I mostly agree. Fight with the tools you have but this now, as I told you back then, isnāt the tool youāre looking for. Sowing devision keeps us divided.
On this occasion the āno genocideā people happen to be right. Imagine an animal rights group that constantly and perpetually hate-posted about vegans.
Punching DOWN isnāt the correct tool. Punching UP might be.
But is it sowing division to point out that dividing the vote is, itself, divisive, and has very real and serious consequences?
Is it not divisive to encourage and normalize non-voting even when faced with literal Nazis running because of insufficient policy on the part of the only serious opposition candidate?
Imagine an animal rights group who campaigned against a ballot initiative to stop puppy farms - because it didnāt also stop factory farms, ultimately failing by a measly 1% of the vote? Would it not be realistic and reasonable for people in that animal rights group to be pissed that puppy farms were perpetuated, at no gain to any animals, because a section of the animal rights group wanted a more radical option - a legitimate desire, but one which led to actions which worsened the situation instead of helping it?
Not really. In this analogy I know this group exists and plan for, with, or around them. If vegans found an activist group that better aligned with their goals why would I be surprised or upset they went to that one?
None of this is surprising, or at least it shouldnāt be. We know how people actually behave.
Furthermore in this analogy the animal rights group isnāt campaigning to stop puppy farms, theyāre campaigning for puppy farms. Of course people that care about animal rights didnāt support them.
Not really. In this analogy I know this group exists and plan for, with, or around them. If vegans found an activist group that better aligned with their goals why would I be surprised or upset they went to that one?
If that activist group then campaigns against the āimperfectā initiative, sinking it by 1% point, why wouldnāt you be upset at them? āItās just politics, itās just their point of viewā isnāt a particularly left outlook, itāsā¦ well, very āmoderate suburban liberalā. Politics are often a matter of life and death - in the most literal sense. Being upset is pretty low on the totem poll for intensity-of-reaction with that in mind.
None of this is surprising, or at least it shouldnāt be. We know how people actually behave.
Not being surprised that some people are self-defeating and being upset that people are self-defeating and that other, ostensible allies are defending them for being self-defeating and encouraging them to continue being so are two different things.
Iām not surprised, for example, that bootlickers vote for Trump, or that there are millions of bootlickers in this fucking country. But I am upset about it. Iām not surprised that there are a significant minority of leftists who prefer purity politics to averting and reducing genocide. But I am upset - and I donāt think that normalizing it in the communities I frequent is something that I should stand by and be quiet about.
Further more in this analogy the animal rights group isnāt campaigning to stop puppy farms, theyāre campaigning for puppy farms. Of course people that care about animal rights didnāt support them.
Campaigning for regulation of puppy farms, letās say, since the Dems were quite clearly not anti-Israel, but had clearly shifted to a less pro-Israel position, especially after Biden dropped out.
In that view - when faced between making puppy farms less horrific or letting them continue as usual - or even making them worse - why should I not be upset that an ostensibly anti animal suffering group opted to let suffering continue or intensify instead of stopping it out of some bizarre sense of purity.
Why would you, a hypothetical animal rights activist, blame vegans and not the animal rights group for being shit.
āItās just politicsā is literally the argument of vote blue no matter who:thatās just what you have to do in politics. Sure theyāre imperfect, technically true but not how Iād describe someone pro genocide, but you gotta vote for them.
āDonāt look at me, Iām pure, I voted democrat in the generalā Purity politics is a meaningless term, vegans arenāt purity politicking (politicing sp?)any more or less than you are, they have a moral outlook and they act on it same as you. Voting republican is abhorrent, voting dem is self defeating (I hope we agree voting pro-genocide is self defeating to an anti-genocise outlook) so whatās a sucker left to do? Not vote, vote something else, bring out the guillotinesā¦ Itās all a bit shit, and to get angry at them for it is ludicrous.
Dem leadership made the vote what it was. Dem leadership ignored how people actually play the āultimatum gameā. Dem leadership is who you should be hate posting about.
I, an omnivore, donāt get annoyed at vegans posting about how cruel the meat industry is, because theyāre right. I do get annoyed at how cruel the meat industry is as Iām supporting them though. I punch up at those in power, not down.
Why would you, a hypothetical animal rights activist, blame vegans and not the animal rights group for being shit.
Why would I not blame both? The animal rights group for not putting forward a radical enough solution, and the vegans in question for perpetuating animal suffering out of some bizarre sense of spiritualist purity.
āItās just politicsā is literally the argument of vote blue no matter who:thatās just what you have to do in politics. Sure theyāre imperfect, technically true but not how Iād describe someone pro genocide, but you gotta vote for them.
