this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024

314 points (82.0% liked)

Asklemmy

44149 readers

1091 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

314

Why are so many Pro-Palestine (I am pro-Palestine and anti-genocide) Americans refusing to vote for Harris due to her stance on Israel? (discuss.tchncs.de)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

647 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.

Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.

I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.

Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.

Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.

Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And who, of those who aren't mathematically precluded by the flawed system we are currently stuck with from having a chance at winning, can you vote for that isn't about to help Isreal with their genocide?

When you are offered two candidates and both support genocide, including one being an active part of the current one, you can say, "no, never again means never again" and work against both rather than pretending you now have to support genocide.

Trump is even more favorable towards that policy than Biden is, and while Harris isn't Biden, it seems hard to imagine she'd be much worse than current administration on that issue.

You should believe your lying eyes and see that Biden has gotten your consent for genocide, with Harris helping. The genocide has only ramped up as the election draws close.

There is not worse that can be done. It is full, unequivocal support for basically anything Israel wants for genocide including the weapons and supplies on which they depend to carry out this genocide. If anything, Dems are more effective at this kind of thing, as they secure European support and offer better stipulations to the Israelis around when to escalate and when to play it a little cooler.

Though your electoral logic is seld-defeating anyways. Your consent for the lesser evil keeps you politically anemic and unable to have solidarity with those who need it. You make yourself subservient.

One of the reasons to vote for Harris is because, despite all her administration would likely do there, having her in office would almost certainly result in fewer Palestinian deaths than Trump would.

This is a fantasy.

Suppose you have two buttons.

I am not interested in childish metaphors.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If you reject the lesser evil, and all options possible to you are evil, then you by inaction support the greater evil, which, by definition, makes you evil. "Working against both", when evil is inherit in all means by which you might do that work, is a fantasy you tell yourself to justify sabotaging efforts to limit the damage by practicing and encouraging what effective amounts to surrendering one of the few levers of power that you have any limited ability to pull.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I already addressed your lesser evilism logic. If you want to continue this conversation you will need to respond to what I say and not dither and repeat yourself.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

You live in a fantasy and sabotage real effort to limit damage in the real world. You are responsible because you can’t swallow your pride. How incredibly selfish of you.

[–] shadowfax13@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 months ago

“You are responsible because you can’t swallow your pride. How incredibly selfish of you.”

you guys need to be a bit subtle in the gaslighting effort. where was all this anger for her supporting innocent kids being burned alive. go shout at her rallies to stop being a genocidal two faced hack. else you all are trolls trivialising an ongoing genocide and enabling future ones.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The effort to limit damage in the real world like advocating for a genocider?

Also, please do your best to act in good faith and not make things up about people.

[+] pupbiru@aussie.zone -7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Right now, you have 2 real choices. Every other choice is an effort to change your future choices. You want to push the democrats more left, and so do most of their voters… However your choices right now to effect the genocide are to either vote for someone that’s supporting the genocide or someone who cheers on and suggests more genocide faster. By abstaining, you’re putting yourself in the middle of the choice, which is potentially a worse outcome for Palestinians than making an upsetting choice.

That is the reality of the situation. By refusing to make an unpalatable choice, you’re helping to make a far worse outcome reality.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago

Right now, you have 2 real choices. Every other choice is an effort to change your future choices.

Does one of those choices include voting for PSL? Because that's what I'm doing. Or is that not "real"? What if I write it in extra dark ink?

You want to push the democrats more left

Remember, I said no more fibbing. Were you never taught that lying was wrong?

and so do most of their voters…

Maybe that believe that in their hearts but they do the exact opposite of what they should be doing to achieve that all the time.

However your choices right now to effect the genocide are to either vote for someone that’s supporting the genocide or someone who cheers on and suggests more genocide faster.

Hmm PSL isn't doing either sorry buddy looks like I managed to reach through the ether and do something other than vote for genociders.

PS the candidate you are defending is currently an active part of the genocide.

By abstaining

Remember, no fibbing!

you’re putting yourself in the middle of the choice, which is potentially a worse outcome for Palestinians than making an upsetting choice.

Actually I am simply not voting for either genocidal candidate and spend my time doing meaningful work against it. And sometimes reminding liberals that they should not support genocide, since apparently they need to be told that.

That is the reality of the situation. By refusing to make an unpalatable choice, you’re helping to make a far worse outcome reality.

There is no worse outcome than genocide.

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago

Show me any examples of them limiting damage

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I am repeating myself because the notion that the least evil option available is the best one, that the lesser evil if you will is preferable to the more evil one, is axiomatic, that is, it's a basis one takes when constructing a moral framework, not a consequence of one that can be reasoned through. If you do not agree with someone's moral axioms, then there is simply nothing to debate, you and they are simply operating under mutually incompatible definitions for what is and is not the right thing to do. Restating that in a slightly different way is a way of testing if the axioms we are operating under are truly different, in which case further argument is pointless, or if we merely misunderstood eachother the first time around.

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Your problem is one of timeframes.

You might, though I personally don't think so, be right on a single election time frame.

They're definitely right on a timescale spanning multiple elections.

Right now, you are forced to vote for someone committing genocide because people kept choosing the lesser evil in previous general elections, and the party cheats in the primaries.

The situation you're in, right now, disproves your argument.