i can't even guess as to why they went quiet. not one guess at all. we will never know.
edit: well they're not quiet now once they get called out
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
To be fair, for many the choice to save or sacrifice Palestine never felt like it was on the table. For those people, the choice was between making a deal with the devil to save as many marginalized groups as possible, or sacrificing said marginalized groups to keep their "hands clean".
I believe both sides of this argument felt like they were pushing for solidarity the best way they knew how. And due to the emotionally charged nature of this choice, we wound up losing all solidarity ironically.
If you truly believe in solidarity, then try to see the human on the other side of the screen and be the first to reach out and mend the cracks.
Here's the thing. I'm trans. On our own, we represent a tiny sliver of the voting public, not worth considering from a strategic standpoint. But there are plenty of other groups of people in the same boat. Together, we are worth considering - but only together. "What force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?" If we try to build a coalition in which we abandon any group that the democratic politicians deem too much of a liability to be worth protecting, that is no coalition at all, and I well understand that after Palestinians, I will be next. The very same logic that these people were willing to deploy against them can and will be deployed to justify abandoning me and mine.
What advantage do I gain from joining together in a "coalition" in "solidarity" with these fair-weather friends who will drop us at the first sign of trouble? Honestly, they are more of a liability than an asset, because if I'm buddying up with them, it damages my credibility among potentially more reliable people who have good reason not to trust them. I would rather do it the right way and build trust even if it means building from the ground up.
I appreciate what you're trying to do, but these disagreements are meaningful and important. This election may be over, but the question remains of what the appropriate strategy is going forward, whether to build a coalition that will treat an offense against one as an offense against all, and ensure that anyone who comes for any part of it is unelectable, or whether to "vote blue no matter who" as we are picked off one-by-one, in exchange for temporary, short term security for some.
I get your points and they are well taken. Just be careful not to swing at ghosts so hard that you hit those who would have made great allies.
Not every one who voted Blue is a "fair-weather friend". Frankly, I bet you would be surprised with how many would be willing to push for something better if given the opportunity.
And sometimes, people just need to be given the chance. The disagreements are meaningful, but the shit slinging is not. And I'm afraid we have traded in meaningful discussion for pure shit slinging.