(this is a sarcastic post meant to highlight the absurdity of some of the “greater good” rhetoric we’ve been hearing, especially around leaving vulnerable populations like disabled people behind in case of revolution, basically accelerationism)
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
648 points (92.5% liked)
Microblog Memes
7388 readers
4245 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Kamala voters in a nutshell
Braindead take
I mean, I voted for Kamala, I pushed for the harm reduction ''best hand available'' strategy... but like... it was predicated on strategically sacrificing Palestine for the ''greater good''.
Sure, the alternative was sacrificing Palestine plus a bunch of additional minorities and at risk groups...
But it was still sacrificing a minority group. Less of a braindead take, more of a ''you caught us, we did indeed try to strategically sacrifice as few minorities as possible while abandoning those we thought we had no chance to save even if logically a large scale united front would have potentially meant sacrificing no one'' take.
I still believe it was our best play, but only because a terrifying percentage of folks left of MAGA felt it was a necessary sacrifice.
Imo neither option should have been seen as strategically sacrificing them, or throwing them under the bus, or what have you. The idea of a sacrifice presumes you have the option not to do it, there is no political reality in the United States where Palestine wins, only different degrees of fucked. If that was your main issue the options were a) accelerate the genocide with no possibility of slowing or stopping it politically b) continue the genocide with the possibility of stopping or slowing it at least being somewhere in the conversation or c) if a happens, a happens.
In my opinion most anyone who voted third party or didn't vote on the basis of the Palestinian genocide does not truly care about the Palestinians, they simply submitted to the reality that the genocide would continue in some fashion regardless of who won and decided if it was the Nazi, so be it, america deserves it. Then they'll learn!
In my opinion, those who voted third party or didn't vote on the basis of the Palestinian genocide are themselves the ones willing to sacrifice Palestine on the alter of teaching the rest of us a lesson. In failing to recognize there was no option that would leave their hands entirely clean, they inadvertently have stained them with as much blood as the traitors who explicitly asked for this, and probably condemned all of Gaza.
No. The genocide was just as "accelerated" under the Democrats, and they were just as steadfastly opposed to slowing or stopping it, as over a year of fruitless attempts to get them to showed. The only difference is that you were a genocide denier when it was your team doing it. In that sense, Trump has been better for Gaza, because at least now you people will actually acknowledge what's happening.
You had already condemned all of Gaza on the alter of lesser evilism, and if you'd gotten your way, you'd still be doing genocide denial and apologia.
I absolutely see your point, even employed more or less the same logic when "deciding" who to cast my vote for.
Though I don't know if I can fully agree with the logic that having no viable alternative somehow removes the reality that it was still a sacrifice. If you need to sacrifice a pawn to win a game off chess, you still had to sacrifice that pawn. Only in this case the pawn was a group of people that we as a nation theoretically collectively could have helped but didn't.
This isn't the only case mind you, voting for Obama meant voting "for" drone strikes that killed children. Being a voter in the United States means constantly trying to collectively push for harm reduction as we all collectively agree that "we had no real say in the horrors wrought in our names".
I guess it just makes me wonder why we all are so sure all this known harm is "required". When in all reality, we could stand united against it at any time and push for a better world.
But instead trying to do so gets you told you support Fascism and are just causing "leftist in-fighting", because the largest semi-left-ish voting bloc says there is no other way. So you just shut up and fall in line lest something worse happens.
It is this cold logic that, made me only talk about how bad Trump would be on Gaza, and vote for Kamala, knowing full well that I was still abandoning Palestinians to their fate.
Anyways, sorry for the rant. I agree whole heartedly that voting for Kamala was the only option to stop Trump, and that doing so was the least horrific option most American's could agree on. The reality of those facts just make me sick to my stomach sometimes.
ETA: To clarify, knowing you have no chance of winning and still pushing for voters to abstain or go 3rd party is also sacrificing minorities regardless of it was done for moral or strategic reasons, just as you said. I guess I just get mad at the whole world when our options are so shit.
now that I think of it, it works both ways, you could use it to criticise people who vote for Harris as she obviously didn’t have great policies on things like Palestine.
