• aleph@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yeah, I get it. Liberals, amirite? But hear me out.

    As a politician you have to be pragmatic rather than idealistic. Support for Israel is pretty much baked into the US’s political system, to the point where calling out the genocide for what it is is a one-way ticket to isolation and losing your seat at the table. So as a ethical person you have two options: 1) take a principled stance and be forced out of mainstream politics or 2) tow the party line to the minimum extent possible and try to effect positive changes where you can.

    • loathesome dongeater@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      2 months ago

      First of all, what you are saying is that if you oppose genocide in earnest you will be forced out of the party and you are presenting this party, which has been genociding longer than your or my grandparents have lived, as conditionally acceptable, reformable and redeemable. To a normal person this sounds insane. What you want to say is that you don’t care if people get genocided oceans away. You don’t need to dress it up in west wing nonsense. That’s just confusing for everyone.

      Second, who is this politician you are talking about? It sounds you are talking about voting strategies but you say politician so you could be talking about Biden which is what I am gonna assume. Biden does not toe to the party line to the minimum extent possible. When you were a wee lad segregationist Uncle Joe was going on racist tirades in congress against bussing. He has supported every genocidal war that America has waged. He is also a hardcore Zionist. He wholeheartedly supports and enables the genocide of Palestinians.

      • aleph@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        32
        ·
        2 months ago

        but you say politician so you could be talking about Biden which is what I am gonna assume.

        Lolwut? No, I’m not talking about fucking Biden.

        I was thinking about AOC, who I think is generally a principled person.

        • LeniX@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          38
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          God, you are such a sucker… Every single time libs fall for this crying, weeping, bleeding-heart “oh, look at me, I’m a bartender, I’m a Latino, I care so much about immigrant cages! I’m not at all financed by two Zionist-connected companies”. Hook, line, sinker - rinse, repeat.

          It’s funny how the “cage” situation got worse during the Biden admin… And your precious AOC didn’t spurt out a word. Or when she went “oh, we gotta protect the Naz… I mean, democracy in Ukraine!”. Or when she went to support Palestinian Authority, the puppet entity that is currently supporting this genocide in Gaza.

          • loathesome dongeater@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            32
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s what American realism has been. Literal monsters like Zbig and Kissinger are labelled realist as if unfortunate realities forced their hands to commit mass murders.

            • darkcalling@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              2 months ago

              But Kissinger is too intellectual for these types. Let’s not forget, do we think our friend here thinks that the US made a mistake with Ukraine as a realist like Kissinger or Mearsheimer would and have argued? Does our friend here who supports real-politik oppose Biden’s arming of Ukraine and infringing on Russia as any sensible, rational realist would?

              Of course not. Even that label is not actually applicable to this person. They are an indoctrinated, cowardly person toeing the line and justifying everything. What they claim to hide behind does not represent their rationale or mode of thinking, it’s just something they’ve ducked behind on this occasion and would be the first in line to throw apples at Mearsheimer and other realists and call them Russian agents or useful idiots.

              • loathesome dongeater@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                2 months ago

                Realists magically become able to see reason once they leave positions of power and authority and start stealing a living at a think thank. The same realists are unrepentant mass murders when they are in positions to directly influence foreign policy.

              • aleph@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                32
                ·
                2 months ago

                A fascist is someone who believes in dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, strong regimentation of society and the economy, This often involves the centralization of authority under a single leader or party, the suppression of dissenting voices, and the promotion of aggressive and expansionist policies under a nationalistic ideology.

                Now write that down, all of you!

                • LeniX@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  31
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Lol “write it down”. Gotta love the smugness of clueless libs. You ignored the most important aspect of it all - the material interests that fuel all of it. Fascism, to put it short, is capitalism in crisis. It is when the liberal facade breaks and the ruling class - the capitalists - feel threatened, they find a strongman and put him in power. Then you see a true face of capitalism - a fascist one, where the state crushes workers’ rights, coerces everyone into wage slavery and extracts superprofits for the bourgeoisie. Your definition is plainly shallow because it does not address the material roots of the ideology.

                • bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  30
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  … forcible suppression of opposition. Got it.

                  So what is the Biden regime’s position on the campus protests against the genocide? Oh, he’s forcibly suppressing them, and he did the same for the movement to defund the police. Well, there you have it. Even by your definition, he is a fascist. You are supporting a fascist. Write that down, if you even care about that more than you care about being smug.

                • Lemmykoopa@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  22
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  If you’re interested in learning I could give you some links/literature (have you ever read communist political theory?). What you’ve just said is basically an Eli5 for nazi children. Absolute dumbassery

            • GlueBear [they/them] @lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              24
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              God you’re such a fucking loser, you’re replying with the most ancient meme to someone actually engaging you in good faith.

              Go back to Reddit, or log off boomer.

        • LeniX@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          You are not a realist, you are a manifestation of cuckoldry within the liberal framework. A person saying “but what can one really do” while ignoring the systemic issue at the root of it all - capitalism, and the fact that no system that allows this sort of atrocity (around the world, not just in Gaza currently) should be allowed to exist in the first place. But that requires one to understand that the system must be torn down with a revolution, something liberals will never say - it is their system, after all.

          • aleph@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            32
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Exactly! You’ve very eloquently supported my argument.

            The choice posed to the realist in government is to either 1) play along and try to do some good along the way or 2) quit and help overthrow the system.

        • GreatSquare@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          2 months ago

          Realist would be WEIGHING the negatives vs the positives. What positives outweigh funding genocide in Gaza?

    • amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      2 months ago

      If your goal is to reform a system of genocide supporters, that is itself idealistic. How can you think working with people who are fine with genocide to be “practical”? Somehow I doubt you have thought this point through. It sounds, like most of the language from liberals surrounding this election, like a regurgitation of past talking points without any regard for the blatant and documented intensity of circumstances. You’re telling others they are idealistic while stuck in a daydream where human society progresses on a linear path and if you just push the needle forward a little bit, it’ll stay further forward. This after Roe V Wade got overturned, which flies in the face of the argument that once a precedent is set, it will stay that way.

      When will you take political power seriously? You claim you are practical, but your only solution is to bow to power and plead with it.