala continue aid at current levels.

Trump will largely do the same. However, there is a small, but nonzero, chance that Trump will pull aid from Israel for simple self-serving reasons. At his core he is extremely doubtful of any kind of foreign aid. And at some point he might simply pull aid not because he supports the Palestinians, but because he's at his core an isolationist and doesn't want to give money to either side. From the press I've read, it seems that Israel would actually prefer Kamala to win. Why? Because while Trump might overall be better ideologically than Kamala, Kamala is at least more reliable. Trump is erratic and could just pull US aid entirely on a whim. From Israel's perspective, Kamala is expected to reliably deliver the current level of support regardless of Israel's actions. Trump is a wildcard. He might give more support, or he might just pull the US out of Israel entirely. He's is chaotic to his core.

Again, I'll be voting for Harris, but there is a very good argument that Israel would prefer Kamala over Trump. Yes, there's a chance that Trump would give them even higher levels of support - joining hand in hand in a ware against Iran, giving them full blessing to completely expel the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank, etc. But it's not like Trump at his core is some friend to the Jews. He's an old-school anti-Semite at heart, despite what he says. It's entirely possible that one day he just decides to pull all aid, simply because he's tired of the US paying for it. He is again, at his core, an isolationist, "America first" type. From Israel's perspective, Kamala represents a guaranteed steady supply of aid at current levels. Trump represents a gamble that could see a massive increase of support or a complete collapse of it, simply depending on how Trump's mood evolves. And really, Kamala is probably a better bet for them because of it.

I think that's a misreading of Trump, if it's even really possible to read him by statements alone.
Trump says a lot of things, but I am assuming he wants to be "hands off" in the sense of not interfering in Israel's affairs and preserving the status quo, rather than cutting Israel off from American support. Much of his voter base is staunchly pro-Israel, so it would harm his support if he were to break that core pillar of the Republican party so suddenly.
Looking at his actions during his previous presidency, he did demonstrate that he was a strong ally of Israel, going so far as to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to the contested capital of Jerusalem/Al Quds, which is something that had not been done before by any previous administration. Not like Biden made any moves to take the embassy out of Jerusalem either, but Trump effectively cemented US approval of Israel's expansionist practices by placing American affairs directly in the middle of it.
That's a LOT of "may" and "might". Nothing is off the table when it comes to Trump, sure, but I don't think this is a possibility worth considering.

Your abstain or 3rd party vote does nothing to "move the Dems to the left" when in reality you are removing them from power to give it to Trump

If there's enough of us that it could seriously endanger the elections for the Dems, their analysts likely know this already and have no choice but to consider concessions to try to regain some of those votes, therefore we do have power.

More likely, we just don't have enough to move the needle, and therefore all this hand wringing is a waste of breath.

Maybe next election people will realize we can't move the Dems left by unwaveringly voting for them every single election, we have to hold them to account. Otherwise this shitty cycle of choosing the "less bad option" every election because it's an emergency will not ever end. It is in the Dem's interest that it does not.

Any concessions to Leftists will cost far more moderate votes than it would buy Leftist votes. Leftists are NOTORIOUSLY fickle, and one of your leading voices this election is an obvious Russian plant who wouldn't accept any concessions under any circumstances.
- Pretty big assumption that "leftist" concessions would only appeal to self-identified leftists. Leftist policies happen to be massively popular. Ask any senior citizen if they want to give up their social security and medicare. Also, you'll notice that Harris had her biggest boost initially in polling when everyone was excited for the nominee to be NOT Biden. She has since continued to talk about how she's going to be Biden exactly, but less old, and her numbers have been steadily declining. It's clear that Biden's policies, (and not just his age) are important factors. People are eager for change - which almost always comes from challenging the status quo from the left.
  
  Leftist policies happen to be massively popular.
  Not when Democrats want to do them. Because people are stupid. Obamacare vs ACA.
  I do think you have a good point about Harris. "More of the same" is not a good strategy. She needs big, dramatic changes to capture people's interest.

You're not wrong. However, this holding-your-nose voting is exactly what the Righties that aren't team Trump are doing. So if everyone is holding their nose, maybe we fix that problem? And honestly, until it gets truly horrible, nothing will change. The world let Hitler do a lot of shit before intervening. Maybe we let Trump have his second term. He goes full dictator and things get bad. We get a productive civil war and finish what Sherman started. US comes out reformed.

I am not super concerned about a second Trump term. He can't even campaign without people taking pot shots at him. I think that problem will sort itself out within the first year.

