My reply was the following:
“‘Kamala is the best fighting chance for the kids in Gaza’ when she is literally sending money and weapons to the people of Israel, de-funded UNRWA and said that her commitment to Israel is Iron Clad. Voting lesser evil is literally a cowards way to keep keeping the country right wing. Not voting for a genocidal maniac who is literally doing nothing to stop the genocide is not the best vote. And Harris has literally convicted black people on mass and wants to be tough on the border. The video that you sent is literally all full of lies and disinformation.
She is literally being endorsed by the war criminal Bush, plus 200+ Republics. If those people endorse you, you are no better than your opponent.”
cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/6049943
This is the part where they tell on themself about their true motive. The later part of the video is trying to dress it up in “my morals are actually better somehow because Kamala will be better on XYZ minority rights issue [that there is no evidence she will actually be better on],” such as mentioning trans rights when there’s an interview clip from just a couple of days ago where Kamala is asked her position on it and won’t even come out and just simply saying she supports trans people, instead talking around it about “what the law says” and “what doctors say.”
I also notice they love to do that thing where they present the opposition as emotional and them as logical. This seems to be a favorite tactic of disparaging “leftists”. Another common angle I see in that kind of ideological space is portraying “leftists” as immature; you can in part see this in stuff like how they’ve tried to say that people become more conservative as they get older. Their strawman opponent isn’t a black woman in her eighties talking about a long history of oppression because they know how bad that would make them look. Their strawman tends to be a high school or college-aged portrayal, of a person stumbling over their words, unable to properly articulate what they believe in, who is blindly led by emotion. One example of this practice is that Crowder guy who, IIRC, would literally go on college campuses and ask people questions, trying to gotcha them to make their ideology look silly.
They literally murder or imprison the most seasoned revolutionaries where they can get away with it and then say the younger people are irrational for learning from those revolutionaries.
I digress, but it’s a whole disgusting pattern, is the point. There is no respect given, no consideration that the person they’re trying to mock and undermine might have a point. Only talking down to them from the presumption that they are better than.
The entire video I’m sitting there thinking “the parody character is actually against genocide, and the heroic character is for genocide”. This matter is so clear-cut that they can’t even mock it successfully if their life depended on it.