No, the argument of āVote Blue no matter whoā is that the Republicans have degenerated into an openly fascist party and it is necessary to oppose them for the health and safety of minority groups.
If your choice is a shit sandwich or getting your head pulped by a steamroller, choose the sandwich.
āDonāt look at me, Iām pure, I voted democrat in the generalā
Fuck man, where do you get that idea? Iāve openly stated before that by voting for Harris, the burden of accepting insufficient opposition to Palestinian genocide, at minimum, is on my soul. The issue is that had I chose to NOT vote for Harris, the burden of accepting indifference to the intensification of the Palestinian genocide would have been on me.
Iām not pure. I made the least-bad decision. Itās all we fucking can do in this life.
ā Purity politics is a meaningless term, vegans arenāt purity politicking (politicing sp?)any more or less than you are, they have a moral outlook and they act on it same as you.
Bruh, purity politics is a term which means preferring a deonotological or virtue ethics approach to voting over a utilitarian one - ie saying that some internal sense of values is preferable to the actual lives of human beings in voting, an action which is, itself, a strategic choice, not a fucking love letter.
You can say āThey just morally disagree with you!ā and thatās true in a sense - but Trump voters also just āmorally disagree with meā, and Iām no less pissed at them for that.
. Voting republican is abhorrent, voting dem is self defeating (I hope we agree voting pro-genocide is self defeating to an anti-genocise outlook) so whatās a sucker left to do? Not vote, vote something else, bring out the guillotinesā¦
Vote Dem, then work on bringing out the guillotines. Thatās what Harm Reduction means.
Voting Dem takes, at most, two days a year, depending on how often you have municipal elections. You have 363 days a year for other organizing - and if you live in a state with unfucked polling places, or even better, mail-in ballots, it doesnāt even take a whole day.
āStop the immediately promised genocide and the worsening of literally every issue I give a shit about AND damaging leftist organizingā is worth two days a year, I think.
Itās all a bit shit, and to get angry at them for it is ludicrous.
Itās all a bit shit. Every option we have in life is a bit shit. Even if the leftists got their way, even if this was a left country (God, if only), we would STILL be dealing with shit options, and we would STILL be obligated to work towards the LESS shit of them. And getting angry at people who voted - or sat on their asses - for fascists to send me to a death camp is a pretty mild reaction, all things considered.
Dem leadership made the vote what it was. Dem leadership ignored how people actually play the āultimatum gameā. Dem leadership is who you should be hate posting about.
Bruh, everyone on Lemmy already fucking hates the DNC. Except for the kicks Iād get out of photoshopping Pelosiās head into a guillotine, it wouldnāt do much. Reminding people that the less vile option is mandatory when going up against literal Nazis has a chance of shifting or maintaining the narrative, currently contentious, that purity-politics voting is not kosher.
I, an omnivore, donāt get annoyed at vegans posting about how cruel the meat industry is, because theyāre right. I do get annoyed at how cruel the meat industry is as Iām supporting them though. I punch up at those in power, not down.
But what if vegans posting about how cruel the meat industry is campaigned against, and ultimately sank by a measly 1% of the vote, your initiative to reduce the cruelty of the meat industry?
Would that not be a reason to be upset? They had a chance to reduce suffering, and they chose to sink it - not for some alternative, but just because it was not pure enough. Why would that be good or acceptable to you? Would you not be upset that more animals would suffer needlessly and pointlessly for this? If you would not be upset, how much do you really care about the issue to begin with?
No, the argument of āVote Blue no matter whoā is that the Republicans have degenerated into an openly fascist party and it is necessary to oppose them for the health and safety of minority groups.
Why do you have to specifically vote Blue though? Is it just politics that it has to be blue. Thatās the political landscape.
You absolutely used your moral judgement and made the best possible choice you could. I donāt disagree, I see how you saw it as the best possible choice. The situation was shit, you did the best you could to at least not support it getting worse.
Can you not see why someone would see not voting for genocide as the best possible choice they could make? Not that you agree with them, you donāt, I get that. But for them, with their moral outlook the situation was shit and they did the best they could to at least not support it getting worse.
The meat industry is inherently cruel. Again, why would I be annoyed that I said I am an animal cruelty activist and someone pointed out I support an industry thatās inherently cruel.
I could see it sparking a cognitive dissonance ābut Iām not pro-animal crueltyā then Iād listen to 'em. Theyāre right, acceptable levels of animal cruelty laws are just there to make me feel better. Theyāre not really there for the animals.