So, you think that if Trump dies in office Vance won't be worse? Vance is younger and smarter and ready to do anything to stay in power.
- Nah, never said that. And if Trump is getting pot shots, you think Vance won't? The true check against the fascists is always violence. It is the only language they respect. I fully believe if they try their little coup, things will turn to shit real fast.
  
  Fascists have had their asses kicked in numerous elections.
  Also, you seem to think that there's going to be some magic number where the assassinations magically give us a good government. What's much, much more likely is that as soon as Trump dies all elections are cancelled and all MAGoos are deputized and Kyle Rittenhouse is the new Attorney General.
  
  Yeah, that does seem pretty likely. I also think civil war would become very likely after a stunt like that. Great movie idea actually. The ethnofascists decide that Trump being assassinated could actually galvanize a full white supremacy uprising. So they do it. Vance predictably circles the wagons and declares martial law. The confedernazis start lynching. And then all hell breaks loose.
  
  Life is not a fucking movie or video game. A lot of people would die. It would not be "like, totally awesome dude".
  
  Ignore the edgelord. That's what I should have done.
  
  Didn't say it would be awesome. It would really suck. Lots of people dead. Yep. But given the current status quo, lots of people are already dead. So is it the rate of death that bothers you?
  
  Yes! What kind of stupid question is that?? Making things worse is bad.
  
  It is a question that matters. Why is the current rate of death not already "worse"? We currently seem unable to halt it. It is already unbearable and horrible. And it won't stop after the election regardless of who wins. That sad truth is that those in power, those with money, simply don't care about it. It is already "worse." The president has less control over foreign aid than you believe.
  
  Why is the current rate of death not already “worse”?
  ....math?? 3 dead people is worse than 2 dead people, again I ask what kind of stupid question is that?
The plan is to dismantle democracy if Trump wins. They're putting up with him to gain full control. We don't get another chance after that.
- Hence the 2nd amendment and civil war. Unfortunately, you do get a second chance, but it will be ugly and costly.
  
  So you're voting for war and genocide. Got it
  
  Bro, voting for either of them won't stop the warring or the genociding. The US can't not be involved in some kind of armed conflict and also maintain the current hegemony. Just because we put a veneer of democracy on it, doesn't make it any better, in fact it makes it worse. Either the majority of the populace is cool with it (tyranny of the majority, yay democracy?) or the leaders do it without the consent of the governed and the populace doesn't immediately depose (tacit consent by virtue of not giving enough fucks to overcome the inertia, yay democracy?). Voting in a two party system is like picking between a shit sandwich and a diarrhea smoothie.
  I'm not voting at all actually. The whole system is too depressing to engage. Of all the games humans choose to play, we chose this one with all this misery and strife and assholes. Voting won't make any of it better. Two centuries in with industrial technology, and we can only seem to achieve some kind of bullshit metastability of two steps forward, one step back, for anything. History syndicates generationally with the same dumb things happening over and over. We are capable of so much more than this. We can imagine such wondrous things. Yet we are consumed by avarice, lust for power, tribalism, emotional thinking. Humanity doesn't deserve the gift of consciousness.
  
  That's an incredibly privileged take. Who's to say that you don't end up a victim under the genocide Trump and friends wish to enact upon the American population? Or your friends and family? Coworkers? Peers?
  Accelerationism is not the answer. It will not lead to anything except an unstable country filled with strife and infighting, and it certainly won't lead to any sort of social progress. Positive change happens slowly, you cannot force it through violence.
  
  I know your comment was removed (as funny as your random hostility was), but I'll still respond anyway: I'm Canadian, not American, you couldn't even figure that out from the instance I'm in? I don't think you're the one that should be calling anyone an idiot here.
  
  Positive change happens slowly, you cannot force it through violence.
  I'd argue a guillotine dramatically improved social progress, and for the time period, pretty quickly.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
- Hard to do that given suicide is criminalized in many places. So, uh, go vote so we can do what you want, I guess? It isn't enough to know the train wreck is coming, but I am forced to endure watching it unfold like a sneeze that never comes as the authoritarians do their best to defy entropy. The constant strife and tension is just not worth it. In fact, it is boring. Nothing lasts forever. Institutions should wither and die just like people. We pretend there is some kind of coherent narrative to the institutions when really they drunkenly stumble through time, reacting to the shit as it happens. Tenaciously gripping onto the current world order as if it is our peak is very disheartening. We should just let it go.
  
  suicide is criminalized in many places.
  Oh no! What are they gonna do, arrest your corpse? Like, I don't care, but that's just a silly statement.