this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2026
167 points (90.0% liked)
Political Memes
2652 readers
961 users here now
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Libs can't help constantly telling on themselves by trivializing genocide to a mere personal preference.
"Take this gun Timmy, now do you want to murder these 10 people or those 11 people?"
"But I don't want to murder anyone."
"Fine then. If you're going to be a child about this, I'll murder the 11 people myself."
Suddenly makes it a lot more clear that Timmy is the reasonable and sane one when you don't trivialize mass murder into dinner preferences. But then, that would require seeing Palestinians as human beings.
ShitLibs having actual morals instead of just vibes challenge: impossible
Seems to be unpopular but I respect those voting 3rd party.
I live in the UK, voted for the green party even though they are not going to win where I live. I know they won't, but perhaps in time more people will as they start to see the number become less insignificant. Maybe eventually it will grow to a point they have a chance.
Then I look around where I live and realise no, this is one of the areas dumb enough to vote for reform.
You're behaving as if Kamala would have fundamentally changed federal laws protecting free speech the way the Trump admin has. She wouldn't have, nor would she have enacted Project 2025 in the way the Trump admin has.
Bottom line: not voting for Kamala was shooting yourself in the foot if you actually give a shit about protesting against Israel.
You mean the same Kamala that proudly stood behind Biden when he was arresting people for their speech?
Or the same Harris that gave up the easiest elections the Democrats have ever had to keep the genocide going?
Or the same Harris that that said Trump was being to easy on Iran?
Crazy, are whataboutisms all you have to offer?
Quick question - would Kamala have pushed Project 2025? Yes or no.
Edit: My next question will be 'Would she have attacked free speech the same way Trump has?" You might as well answer that too.
Your the one that brought up Harris and pretended that she wasn't a horrible monster. I was just pointing out data that contradicts that. You can call it "whataboutism" if you like, but I find it telling that Democrats still refuse to acknowledge that their failings are why people like Trump keep getting elected.
No, of course not.
The post is about Harris you muppet.
That being said, thank you for acknowledging that it would have been easier to protest Israel under Harris. You've proven my point for me.
Ah, so when you bring up Harris, its relevent. But when I bring up Harris, it's whataboutism. Got it.
I never said any such thing. In fact, I seem to recall a bunch of people being arrested for protesting Israel while Biden was president, despite Project 2025 not being in effect. Isn't it weird how Liberals keep forgetting these things? I wonder why that is....
Are you high?
Go drink some water dude, look at the post again - you're just fucking wrong.
Your whataboutisms are centered on not addressing any of my points until I reminded you about them in a second comment. You're a joke of a human being.
lol, I find it telling when Libs can't actually address the points being made, and jump to unrelated, ad hominem attacks. In fact, it reminds me of the way a certain president discusses things when he knows he can't defend his point of view....
Why would I address your points when you responded to mine with whataboutism?
You're a fucking MAGAt lmao, blue or red
Or... it could possibly be that you don't have any data to back yourself up, so you have to resort to name-calling to make yourself feel significant.
As someone who thinks things like genocide, rape, and bombing kids is bad, I always get a kick when Libs and Conservatives call me MAGA, or BlueMAGA, when I point out that their party supports those things. Yet for some reason, they never seem to have data to show that I'm wrong.
Followed up by asking if she'd also have attacked first amendment rights which you conveniently ignored.
Yeah you're just like MAGA, you've got your tag. I wouldn't be surprised if you voted for Trump.
Oh, well let me clarify that: Yes, she would have. She proudly stood behind Biden when he did that.
Yes, I'm sure you believe that to be true. Actually reading what people write is hard, and I wouldn't expect you to be able to step up to that challenge.
Oh? Go ahead, provide the evidence.
I sure do love it when Libs ask me to do their homework for them, since they can't be bothered to pay attention. Pro-tip for the future: You can use things called "search engines" to find data that you don't know about. They are super helpful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tortuguita
https://whyy.org/articles/sunrise-movement-climate-activists-arrested-biden-wilmington/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/23/university-protests-arrests-yale-nyu-columbia
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4518740-father-of-marine-killed-in-afghanistan-arrested-for-shouting-at-biden/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_government_attacks_on_journalists_in_the_United_States#2021%E2%80%932024:_Joe_Biden's_presidency
Oh would you look at that, intellectual dishonesty.
