Whenever I talk to any Democrat supporters, they by-default cheer their Presidents and then I’ve to remind them of their leader’s illegal wars and war crimes. They condemn those acts and they go back to their cheerleading role - Why do they keep forgetting atrocities committed by their leaders? Why do they accept war criminals as their leader?
Because the alternate is literally fascism. Until we do away with first past the post, there are only two real choices. And if you don’t choose the lesser of two evils, then you’re part of the problem and you’re literally responsible for people dying.
“If you don’t pull the lever for genocide then you are literally responsible for people dying.”
From the people who love to invoke 1984, too. Freedom is slavery, war is peace, refusing genocide is endorsing genocide.
This doesn’t sound like you actually believe it, it sounds like you’re trying to project the guilt and shame you feel at being tricked into becoming a nazi by a bunch of geriatric Epstein associates.
The Democrats are also “literally fascism” and your insistence otherwise is exactly the denialism the question is about
The question was about behavior. Imagine if there are 4 children - Voting Blue kills 2 children and voting Red kills 3 children. By voting Blue - we’ve saved 1 child and start celebrating. The problem here is the behavior of cheering such leadership, by cheering we’re burying the core problem of “Child killing” and erasing the acknowledgement of “No child should be killed” ideal from the mind of the masses.
Because voting is specifically a popularity contest, and most people aren’t very politically engaged.
Blue is marginally better than red, in terms of trying to secure conditions where actual action can be effective. Summarizing another commenter, you’re not voting for good vs evil, you’re determining which mainstream option is going to be more difficult to fight against and trying to ensure they don’t win.
I don’t think you can erase the acknowledgement of “no child should be killed” from the masses. The people who already believe that aren’t going to stop, and the ones who don’t aren’t going to start.
But we celebrate saving one child because, again, it’s a popularity contest.
The red voters are pretty stalwart supporters. Their voting habits don’t vary much no matter what their party does. They’ll celebrate killing 3 children because their party tells them that they were the bad kind of children.
The blue voters are much more variable. They like to think of themselves as decent, principled, thinking people. When you inundate them with the child killing, they’re more likely to stay home. And since blue is marginally better for us, that works against our purposes. Ironically, loudly condemning the killing of 2 children makes it more likely that it will be 3 children after the next election.
You’re absolutely right that they’re ghouls who don’t deserve to be celebrated. But we don’t celebrate them because they deserve it, we celebrate them to reduce the chances of getting the worse alternative.
Once the worse alternative is eliminated, and there are better alternatives that stand a chance to win by calling out the lesser evil for still being evil, we should absolutely 100% do that. But until then, I don’t want to demoralize the voters who can help stave off the greater evil until we have a viable alternative, be it an actual leftist candidate with broad appeal or a sufficiently organized revolutionary force.
Which is going to happen when exactly?
What is the lesser of the two evils?
Consideration A: While the neoliberals ignore the empire crumbling around them and act as if they could still subjugate the whole world, the fascists notice the imperial decline and act accordingly.
Consideration B: European puppet rulers bought into the dem narrative that trump is their enemy. Clearly this was only intended to divide & conquer the people, not the rulers, but the puppets seem to be true believers. This forms a rift inside the empire while trump is the face of it.
A makes the neoliberals the choice of empire power reduction; B makes the fascists the choice of empire power reduction.
Yeah. The criticism of Biden in Gaza was valid, but Gaza wasn’t on the ballot in 2024. A Trump election meant US support of more Israeli aggression.
A Harris election also meant more Israeli aggression.
Well. It was on the ballot. It just wasn’t likely to win because it wasn’t an issue considered important by the two major parties. You could have voted PSL or Green or one of the other parties, as over three million people did in the last election.
Besides, by that logic, Israeli aggression wasn’t on the ballot either! Do you think Harris would have stopped Israel from starting war with Iran? The war with Iran was already beginning in 2024 before Trump even got into office. Maybe it would have taken a different form, maybe it wouldn’t have happened this year, but Israel was going to attack Iran and the US was going to follow.
I don’t think Harris would have bombed Iran.
But hey, it is better to do something that feels good than something which affects change, right?
Yeah you really affected change
There was already an economic war on Iran, which was already killing people and destabilizing their government. Harris would have waited a few more years for the economic war to collapse Iran’s government and turn it into a situation similar to Syria, and only then would have started bombing. By then, Iran might not have been able to exert control over traffic through Hormuz.
Harris would have been a better manager of the empire. Instead, we got Trump, who is on track to lose to Iran.
Ahh, so you’re an accelerationist.
Damn, that enthusiasm for"lesser evilism" sure dries up real fast when it might be you on the business end of it
I don’t think you know what that means.
Accelerationism would mean voting for Harris because she’d be a better manager of the empire.
No. Wanting Trump to win is accelerationist because he’s going to cause the empire to fall faster due to incompetence.
You aren’t angry at Democrats for war crimes, you’re angry at them because they are better at governing.
That’s still not what accelerationism is you smug idiot
Accelerationism would mean accelerating the growth of the empire to bring about its collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, so, voting for the best imperial managers to keep growing the empire. That means voting for Democrats, they’re better imperial governors. They’re better at doing war crimes and getting away with it.
What I want is for the empire to lose. That’s not accelerationism. That’s revolutionary defeatism.
Emotions aside, is their assessment of events incorrect? Harris is a more sane war hawk, recognizing that doesn’t make you an accelerationist.