So it's weird that you're calling me deeply dishonest.
Trying to cut out context is dishonest.
You want to believe that the IDF is held back by lack of personnel, but they're not. They are not being held back from anything they want to do. Putting US soldiers in Gaza does not add to their capacity to continue the genocide exactly as they wish.
Zionists keep trying to convince everyone that Trump would be worse on this, which is simply a way of refusing to accept the reality of just how bad it really is.
There is no context in which "more dead people is not a worse outcome" is a moral answer.
And the context in which you said that saving one life during the Holocaust didn't matter?
I'd say most people here would be absolutely willing to save a single person's life from genocide.
You're not understanding what I was saying (or you're continuing to try to intentionally misrepresent what I was saying).
Using your analogy, you're the one saying 6 million deaths is acceptable as long as it doesn't get to six million and one. You're trying to simultaneously say we need to accept mass slaughter to avoid mass slaughter, it's nonsense.
The "six million deaths" are happening in Gaza right now. They are actually suffering and dying, but you're telling us we should accept that since you're afraid of not being able to kick the political can down the road and kerp pretending everything can be fine.
It doesn't matter, I can't make you understand why rewarding the Democrats for genocidal fascist policy is a losing strategy when they're suppose to be the alternative to genocidal fascists. You either let yourself understand it or you don't.
No, what you said was that it doesn't matter if Palestinians are being genocided only by Israel, or simultaneously by Israel and The USA.
The latter results in significantly more civilian deaths in Palestine. To you, these lost lives don't matter, because genocide is apparently equally bad no matter how many people die...
Which is just to say that "genocide" in your worldview is just a buzzword you use to attack people with, and not an actual atrocity that ought to be opposed.
No, what you said was that it doesn’t matter if Palestinians are being genocided only by Israel, or simultaneously by Israel and The USA.
That's what you want me to be saying, not what I'm saying.
The latter results in significantly more civilian deaths in Palestine.
This statement keeps being repeated, but it's simply baseless. Nothing is holding Israel back, they are slaughtering and starving just as many people as they want, right now. And you are arguing for people to accept that.
That's what you want me to be saying, not what I'm saying.
No, it's what you've literally actually said. Gaslighting doesn't work when we have the things you've posted in writing.
Ok, you've got to be trolling.
I'm protesting the slaughter of Palestinians and saying it's unacceptable and that I'll never vote for anyone who is pro-genocide. You're arguing for me to accept it as inevitable that democrats continue supporting genocide. And somehow you think that translates into me holding your pro-genocide position. It's nonsensical.
You're desperate for other people to accept your justification for supporting what's going on in Gaza, you can't face how sick that is. You want to believe you're a moral person, but you're literally the cowardly towns folk who sees the plumes of smoke from the camps over your village and tells everyone who mentions it to shut up because "it could be worse."
Fuck. That. Zero tolerance on genocide.
Using your analogy, you’re the one saying 6 million deaths is acceptable
That is not what I am saying at all. If you're going to accuse me of intentionally misrepresenting what you're saying, don't do it to me.
You're deeply misguided.
This is exactly why Netanyahu is doing what he is doing. He wants Trump. He knows the US doesn't/can't lose an ally in the region and he forces the administrations hand, which makes them look bad to their supporters. Those supporters stop supporting... and then Trump gets elected.
Don't let Netanyahu play you. Don't fall into his trap. Vote in local elections for people opposed to the genocide. Reach out to them and express it is a huge, maybe the only, concern of yours. That is how you bring change.
Removing yourself from the conversation doesn't make the problem go away.
There are millions that just don't vote. Never have, never will. So their stance has no impact. It is worse to be willing to use that vote and then throw it away on a single issue that won't change, no matter the candidate (and honestly in this case one candidate there is a chance vs one where there is zero chance for Gaza and things get worse for Ukraine).
We've effectively been given the Trolley Problem and, instead of playing, you're choosing to walk away and whatever happens, happens, as long as you feel good.
It can be endorsing, yes. There's a reason so many democrats are not attending -- going to Netanyahu's speech lends him legitimacy and a greater perception of support.
World politics is about negotiation.
Stopping the genocide doesn't require negotiation, you withhold aid until they stop.
But as I keep saying, Harris will need to find way to signal that her meeting isn't in support of Netanyahu. If she goes in and is giving him hugs and holding his hand up in unity and that kind of bullshit, that's a really bad sign. It can go either way, I'm just stating that I won't support genocide just because it gets a fresh face on it, Harris needs to prove her commitment to holding Netanyahu to account in a real, material way.
