“If you vote for either of the genocide candidates you are endorsing genocide, you are affirming it, you are enabling it,” she said. “Every vote for our campaign is a shot across the bow of the empire.”
Do you agree with that, meaning you agree you’ve endorsed, affirmed, and enabled genocide? Or do you reject it, meaning it’s okay to support genocide-enabling candidates as long as they align with your values the most, and you make sure to disclaim that you don’t agree 100 percent with everything they say?
Because it sounds like you voted for a candidate who is furious at the existing administration for “backpedaling from defense of Israel and stepping up pressure on its government to stop the war, claiming they’re concerned about the humanitarian disaster in Gaza.”
Just because I post an article doesn’t mean I endorse everything in it. That seems to be a big misunderstanding here on Lemmy.
I read a lot of political news—some I like, some I don’t. Since this is a political news community, I post links to articles from various sources. There’s no rule that says we have to agree with everything in the articles we share.
For example, if I post a Trump article from Newsweek, it doesn’t mean I support Trump, no matter how many people jump in claiming I do. It’s like a newspaper reporting that Trump is leading in a poll—that doesn’t mean they endorse him. It’s just the news.
This isn’t a “Pro-Harris only” community. There’s plenty of pro-Harris content already, so having some opposing views won’t hurt anyone. And, by the way, I don’t support Trump and don’t care if he wins or not, but I don’t think he has any real chance.
Yes, I voted for Rachele Fruit. And yes, I am aware that her view is different than some of the other candidates. Tho I don’t agree with her on every issue, I do agree with her on most.
My main interest is worker’s rights stuff, not Gaza war stuff. Again, this is different than most Lemmy’s. And that’s ok. This community supports diversity of political thought.
So she’s the candidate that most closely aligned with my views. Thanks! :)
This sentence fragment alone should get you banned from the platform, but for some reason you’re allowed to continue your election interference campaign with only a biweekly slap on the wrist.
I completely agree. For me, it’s a serious thing. My safety will definitely be impacted if Trump wins. I might go to prison or have my livelihood upended. But I’m not even the lowest on the pole. There are people who could die at the drop of a hat, or at the very least get kicked out of the country. There are whole nations whose fate is at stake. And, of course, making genuine progress on economic justice and real representation of the people is a key thing I would love to see, now or in the future. That’s why it’s irritating to see someone trying to undermine it under the guise of advancing it.
It’s pretty obvious that this whole “lol” “don’t care” “Gaza war stuff” pretense is just that. The guy clearly cares about the election, or he wouldn’t make such a full-time mission out of posting his flood of content. It’s only because he’s being backed into a corner where he has to justify it that he’s all of a sudden pretending that none of it means anything.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” -Jean-Paul Sartre
The technology and tactics have evolved since 1944. “Intimidate and disconcert,” in online spaces, has turned into “confuse and overwhelm.” But the strategy is the same. Truth is irrelevant, an obstacle to be ignored or attacked, until it becomes a casualty.
The guy clearly cares about the election, or he wouldn’t make such a full-time mission out of posting his flood of content
Completely agree. I’m sorry you’re one of the more vulnerable members of society… that sucks. Lemmy mods are letting us down here. Sure, this guy won’t redirect millions of votes but this is (pathetically) a tight race. This is supposed to be a left leaning platform, but mods aren’t acting like that is true.
Did you not just post an article which said:
Do you agree with that, meaning you agree you’ve endorsed, affirmed, and enabled genocide? Or do you reject it, meaning it’s okay to support genocide-enabling candidates as long as they align with your values the most, and you make sure to disclaim that you don’t agree 100 percent with everything they say?
Because it sounds like you voted for a candidate who is furious at the existing administration for “backpedaling from defense of Israel and stepping up pressure on its government to stop the war, claiming they’re concerned about the humanitarian disaster in Gaza.”
Just because I post an article doesn’t mean I endorse everything in it. That seems to be a big misunderstanding here on Lemmy.
I read a lot of political news—some I like, some I don’t. Since this is a political news community, I post links to articles from various sources. There’s no rule that says we have to agree with everything in the articles we share.
For example, if I post a Trump article from Newsweek, it doesn’t mean I support Trump, no matter how many people jump in claiming I do. It’s like a newspaper reporting that Trump is leading in a poll—that doesn’t mean they endorse him. It’s just the news.
This isn’t a “Pro-Harris only” community. There’s plenty of pro-Harris content already, so having some opposing views won’t hurt anyone. And, by the way, I don’t support Trump and don’t care if he wins or not, but I don’t think he has any real chance.
Yes, I voted for Rachele Fruit. And yes, I am aware that her view is different than some of the other candidates. Tho I don’t agree with her on every issue, I do agree with her on most.
My main interest is worker’s rights stuff, not Gaza war stuff. Again, this is different than most Lemmy’s. And that’s ok. This community supports diversity of political thought.
So she’s the candidate that most closely aligned with my views. Thanks! :)
Wow, could you be any more dismissive of the senseless deaths of innocent civilians? Workers rights don’t mean a thing when you’re dead.
This sentence fragment alone should get you banned from the platform, but for some reason you’re allowed to continue your election interference campaign with only a biweekly slap on the wrist.
I completely agree. For me, it’s a serious thing. My safety will definitely be impacted if Trump wins. I might go to prison or have my livelihood upended. But I’m not even the lowest on the pole. There are people who could die at the drop of a hat, or at the very least get kicked out of the country. There are whole nations whose fate is at stake. And, of course, making genuine progress on economic justice and real representation of the people is a key thing I would love to see, now or in the future. That’s why it’s irritating to see someone trying to undermine it under the guise of advancing it.
It’s pretty obvious that this whole “lol” “don’t care” “Gaza war stuff” pretense is just that. The guy clearly cares about the election, or he wouldn’t make such a full-time mission out of posting his flood of content. It’s only because he’s being backed into a corner where he has to justify it that he’s all of a sudden pretending that none of it means anything.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” -Jean-Paul Sartre
The technology and tactics have evolved since 1944. “Intimidate and disconcert,” in online spaces, has turned into “confuse and overwhelm.” But the strategy is the same. Truth is irrelevant, an obstacle to be ignored or attacked, until it becomes a casualty.
Completely agree. I’m sorry you’re one of the more vulnerable members of society… that sucks. Lemmy mods are letting us down here. Sure, this guy won’t redirect millions of votes but this is (pathetically) a tight race. This is supposed to be a left leaning platform, but mods aren’t acting like that is true.