Because the former helped elect trump, thus having the opposite effect. The former created more genocide. I don’t like more genocide. I didn’t like the amount of genocide we had, but I wanted less. People decided that they wouldn’t vote for the same, so we ended up with more.
Comment on Too many non-working holidays in America.
LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 hours agoYou are really tieing yourself up in knots to justify why its fine for you to continue to support a woman who committed genocide.
Again, why is so much of your ire and criticism directed at people criticizing her and not Kamala herself? You realize that if she had stopped passionately endorsing genocide and had chosen to stand with the Palestinians then those same people would have voted for her? So in one case youre demanding that many people vote for someone committing genocide against their people, and in the other we are demanding that a political party stop committing genocide. Why, in this situation, is the focus of this vitriol you feel directed at the former and not the latter?
No one here has been talking about voting for Trump, least of all me.
No seriously I want to know why your beef is with people protesting genocide and not the people committing it. Explain it. Election is over, I’m not talking about this from the perspective of voting. Election was over an eternity ago at this point. Why are you presently spitting at Palestinian Americans who refused to vote for Kamala and not Kamala herself for participating in genocide against Palestinians?
Tja@programming.dev 17 hours ago
LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 hours ago
And, again, the election is over. We could have had a “no genocide” candidate if Kamala Harris had chosen to do so. So ill ask again, why are you spitting at Palestinian Americans for refusing to support someone participating in the ethnic cleansing of their people, instead of the woman who refused to commit to ending American participation in the Palestinian genocide? If she had done that, those people would have voted for her.
We’re talking about hypotheticals in either case. Your rage is fixated solely on people who wouldn’t vote for her because of her support for the Palestinian genocide, instead of at her for supporting it in the first place. It doesn’t make any sense. The end outcome wouldve been those people voting for her in either hypothetical scenario, so why are you so angry at them and not her when she had just as much of a say in this situation?
Tja@programming.dev 14 hours ago
I’m angry at those Palestinians voting to make the genocide worse. As I said, I would like less genocide, if that 8s not possible then the same amount. More genocide: bad.
LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 hours ago
Okay were going in circles but sure I will reiterate again, why not. Its incredible you can repeat it so many times and still not see how you’re just punching down on Palestinian Americans at this point for literally no reason but western spite towards an ethnic minority group.
-
The election is over. Your rage at them is based on a hypothetical alternate reality that does not and cannot exist.
-
An equally possible hypothetical alternate reality is one where Kamala denounced Israel for committing the Palestinian genocide and committed to ending American involvement in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
-
In that hypothetical reality the people who wouldn’t vote for her due to her support of genocide would have instead voted for her.
It is therefore ludicrous that your best possible solution to this situation is for the genocide to persist but for Palestinian Americans to vote for it to continue. Instead of Kamala changing her stance of enthusiastic support for genocide. Which she could’ve done at any time. And which would’ve gotten all those people to vote for her. Your rage should be directed at her placing support for Zionism over the defeat of a fascist candidate. It was more important to her that the Palestinian genocide continued than it was for Donald Trump to lose the election.
-
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 hours ago
So Kamala Harris, someone who was what is essentially a ceremonial position at the time, personally committed genocide?
Either you don’t understand how the government of this country functions, or you’re being disingenuous (or probably both).
LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 hours ago
Giving money and arms to a genocidal state, yes, i would define as participating in genocide. Much like I would say companies who manufactured weapons used in past genocides did commit acts of genocide, even if they are not personally pulling the trigger.
The extent to which her direct involvement happened is debatable. Ill agree it is somewhat ceremonial but it isnt entirely and theres no way over the course of a year she was never at any point involved in the politics surrounding the genocide in Gaza. Providing ideological support for genocide can also be argued to be participating in it. “Israel has a right to defend itself.” Is a simple statement made by a citizen, an endorsement of zionism and of genocide. On the scale of a powerful political figure (vp of the US is more powerful in terms of direct political power than the leaders of many nations) it is actively participating in genocide, or committing it. I don’t draw a major distinction between the Nazis who wrote Der Stürmer and the SS. They were both pieces of an industry of genocide. In the same way I would argue the administration of Joe Biden was a major component of the industry of Palestinian genocide.
You can argue the nuances of this, sure. She also outright stated her intention to support the genocide going forward. If she hadn’t already participated in genocide (doubtful) then unless you believe she had a secret hidden agenda of Palestinian liberation she would certainly have participated in it after being elected.