First link, state police. Second link, state police - Biden also rejoined the Paris Agreement on his first day in office + signed the Inflation Reduction Act which invested hundreds of billions into clean energy initiatives. Third link, would ya look at that - Republicans called for Biden to send in the feds against protests; he didn't. Fourth link, this father of a killed marine was personally invited by conservative representative Brian Mast and happens to be the only instance involving feds that you linked. Because he broke federal law. Also this was instantly used by Brian Mast to garner support for his party, so congrats on outting yourself again.
As for the timeline of govt attacks on journalists, oh would ya look at that: state police, state police, state police, state police. Not a single mention of Biden sending in feds! In fact, Biden revoked Trump's executive order 13933 which Trump used to justify deploying feds to states during protests. He explicitly did not support calling in the National Guard or using federal forces to clear pro-Palestinian protests and left their policing up to, you guessed it, state police.
Try again, muppet - maybe this time you'll provide evidence that wasn't handpicked for you by conservatives.
Name policy, name direct action.
Yes. The same state that Biden supported, and incrased funds for.
So he signed a couple of bills that gave hundreds of billions to his friends. The same president that gave more oil drilling permits than Trump did. What a hero! But I fail to see what that has to do with what we are discussing.
You are correct. But he also violated the law, and surpressed their speech, and sent them to be tortured in prison when he could have helped them out. And Harris stood behind him the whole way.
Well, I guess if it's a Republican, then they don't deserve freedom of speech. We wouldn't want to let pesky things like "principles" to get in the way and make a genocidist and rapist feel bad for killing people.
Weird. If only there was some way that Biden could have prevented this. If only he could have like, ya know, not sent people to die. This is just a self-own on Biden's part.
You mean the one that Biden ran? Well, yeah, you are right. It is a police state. Who funded and supported that? Oh, right, Biden.
Well, I guess we better tell the people who were arrested, tortured, raped, assaulted and sent to prison while Biden cheered on and funded the police doing it that, since it wasn't the feds, Biden's support was really him fighting against them. If only the helpless President had any kind of power in these situtations.....
So because someone I disagree with pointed out factual information, that means I should discard that information? Now I think I see why you are so confused about all of this. I follow data and facts, no matter who presents them to me. I find reality a lot easier to parse that way.
I already did, but you refuse to look at it. I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader, if they choose to actually try this time.
Ah, so the president of the United states is actually meant to be an RTS tier hive mind who has full control all of his underlings. States don't exist, they're all arms of the fed and Biden is god of the verse.
You didn't name a single policy. You didn't name any action Biden took. You're trying to 'both sides' just in time for the election because you are the definition of a bad actor. You are intellectually dishonest and, despite having already conceded that Kamala wouldn't have damaged our democracy like Trump has, for some reason have chosen this hill to die on.
You're in good company with the other accelerationist troglodytes in the fediverse.
Edit: Many of whom masquerade as leftists while being on the right, much like you!
Nope. I never said or claimed that. But he has immense power to help out. Look at what Trump has done for his people. He's gotten the out of all kinds of problems, but Biden was too busy bombing kids to do that.
Yes I did. I listed a few actions Biden took. You should try reading them.
Well, I guess if accurately pointing out that both sides are doing similar things, then maybe the Democrats should prove me wrong. They had the opportunity, but never took the time.
A bad actor implies that I'm not genuine in my belief that genocidists, rapists, torturers and child-killers are bad. But I am genuine in that belief. I wish Liberals were as well.
You keep claiming intellectual dishonesty, but have yet to give any details or reasons why other than that you are't going to read the provided data.
She would have destroyed it a different way, just like Biden and Obama did. I think people having their lives ruined so that the rich and powerful can remain rich and powerful is bad, so yeah, I think it's an important hill. It's alway telling to me that Libs consider it no big deal when Democrats do that, or other horrific acts.
Wut? I'm not an accelerationist. I'm actually trying to stop these things from happening. You are the one supporting them. I'm not sure how wanting to stop something makes me an accelerationist.
You absolutely are an accelerationist, your messaging lead to Trump getting elected the second time.