Donāt get me wrong, Iād still support more animal cruelty laws. I wouldnāt stand in the way of a total ban on meat as I continued to buy it up to the day itās outlawed. Iām not blaming vegans for anything, Iām self reflecting.
Why do you have to specifically vote Blue though? Is it just politics that it has to be blue. Thatās the political landscape.
The only reason itās āVote Blue no matter whoā is because right now, in Americaās FPTP system, the Dems are the only real alternative in most areas to the GOP. Itās a pithy saying, not a political essay. The lesson is not āLOYALTY TO COMRADE BIDENā, but āDonāt throw your vote away on a symbolic action; preventing fascism is more important than virtue signaling to no one, especially since ballots are secretā
Can you not see why someone would see not voting for genocide as the best possible choice they could make? Not that you agree with them, you donāt, I get that. But for them, with their moral outlook the situation was shit and they did the best they could to at least not support it getting worse.
The problem is that every view I can think of for ānot voting for genocideā is extremely flawed from either a logical or moral perspective. We live in a FPTP system with two parties/candidates with near-majority support. Practically speaking, one of them was always going to win when no dark horses emerged by, say, September. Realistically speaking, ānot voting for genocideā actually meant āLetting everyone else choose for meā, and considering that āMore genocideā was chosen, everyone who protest voted or abstained has to fucking reckon with the fact that they enabled the āMore genocideā candidate, for no gain to anyone.
The only ārealā arguments against voting Iāve seen are likewise ridiculous - accelerationism or delegitimization of the results.
The issue with those is that accelerationism goes against everything we know about revolutions and building revolutionary apparati, while the argument of delegitimization of the results would require a massive boycott - and, as āelectionsā in Iran have shown, still not accomplished much. Delegitimization of the results might have been more ālegitimateā a strategy if the two candidates were closer (ie one was not a literal fucking Nazi - maybe try this in 2012?), but considering that they decided that they preferred to try to make a symbolic victory against the system over preventing literal Nazis, I find it very hard to accept as any kind of moral or ābestā possible action. If you (generic you, not you personally) think symbolism is preferable to the literal lives of millions, you put too much value on symbolism.
The meat industry is inherently cruel. Again, why would I be annoyed that I said I am an animal cruelty activist and someone pointed out I support an industry thatās inherently cruel.
But again, the question is not of you being angry that YOUāRE being called out. The question is being angry that the animal cruelty activists worked against the reduction of animal cruelty.
Man, people can call me a shitlib all day, if they voted for Harris, theyāve a right to their further-left opinions as far as Iām concerned. But donāt tell me youāre a very serious leftist who hates fascism and then refuse to try to prevent fascism - at minimal cost and effort to your own views.
Donāt get me wrong, Iād still support more animal cruelty laws. I wouldnāt stand in the way of a total ban on meat as I continued to buy it up to the day itās outlawed. Iām not blaming vegans for anything, Iām self reflecting.
But in this case, the vegans didnāt support more animal cruelty laws. They prevented animal cruelty laws - not to put an alternative in place, but simply because they donāt believe in reducing harm, no matter how many millions or even billions it effects. If they donāt believe in reducing harm, what is their āideologyā, but a game or a sports team?
Most vegans might grouse, but would still vote for animal cruelty laws that REDUCE animal cruelty even if they donāt ELIMINATE it for that very reason - thatās precisely why so many animal cruelty laws have been proposed and passed - because vegans are willing to support harm reduction.
So why do these leftists weāre talking about care less about people than vegans care about animals?
I mostly agree. Fight with the tools you have but this now, as I told you back then, isnāt the tool youāre looking for. Sowing devision keeps us divided.
On this occasion the āno genocideā people happen to be right. Imagine an animal rights group that constantly and perpetually hate-posted about vegans.
Punching DOWN isnāt the correct tool. Punching UP might be.
But is it sowing division to point out that dividing the vote is, itself, divisive, and has very real and serious consequences?
Is it not divisive to encourage and normalize non-voting even when faced with literal Nazis running because of insufficient policy on the part of the only serious opposition candidate?
Imagine an animal rights group who campaigned against a ballot initiative to stop puppy farms - because it didnāt also stop factory farms, ultimately failing by a measly 1% of the vote? Would it not be realistic and reasonable for people in that animal rights group to be pissed that puppy farms were perpetuated, at no gain to any animals, because a section of the animal rights group wanted a more radical option - a legitimate desire, but one which led to actions which worsened the situation instead of helping it?
Not really. In this analogy I know this group exists and plan for, with, or around them. If vegans found an activist group that better aligned with their goals why would I be surprised or upset they went to that one?
