i can't even guess as to why they went quiet. not one guess at all. we will never know.
edit: well they're not quiet now once they get called out
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
You got Trump elected twice.
Good job, if that was the intent.
Your child analogy is sophistry trying to pin responsibility for the DNC's failures on others to preserve the paycheck of checks notebook oh yeah, the campaign manager of John Edwards failed primary campaign who then went to work for Clinton in 2016 and Harris in 2024.
You're carrying the water for people who continue to fail up and then fail using the same strategy that failed them before.
Good job.
But... I'm guessing you're not aware of the whole DNC consultant class that continues to drive failing campaigns that fail to get votes but succeed in getting billionaires contributions that get given to the consultant class so they can buy their next yacht. None of this is hidden either, it is public.
Which makes the irony of an ignorant person like you repeating the lines that fail to win votes but maintains the jobs of the people failing calling other people children.
EDIT: You're like a musk fanboi with a paid for blue checkmark. Difference is that the musk fanboi at least knows they're a fanboi.
You seem to have extrapolated quite a lot from such a brief comment. Is it possible you may have misstepped in some of your assumptions here?
Did you call the people pointing out the DNC was headed for disaster children, or were you calling the people who failed at their job children?
The children are the people vehemently demanding the DNC unilaterally employ their chosen platform, under the pretense that it would instantly solve their problems, and then subsequently abstaining out of protest. The political landscape is more complicated than that.
I've said elsewhere, elections are won on popularity, not policy. If the DNC unilaterally shifts to a pro-worker platform, all their wealthy donors shift to attack ads against them. Adopting more popular policies can ironically lose them votes as those policies get misrepresented to voters by propagandists.
Add to that the habit of progressives to abstain when a platform isn't perfectly catered to them, and you have an impossible situation where you're trying to court multiple conflicting demographics while the financial support you once had has been turned against you.
the children in this case being the people who don't support genocides? got it. and you wonder why harris lost the 'popularity' contest. jesus christ.
We play the hand we're dealt. Accelerated genocide + fascism is a worse outcome than performative resistance to genocide.
You were not dealt this hand, you chose it by not telling them 'no'. it is the most powerful word you have in your arsenal learn to use it. there is a reason utilitarianism is panned basically universally in ethics classes. Had you been willing to exercise it against the DNC you might not be in the very situation you find yourself in now.
How did that work out for all the people who said no? Now Trump will help Bibi annex the West Bank. I've taken Ethics, utilitarianism was absolutely not panned.
"Every ethics course pans utilitarianism"
"I took ethics and they gave very serious consideration to utilitarianism"
"Am I out of touch? No, it's the ethics professors who are wrong"
Do you hear yourself?
I said you had a bad professor if they didnt teach the basics of how utilitarianism leads people to justifying genocides as a moral positive. In fact id go so far as informing you that the failure of your professor to give you that understanding means they didnt teach it seriously.
I never said they shouldn't teach it or that it wasnt a philosophy to teach seriously. I said its a bad philosophy. And many professors of philosophy do teach it as such and include covering the massive moral and structural failings of the concept.
Do you hear yourself? Because you're arguing things I never stated.
Name one single ethical philosophy that can't lead to negative outcomes.
So deontology? An absolute trash philosophy, see the Paradox of Deontology. Lying is wrong, so you shouldn't lie to the axe murderer when they ask where your family is. Enabling genocide is wrong, so we should let the person who wants to accelerate that genocide and enable others get into a position to do so. Many more will suffer and die, but hey at least you can be smug about your virtues.
This is a childish philosophy for childish people. It says "Who cares about the consequences of my choices. All that matters is that I don't have to make any difficult choices when presented with an ethical dilemma. Who cares if the death tolls skyrocket." It disincentivizes action in the very situations that most desperately rely on ethical considerations.
If you make "the right choice" and more people directly suffer because of it, you didn't make the right choice. You made excuses.
Slapping labels on things are how we discuss ideas. If you can't describe your worldview, you can't support or defend it. That said, the consequentialist stance is less label-obsessed than you. It only cares about results, not the philosophical pathway you followed to get there
How is erecting an absolute rule in ethical behavior distinct from deontology? Your stance against utilitarianism logically extrapolates to all consequentialism, and all teleology at that. You've constructed a philosophy where the rule, Don't Support Genocide, is elevated over the consequences, genocide is accelerated and expanded.
More deaths is an explicitly negative result, so your ethical philosophy failed at the one thing it was supposed to do. Defend your virtues all you want while the suffering of those actually affected skyrockets. Childish excuses.
These are all variations on labels. They are either effective forms of information transfer, or they're ineffective. Effective information transfer requires that the recipient can accurately decode the meaning of the message. If your communication mode accomplished that, congratulations you've made a label by another name. If it did not, you have not communicated your message.
No one is saying genocide isn't wrong, that's a ridiculous straw man. What people are saying is there are two outcomes: everyone in group A dies, or everyone in group A and group B dies. Not supporting genocide doesn't end the genocide. This isn't even the trolley problem because everyone on the side track is also on the main track Harris losing saved no one, and now the additional deaths will start. The performative resistance will be replaced by unlimited support.
Why do you think all those extra deaths justify your virtue? Don't Support Genocide will exacerbate the very problem it was intended to solve. This is why absolutism is a childish ethical philosophy doomed to failure. Of course genocide is wrong in every circumstance, but your absolutism just enabled the exacerbation of genocide. I hope your ideological purity is worth the annexation of the West Bank, because that's your prize
Profoundly incorrect on all counts. I hope your principles drown out the screams, because those of us with brains and hearts will be screaming with them.