But of course you'd argue otherwise, because secretly you love that Trump got elected twice.
No, the Democrats running terrible politicians, and terrible campains after a terrible president led to Trump getting elected. I supported more popular candidates, and more popular policies, all while telling Democrats that their position was going to cost them the election, and it did.
Why would I love that Trump got elected twice, he stands against everything I believe, which is why I warned the Democrats that was going to happen. But of course, keep making up things that other people believe with no actual evidence to support it, while ignoring the failings of your own party. It worked out so well the last election, that I'm sure it'll work out even better next time.
And of course that leads you to both sides-ing, because what other choice do you have?
Shut the fuck up you MAGAt puppet
Well, if the Democrats want to prove me wrong, and show that boths sides aren't evil, maybe they should quit bombing kids, supporting genocide, and try fixing the economy. I did have a choice to not point that out, you clearly chose to do that. How did it work out for the Democrats?
Oh, you're talking about Palestine.
In that case, would you rather have a candidate that does nothing but pay lip service to your cause, or a candidate that actively donates your resources to destroy it?
Tough choice, I'm sure.
I do not feel bad about facetiously trivialising an argument about death and bloodshed into one about dinner in order to highlight the ridiculousness of the logic used.
Huh? Are we pretending that we live in a fantasy world where the Biden administration didn't bypass congress to send Israel more weapons? Because here in reality, both candidates objectively fell into the second category.
The logic only looks ridiculous if you trivialize the stakes. You can make any logic look "ridiculous" if you compare it to something completely different.
No, the logic looks ridiculous when you try to bOtH sIdEs the two parties. Newsflash, there is more going on in the world besides the Israel Palestine conflict. Do you think Harris would have ended USAid? What about the Iran war?
The funding cuts to USAid alone are estimated to have lead to ~5-10x more deaths than anything in Gaza. Where is your outrage about that? Stop your bullshit.
I don't agree with this oversimplified, utilitarian framework you're using. "Lesser Evilism" is a specific philosophical and political framework, and one that is very naive and unexamined.
If a party is willing to screw over Palestinians today, then who will they screw over tomorrow? Trans people? Immigrants? Will you apply the same "lesser evilist" logic as minority groups get dropped off, one-by-one? This is exactly how the ruling class divides and conquers, and so long as that's the state of things, no one's rights could ever be secure.
Standing up for the lives of Palestinians is not only about Palestinians, it is about solidarity. Solidarity is a strategic decision to establish that no one will be abandoned and sold out, that we will not abandon the little guy just for the sake of securing an election. It is only through a foundation of solidarity that we will be able to build a successful movement that's worth fighting for. To abandon Palestine would also mean abandoning those who are trying to build such a movement, causing it to fracture and strengthening the ruling class.
You can blame me for the ruling class's actions all you want. If the only means I have to stop something they're doing is to fracture the working class and side with a genocidiare, then I simply don't consider that an option that's available to me, and from my perspective, I don't have any means to stop it. Except by working towards a future where ordinary people can unite with solidarity and take power back.
Suppose I had a suitcase nuke, and I could stop Trump from cutting USAID by setting it off in the middle of DC. Suppose that, when it's all said and done, I'd have saved more lives than I'd taken. If I say that setting off a nuclear weapon in a city full of innocent people is simply not on the table for me, that I refuse to even consider it, does that make me a bad person, a reprehensible monster? Am I responsible for all the people who died from Trump's cuts, because I didn't kill a city full of innocents to stop it? Surely not. But then, if I refuse to support the destruction of Gaza in an effort to stop the cuts, how is that any different?
Lesser Evilism is a moral framework and a political strategy, but it is not sound or defensible when it's identified as such and examined. But it generally isn't, and is instead presented as "common sense" or "just rational." Really, it's just a vacuous rhetorical device used to justify tribalism.
Thereâs a stark difference in your example and the reality from November 2022. In that world the only realistic choice was between voting for Harris or Trump as president, and given those two choices, there was an absolutely objectively better choice. That is unless you have the mindset of âjust tear it all downâ, in which case, you reek of hypocrisy. All the harm you think Harris would have done, Trump has done and so so much more.