None of this is surprising, or at least it shouldnāt be. We know how people actually behave.
Furthermore in this analogy the animal rights group isnāt campaigning to stop puppy farms, theyāre campaigning for puppy farms. Of course people that care about animal rights didnāt support them.
If that activist group then campaigns against the āimperfectā initiative, sinking it by 1% point, why wouldnāt you be upset at them? āItās just politics, itās just their point of viewā isnāt a particularly left outlook, itāsā¦ well, very āmoderate suburban liberalā. Politics are often a matter of life and death - in the most literal sense. Being upset is pretty low on the totem poll for intensity-of-reaction with that in mind.
Not being surprised that some people are self-defeating and being upset that people are self-defeating and that other, ostensible allies are defending them for being self-defeating and encouraging them to continue being so are two different things.
Iām not surprised, for example, that bootlickers vote for Trump, or that there are millions of bootlickers in this fucking country. But I am upset about it. Iām not surprised that there are a significant minority of leftists who prefer purity politics to averting and reducing genocide. But I am upset - and I donāt think that normalizing it in the communities I frequent is something that I should stand by and be quiet about.
Campaigning for regulation of puppy farms, letās say, since the Dems were quite clearly not anti-Israel, but had clearly shifted to a less pro-Israel position, especially after Biden dropped out.
In that view - when faced between making puppy farms less horrific or letting them continue as usual - or even making them worse - why should I not be upset that an ostensibly anti animal suffering group opted to let suffering continue or intensify instead of stopping it out of some bizarre sense of purity.
Again the anger is misplaced.
Why would you, a hypothetical animal rights activist, blame vegans and not the animal rights group for being shit.
āItās just politicsā is literally the argument of vote blue no matter who:thatās just what you have to do in politics. Sure theyāre imperfect, technically true but not how Iād describe someone pro genocide, but you gotta vote for them.
āDonāt look at me, Iām pure, I voted democrat in the generalā Purity politics is a meaningless term, vegans arenāt purity politicking (politicing sp?)any more or less than you are, they have a moral outlook and they act on it same as you. Voting republican is abhorrent, voting dem is self defeating (I hope we agree voting pro-genocide is self defeating to an anti-genocise outlook) so whatās a sucker left to do? Not vote, vote something else, bring out the guillotinesā¦ Itās all a bit shit, and to get angry at them for it is ludicrous.
Dem leadership made the vote what it was. Dem leadership ignored how people actually play the āultimatum gameā. Dem leadership is who you should be hate posting about.
I, an omnivore, donāt get annoyed at vegans posting about how cruel the meat industry is, because theyāre right. I do get annoyed at how cruel the meat industry is as Iām supporting them though. I punch up at those in power, not down.
Why would I not blame both? The animal rights group for not putting forward a radical enough solution, and the vegans in question for perpetuating animal suffering out of some bizarre sense of spiritualist purity.
No, the argument of āVote Blue no matter whoā is that the Republicans have degenerated into an openly fascist party and it is necessary to oppose them for the health and safety of minority groups.
If your choice is a shit sandwich or getting your head pulped by a steamroller, choose the sandwich.
Fuck man, where do you get that idea? Iāve openly stated before that by voting for Harris, the burden of accepting insufficient opposition to Palestinian genocide, at minimum, is on my soul. The issue is that had I chose to NOT vote for Harris, the burden of accepting indifference to the intensification of the Palestinian genocide would have been on me.
Iām not pure. I made the least-bad decision. Itās all we fucking can do in this life.
Bruh, purity politics is a term which means preferring a deonotological or virtue ethics approach to voting over a utilitarian one - ie saying that some internal sense of values is preferable to the actual lives of human beings in voting, an action which is, itself, a strategic choice, not a fucking love letter.
You can say āThey just morally disagree with you!ā and thatās true in a sense - but Trump voters also just āmorally disagree with meā, and Iām no less pissed at them for that.
Vote Dem, then work on bringing out the guillotines. Thatās what Harm Reduction means.
Voting Dem takes, at most, two days a year, depending on how often you have municipal elections. You have 363 days a year for other organizing - and if you live in a state with unfucked polling places, or even better, mail-in ballots, it doesnāt even take a whole day.
āStop the immediately promised genocide and the worsening of literally every issue I give a shit about AND damaging leftist organizingā is worth two days a year, I think.
Itās all a bit shit. Every option we have in life is a bit shit. Even if the leftists got their way, even if this was a left country (God, if only), we would STILL be dealing with shit options, and we would STILL be obligated to work towards the LESS shit of them. And getting angry at people who voted - or sat on their asses - for fascists to send me to a death camp is a pretty mild reaction, all things considered.
