I think you are asking the wrong person, I'm the one saying the Palestinian genocide crosses the line. Although I don't 100% understand the logic behind this. What's the threat to cis women?
Although I'm suspecting the answer someone would give you is that it's because the trans genocide will happen to "us the US citizens" not some Arabs at the other side of the world we don't really care that much about.
I'm not disagreeing on the facts. The democrats truly are the lesser evil and they truly are very evil. They did awful and Trump will do worse. There should be protests and everything.
All that is good. I don't know about you, you seem more open minded than the average user here, but most democrat supporters cannot understand the idea that someone can decide whether to vote and what to vote for with a different logic/philosophy - not with different facts.
Most of the time we judge things with a consequentialist mindset, it's the default for most people. It goes like this: what action out of all the possibilities produces the best results, positive or negative, it doesn't matter as long as one is above the other? I choose that. That's very standard but it has problems and there are a lot of philosophers who have criticised consequentialism/utilitarianism. One criticism is what time in the future are you assessing the consequences? It can be a year, it can be ten years. If Harris had won, would the LGBTQ rights be protected more? Yes, but would the democrats become more unhinged in Gaza, as they basically got away with a genocide? Also yes. Would that further move them to the right(because that's what the oligarchs who fund them want and since they met no resistance), adopting extreme far right policies, like endorsing the wall? So would they in the long term turn out worse and worse? Yes. Someone can argue therefore, that a crushing defeat can maybe help them move to the left even a little bit finally, which in the long term can be more beneficial.
Another criticism is that for a lot of people like I said there is a red line. That's following the deontological framework, where basically the means justify the end, the opposite of consequentialism where the end justifies the means. I'm not saying one framework is better than the other, I believe both have their merits and can be applied in different contexts. In this particular example where the democrats have done so absolutely horrific on all fronts but especially on Palestine, voting for them cannot be justified. They have crossed too many lines to be justified by the end. That end being miniscule differences, basically non existent on anything other than a handful of social issues.
It's ok if you disagree, I'm not going to tell you what to believe, the issue is not recognising the different perspective, which is just not going to lead you anywhere. I'm going to keep explaining this and you(or anyone in your place) will keep repeating the same consequentialist argument. It will not get you anywhere cause it's not a matter of misunderstanding or not realising the consequences, it's a matter of framework and a matter of ideology at the end of the day.
Biden could be reasoned with then? That's what's implied here? 1 year and one month of genocide were not enough to reason with anyone in the democratic party. There was nothing Netanyahu asked for and didn't get, but somehow it wasn't bad enough for you people. There ya go
Because the democrats didn't stand by any values that supposedly differentiated them from the republicans like I explained, but you don't seem to really care. You can put it on non-voters or third party voters all you want, the truth is that Netanyahu got anything he ever wanted and asked for by the US under Biden and Harris and not acknowledging this is part of the problem. Immigrants got the same treatment under them as well, which I also mention and you don't really care.
That's the issue with not having any red line, you will always play by the rules of the far right. And that will make you indistinguishable from them which will alienate the people who want change. They don't see an alternative to a very very dark situation. In good faith, you would very much understand why endorsing the wall, genocide Gaza and standing proudly by it, supporting Israel unwaveringly, not promoting any substantial progressive economic or ecological policies and in general why having an extreme neoliberal agenda would not compel people to vote for you.
It's not on the disappointed voters that you people can't understand what having a red line means. Consequentialism simply does not hold up when the difference are so miniscule and the evil is so big.
I'm really tired of going over this again and again, if you could feel a fraction of the pain the democrats and their oligarchs brought by committing the worst crime against humanity of the 21st century and how the millions of pleas for embargo went ignored this past year and a month, you wouldn't be asking this.
I feel for your very unfortunate situation, but maybe you should've demanded more from your party, instead of putting the blame on people who draw the line at genocide. If the choice is between the number of genocides, maybe we should take a step back and reflect a little because this doesn't stop anywhere. Next time there will be two, three...