Or you could use it to criticise people who don’t vote because then they let trump win which is far worse for minorities than Harris.
why would people ever vote for Biden/Harris when they established the legal basis for Palestinians getting deported and mask bans being enacted? they could vote for the proud fascists instead of the fascism-lite.
I also hate the rhetoric pushed by blue MAGA that equates not voting with letting Trump win. I can't recall a single time in history where voting has defeated fascism. Also the fact that the people most impacted by Trump can't vote or don't have accommodations in place to be able to vote.
Couple examples of elections preventing facism:
Theoretically, anytime a facist runs and loses an election and doesn’t subsequently stage a coup into power, voting prevents facism.
why did the system let them run in the first place? this leads back to my original point, electoralism and liberalism are inherently dangerous and normalize fascism by allowing people to vote them into power just like they did for Hitler.
it makes as much sense as "the marketplace of ideas". we don't debate or "vote out" fascists, we use force
Who decides what ideas are and aren't okay? Who decides which ideas are bad enough to use force against? What's to stop those in charge of making those decisions from being compromised, or plants, or changing their minds, or having morals counter to the morals of their society, seeing as the voting clearly cannot be trusted. All it takes is fascism and conservatism to quietly seep into government and now we've created the perfect framework for them to shift the targets to those they oppose.
This week, trans people have been declared anti-party. Next week it's disabled people. Tune in the week after for nationalism.
This is like building a big gun to protect ourselves from fascists but not putting any checks to make sure it's wielded in the best interests of the people.
what makes you think someone against electoralism believes in having a state?
That's a fair point, but the question still stands. In a stateless society, who decides when violence is appropriate and which ideas deserve violence? What differentiates such individuals from the state, seeing as they are acting in lieu of one, enforcing certain ideals and rules via violence? My questions still stand.
ah yes the classic "any form of violence is a state". go to sleep old man Engels
Who. Decides.
So we're strategically sacrificing minorities. Got it.
Fascists mostly start by winning legitimate elections. Defeating fascism with votes would just look like Clinton winning the election instead of Trump.
You might as well say that you can't recall a single time when having a visible security presence stopped a robbery.
You're being absolutely disingenuous. If voting could stop fascists, then in 2020 when Joe Biden got more votes than Donald Trump, he would have been president. There would have been a democrat in office from 2021-2024. And your fantasy world sounds nice, but it's not what happened here in the real world.
Is this some kind of advanced sarcasm? Because I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.
This is MAGA-levels of denying reality. Trump got more votes than Kamala. Kamala did not get enough votes. Bitching and belly aching about Kamala lead to lower voter turnout for her. Therefore Trump won.
If and when the revolution happens, I can trust that blowhards like you won't even be there. You'll just be here, terminally online, waiting for the day you get to tell our piles of ashes "I told you so."
Kamala lead to lower turnout for Kamala. Although a lot of blame can be placed on Biden for not dropping out sooner. He should've been a one-term president.
Kamala decided genocide and fracking were more important then her constituents. That's what led to the lower turnout.
I voted for her and was vocal about holding the line and ignoring all the stupidity they were showing, but it's completely insane to try to spin the lost as anyone else's fault.
i always get a little chuckle when blue maga resorts to using dogwhistles like terminally online instead of calling me a disabled slur. if you wanna support fascism at least don't be a coward 😘
🤡
*Gestures at everything*
oh, so you prefer our current administration?
I mean criticising opponent doesn't necessarily mean preferring current administration
There was absolutely an effort to demoralize Democratic voters here on Lemmy. Those people did support the Trump campaign by engaging in consistent, high-volume criticism and justification of it using logic such as yours.
Democrats don't need to be demoralized. Their party does that for them.
What did you learn?
Not just Lemmy, unfortunately. I had a guy in my politics discord who spammed nothing but Gaza right before the election, but since the election, he's only posted a handful of things criticizing Trump. And I know he's not a bot, because I've been chatting with him for years.
I wonder how many people are just burnt out from the outrage, and I wonder how much of that was an intentional ploy to get us to stop caring.