All that being said, I sure hope to %insert_deity_here% that Harris doesnât run again in 2028, or if she does, she gets destroyed in the primaries.
That doesn't matter. Like I said, I do not believe in Lesser Evilism. Lesser Evilism tells us to betray our allies if we see an advantage and I don't believe that's a viable long-term strategy.
Neither part of that is accurate. There is nothing hypocritical in opposing the state and opposing the state doesn't necessarily mean "just tear it all down."
Policy is determined by the balance of power between classes. Who's in charge is a secondary concern. When FDR implemented the New Deal, that could only get past the political establishment in Congress (and was only something he considered doing, as he was also from the political establishment) because the economic crisis of the Depression had weakened them, and there was a fear of collective action, even revolution. That is why the New Deal policies continued regardless of which party was in power.
Conditions shifted after things like the AFL/CIO purging communists, which weakened the power of organized labor. At that point, the ruling class was able to start destroying them through anti-union and neoliberal policies, because they couldn't fight back. Although Reagan is the face of that, the shift began under Carter and would be upheld under Clinton. It was the material conditions and the relative strength and organization of the classes which determined both the bipartisan creation of the New Deal and the bipartisan destruction of it.
When The Black Panthers started giving free breakfasts to kids, the government did everything they could to stop it, destroying the food, spreading misinformation that it was poisoned, etc. But eventually they realized that as long as children were going hungry, it wasn't going to be possible to convince or propagandize families to keep them away from free food. So the government instead stopped the Panthers by implementing its own free breakfast program. Decades later, with the Panthers no longer around, the government's free breakfasts have disappeared. Once again, it's not a question of who held office and what they wanted, but of the relative power and organization of the classes.
None of those examples required "tearing it all down," although in some cases the threat of that existed. It would be naive to pin all one's hopes on some great revolution, but that doesn't mean that there's nothing to be gained from strengthening ourselves and shifting the balance of power, while working towards a future where that threat is a little less inconceivable.
I am not against supporting cooperative elements within the state, but that is always secondary to class conflict. I'm not going to allow my positions to be defined along the lines of electoral politics, unless doing so is not toxic to the non-electoral approach. Therefore, it's not just about who's the lesser evil, but about whether endorsing someone is going to disrupt efforts at building solidarity.
âI do not believe in lesser evilismâ and âThere is nothing hypocritical in opposing the state and opposing the stateâ donât reflect reality.
Stop dancing around with this idealistic theoretical scenario. Simple question: in November 2022, who did you support for the presidential election?
This isnât a thought experiment, or philosophical grandstanding. There were only 4 choices at that time, and all but one helped Trump.
You mean November 2024. I voted third party.
"Helped?" If I had been dead, or if I had never been born, Trump would have received the same number of votes. My vote in no way "helped" Trump. If not voting for Trump "helped" him, then my vote also "helped" Harris by the same logic.
You're assuming that my default state is voting Democrat, as if they are somehow entitled to my vote. That is simply not true.
Ultimately, you're just trying to assert Lesser Evilism in a roundabout way, by refusing to acknowledge or discuss it. You can't allow the discussion to examine it because you can't actually defend it under scrutiny. That's why you talk about "philosophical grandstanding."
Yes, 2024, my mistake. It does feel like so much longer than that.
As I suspected. Voting third party in the general election in November just helped Trump win. Hopefully that third party vote wasnât for Jill âRussian plantâ Stein.
Come the general election, if your default state wasnât voting for the Democrat, you helped the Republicans win. May as well not voted.
Primary for the most progressive candidate you want, but once the reality of the general election comes, thereâs only one clear choice.
Iâm done trying to reason with you here. Have a good day.
You never began trying to reason with me here but ok. You just asserted your position without backing it up in any way and completely ignoring my criticism.
Well, no, that's not true at all. Of course Harris being pro-genocide helped Trump win, but I don't expect that you'll be bringing that up anytime soon.
I love how Libs repeat things that are clearly unfounded, but also openly ignore acurate data when it paints their own party in a bad light.
Agreed. Anti-genocide was the only clear choice, but both Democrats and Republicans decided that the lives of people in other countries weren't worth worrying about, if they couldn't go back to brunch.
the only votes that helped trump win were votes for Trump
Jill Stein is not a Russian plant