Bruh, everyone on Lemmy already fucking hates the DNC. Except for the kicks Iād get out of photoshopping Pelosiās head into a guillotine, it wouldnāt do much. Reminding people that the less vile option is mandatory when going up against literal Nazis has a chance of shifting or maintaining the narrative, currently contentious, that purity-politics voting is not kosher.
But what if vegans posting about how cruel the meat industry is campaigned against, and ultimately sank by a measly 1% of the vote, your initiative to reduce the cruelty of the meat industry?
Would that not be a reason to be upset? They had a chance to reduce suffering, and they chose to sink it - not for some alternative, but just because it was not pure enough. Why would that be good or acceptable to you? Would you not be upset that more animals would suffer needlessly and pointlessly for this? If you would not be upset, how much do you really care about the issue to begin with?
Why do you have to specifically vote Blue though? Is it just politics that it has to be blue. Thatās the political landscape.
You absolutely used your moral judgement and made the best possible choice you could. I donāt disagree, I see how you saw it as the best possible choice. The situation was shit, you did the best you could to at least not support it getting worse.
Can you not see why someone would see not voting for genocide as the best possible choice they could make? Not that you agree with them, you donāt, I get that. But for them, with their moral outlook the situation was shit and they did the best they could to at least not support it getting worse.
The meat industry is inherently cruel. Again, why would I be annoyed that I said I am an animal cruelty activist and someone pointed out I support an industry thatās inherently cruel.
I could see it sparking a cognitive dissonance ābut Iām not pro-animal crueltyā then Iād listen to 'em. Theyāre right, acceptable levels of animal cruelty laws are just there to make me feel better. Theyāre not really there for the animals.
Donāt get me wrong, Iād still support more animal cruelty laws. I wouldnāt stand in the way of a total ban on meat as I continued to buy it up to the day itās outlawed. Iām not blaming vegans for anything, Iām self reflecting.
The only reason itās āVote Blue no matter whoā is because right now, in Americaās FPTP system, the Dems are the only real alternative in most areas to the GOP. Itās a pithy saying, not a political essay. The lesson is not āLOYALTY TO COMRADE BIDENā, but āDonāt throw your vote away on a symbolic action; preventing fascism is more important than virtue signaling to no one, especially since ballots are secretā
The problem is that every view I can think of for ānot voting for genocideā is extremely flawed from either a logical or moral perspective. We live in a FPTP system with two parties/candidates with near-majority support. Practically speaking, one of them was always going to win when no dark horses emerged by, say, September. Realistically speaking, ānot voting for genocideā actually meant āLetting everyone else choose for meā, and considering that āMore genocideā was chosen, everyone who protest voted or abstained has to fucking reckon with the fact that they enabled the āMore genocideā candidate, for no gain to anyone.
The only ārealā arguments against voting Iāve seen are likewise ridiculous - accelerationism or delegitimization of the results.
The issue with those is that accelerationism goes against everything we know about revolutions and building revolutionary apparati, while the argument of delegitimization of the results would require a massive boycott - and, as āelectionsā in Iran have shown, still not accomplished much. Delegitimization of the results might have been more ālegitimateā a strategy if the two candidates were closer (ie one was not a literal fucking Nazi - maybe try this in 2012?), but considering that they decided that they preferred to try to make a symbolic victory against the system over preventing literal Nazis, I find it very hard to accept as any kind of moral or ābestā possible action. If you (generic you, not you personally) think symbolism is preferable to the literal lives of millions, you put too much value on symbolism.
But again, the question is not of you being angry that YOUāRE being called out. The question is being angry that the animal cruelty activists worked against the reduction of animal cruelty.
Man, people can call me a shitlib all day, if they voted for Harris, theyāve a right to their further-left opinions as far as Iām concerned. But donāt tell me youāre a very serious leftist who hates fascism and then refuse to try to prevent fascism - at minimal cost and effort to your own views.
But in this case, the vegans didnāt support more animal cruelty laws. They prevented animal cruelty laws - not to put an alternative in place, but simply because they donāt believe in reducing harm, no matter how many millions or even billions it effects. If they donāt believe in reducing harm, what is their āideologyā, but a game or a sports team?
Most vegans might grouse, but would still vote for animal cruelty laws that REDUCE animal cruelty even if they donāt ELIMINATE it for that very reason - thatās precisely why so many animal cruelty laws have been proposed and passed - because vegans are willing to support harm reduction.
So why do these leftists weāre talking about care less about people than vegans care about animals?