Meeting with someone ≠ Endorsing them
World politics is about negotiation. I’d rather she tucked into the conflict and tried to improve the situation than ignoring it.
You're talking to someone who just told me that it wouldn't even make a difference if Trump marched U.S. troops into Gaza.
You're deeply dishonest.
And yet that's almost literally what you said.
https://lemmy.world/comment/11358062
So it's weird that you're calling me deeply dishonest.
Trying to cut out context is dishonest.
You want to believe that the IDF is held back by lack of personnel, but they're not. They are not being held back from anything they want to do. Putting US soldiers in Gaza does not add to their capacity to continue the genocide exactly as they wish.
Zionists keep trying to convince everyone that Trump would be worse on this, which is simply a way of refusing to accept the reality of just how bad it really is.
There is no context in which "more dead people is not a worse outcome" is a moral answer.
And the context in which you said that saving one life during the Holocaust didn't matter?
I'd say most people here would be absolutely willing to save a single person's life from genocide.
You're not understanding what I was saying (or you're continuing to try to intentionally misrepresent what I was saying).
Using your analogy, you're the one saying 6 million deaths is acceptable as long as it doesn't get to six million and one. You're trying to simultaneously say we need to accept mass slaughter to avoid mass slaughter, it's nonsense.
The "six million deaths" are happening in Gaza right now. They are actually suffering and dying, but you're telling us we should accept that since you're afraid of not being able to kick the political can down the road and kerp pretending everything can be fine.
It doesn't matter, I can't make you understand why rewarding the Democrats for genocidal fascist policy is a losing strategy when they're suppose to be the alternative to genocidal fascists. You either let yourself understand it or you don't.
No, what you said was that it doesn't matter if Palestinians are being genocided only by Israel, or simultaneously by Israel and The USA.
The latter results in significantly more civilian deaths in Palestine. To you, these lost lives don't matter, because genocide is apparently equally bad no matter how many people die...
Which is just to say that "genocide" in your worldview is just a buzzword you use to attack people with, and not an actual atrocity that ought to be opposed.
That's what you want me to be saying, not what I'm saying.
This statement keeps being repeated, but it's simply baseless. Nothing is holding Israel back, they are slaughtering and starving just as many people as they want, right now. And you are arguing for people to accept that.
No, it's what you've literally actually said. Gaslighting doesn't work when we have the things you've posted in writing.
Ok, you've got to be trolling.
I'm protesting the slaughter of Palestinians and saying it's unacceptable and that I'll never vote for anyone who is pro-genocide. You're arguing for me to accept it as inevitable that democrats continue supporting genocide. And somehow you think that translates into me holding your pro-genocide position. It's nonsensical.
You're desperate for other people to accept your justification for supporting what's going on in Gaza, you can't face how sick that is. You want to believe you're a moral person, but you're literally the cowardly towns folk who sees the plumes of smoke from the camps over your village and tells everyone who mentions it to shut up because "it could be worse."
Fuck. That. Zero tolerance on genocide.
That is not what I am saying at all. If you're going to accuse me of intentionally misrepresenting what you're saying, don't do it to me.
You're deeply misguided.
This is exactly why Netanyahu is doing what he is doing. He wants Trump. He knows the US doesn't/can't lose an ally in the region and he forces the administrations hand, which makes them look bad to their supporters. Those supporters stop supporting... and then Trump gets elected.
Don't let Netanyahu play you. Don't fall into his trap. Vote in local elections for people opposed to the genocide. Reach out to them and express it is a huge, maybe the only, concern of yours. That is how you bring change.
Removing yourself from the conversation doesn't make the problem go away.
There are millions that just don't vote. Never have, never will. So their stance has no impact. It is worse to be willing to use that vote and then throw it away on a single issue that won't change, no matter the candidate (and honestly in this case one candidate there is a chance vs one where there is zero chance for Gaza and things get worse for Ukraine).
We've effectively been given the Trolley Problem and, instead of playing, you're choosing to walk away and whatever happens, happens, as long as you feel good.
It can be endorsing, yes. There's a reason so many democrats are not attending -- going to Netanyahu's speech lends him legitimacy and a greater perception of support.
Stopping the genocide doesn't require negotiation, you withhold aid until they stop.
But as I keep saying, Harris will need to find way to signal that her meeting isn't in support of Netanyahu. If she goes in and is giving him hugs and holding his hand up in unity and that kind of bullshit, that's a really bad sign. It can go either way, I'm just stating that I won't support genocide just because it gets a fresh face on it, Harris needs to prove her commitment to holding Netanyahu to account in a real, material way.