Republicans can go as fascist as they want, but if the Democrats are drugged in this race to the right, they will lose. They endorsed the wall, they did nothing about the immigrants and they 100% backed a genocide no questions asked, ever, what difference is an immigrant or Arab supposed to see from this?
No matter how much you accuse the people who didn't vote, the truth of the matter is that nothing will change if you don't demand from your party to stand for some values. For now, they follow Trump moving to the right.
A good start would be the books they are currently banning in Florida(and elsewhere) in your up until now "non fascist" country.
So you mean to tell me that when corporations, bigger, richer and more influential than entire governments and countries, are left unregulated to manufacture and advertise products designed by psychologists and behavioural scientists to capture as much of our attention as possible, our attention is captured and we can't spend time on beneficial hobbies? That's really unexpected..
All lives matter type shit. We live in a patriarchy, the least you can do is listen to those most affected, women. Don't expect compassion if you can't show it.
Exactly how I am sure poor white people have it bad in this system(and it needs to be addressed), yet those primarily affected by racism have to come to the spotlight, exactly this way men have problems(and need to be addressed), yet those primarily affected by the patriarchy have to come to the spotlight, women.
Conflating one social problem (patriarchy) with others (economic inequality and poverty for example) is harming the cause and it's disorienting, it's wrong. When we talk about the patriarchy, the discussion should not be diverted and those mostly affected are women, so we talk about women's problems and how they experience it. That goes for queer people's problems as well. It goes for any underprivileged/minority social group. That's it.
Silly and grudge are very interesting terms to describe an illegal embargo that brings millions in the brink of starvation and poverty.
My "attitude" in no way excuses the very offensive remarks on your part, but I guess that's what happens when you try to defend undefendable claims. You jump from claim to claim, when you are proven wrong, like how you edited out the part where you claim the European trend can be extrapolated to the entire world and you personally attack me with the excuse that I was taken aback by the ignorance on a straightforward Google search.
From what you remember (from where? That's a good question I guess no one will ever answer us apparently)that does not make up for the overall downwards trend of consumption and emissions. Ok let's deconstruct that quickly. Consumption has not been decreasing, it has been increasing, proven by the ever rising GDP, which measures exactly that, the total output of goods and services and considering the imports and exports are roughly equal for Europe and that material consumption is coupled to gdp, that's the consumption.
When I say that Europe has outsourced its heavy industry to third world countries, I wasn't talking just about "importing goods". I was talking about their entire production. And the fact that fossil fuel consumption is still ever growing in Europe as well as in the entire West, coupled to the GDP growth is proven in Hickel(2019) "Is green growth possible", where the domestic material consumption index is proven not to be accounting for the outsourced fossil fuels and materials consumed in third world countries to produce the goods imported, vital for Europe. The actual material footprint(which is the fossil fuel consumption and materials combined) is growing along with the GDP. And when you understand this, you realize it is all an illusion of accounting.
These are your two tragically false claims. For the third paragraph I don't have much to say besides that third world countries need to increase their GDP to be living comfortably since they are destitute and the first world countries need to degrow like we said. Scientists have been saying this for so many years. There is a space between planetary boundaries and the decent living conditions that all people can and should be living in. The west exceeds the planetary limits(per capita), the economic south is below decent living conditions. That's what degrowth preaches. It refers to the west, not the world in general.
Why would you assume I am talking about Europe which accounts for 1/10 of the global energy consumption and why would I be talking the continent that has mostly outsourced its heavy industry to third world countries? Why would you assume this?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy?time=2000..latest
Here's your source. Here's your total energy consumption. It couldn't have been that hard to look at our world in data right? How can you be so absolutely wrong about data in plain sight while being confident about it? Do you have an agenda?
Wasn't expecting this under a random unrelated post. A very welcome comment nonetheless.
Never forget that the exponential boom of renewable energy tech the last 20 years has entirely served as additional energy, not as replacement of fossil fuels.