• TallonMetroid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      What we need to do is get rid of FPTP, because so long as that’s how the system works breaking away will only guarantee that the fascists win permanently.

        • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think the sad fact is many people in the US are okay with financing genocide as long as they don’t have to hear Trump’s name or suffer any consequences personally. As long as some kind of right wing boogeymany exists, you can convince most democratic voters that genocide is permissable enough to not disqualify a candidate.

          • mrnotoriousman@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think the sad thing is people thinking that if it were Trump instead of Biden right now, there wouldn’t be any genocide. When in fact trump would be supporting genocide both in Gaza and in Ukraine.

            • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              So how much genocide in your opinion is okay to vote for under the suspicion that someone else might also do a genocide?

              Because either you’re admitting theres no way to vote ourselves out of genocide or that joes genocides is okay because someone else MAY also preside over genocide. Thats a new one, this genocide is acceptable because if it wasn’t this, it would just be another genocide, do I have that right?

              Im of the opinion that I cannot materially support genocide. Call it single issue voterism if you want but to me never again means never again, not never again unless maybe the someone else would also finance genocide. Having boundaries is healthy and just, and if genocide is only a soft boundary for someone then I place no value in what they have to say.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              We’d still get genocide regardless of who the president is. The killing machine operates the same no matter who pulls the levers.

              I won’t vote for genocide.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No it’s not.

                  Their point was that liberals are okay with genocide under Democrats, but if Trump was president they’d be against it. No one thinks that, if Trump were president, there wouldn’t be a genocide. The genocide is non negotiable.

        • Pipoca@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you prefer

          1. Genocide, drone strikes, mass deportations, legal abortion, Supreme Court judges who aren’t having massive ethics scandals, regulations, etc

          or

          1. Genocide, drone strikes, mass deportation, abortion bans, Supreme Court judges with giant ethics scandals, deregulation, tax cuts for billionaires, etc?

          Both parties are similarly shitty on some things, but are pretty different on other issues. Are you really indifferent to all the issues they differ on?

          • ghost_of_faso2@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            When faced with two options that are both genocide why buy into a false dicthomy, also need I remind you abortion became a states right issue (something biden could have prevented) under bidens presidency?

            The stupidest move is to play.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re oversimplifying.

            Under Trump, Democrats would oppose genocide. I guarantee if Trump was president the Democrats would be fighting against him.

            Under Biden, even Bernie is falling in line. It’s disgusting.

    • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They’re there to sheepdog the voters into believing progressive candidates a valued part of the democratic party despite the fact that more than most of the good things progressives have accomplished are entirely outside of the chambers of congress. The democrats refuse to work with progressives unless they are forced too, like that time the progressives asked Pelosi to consider stock trading bans and she denied them until it was clear that was horrible PR, then decided to come around to vocally supporting it later, once the political will to pass the bill was dying down. Progressives are there for show.

            • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think he endorsed a ceasefire but then immediately expressed he didn’t think Hamas would respect a ceasefire.

              So one step forward, one step back. Not much better. Not great. But I dont expect the over 70 crowd to navigate these waters very well.

              Fetterman is the far more disappointing Senator on this topic.

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m willing to bet that he’d navigate these waters just fine if Trump was president.

                That’s what Trump does. He sharpens the contradictions and makes it obvious to everyone. Biden does everything possible to muddy the waters and make the issue seem more complicated than it actually is, but Trump never bothers masking his intentions like that.

                • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Maybe so. Though the reality isn’t that Trump is president.

                  And I am not sure anyone knows for sure how a 2nd term Trump would be acting right now. I mean hell, Trump kind of criticized Israel and said Hezbollah was making a smart move recently, so hey, wild card factor would be without much masking.

                  Not sure I’d have much expection for the geriatric leaders regardless of president, still.

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      They already did. Though they absolutely 100% need to stop voting for that dogshit party as well.

      • dodgy_bagel@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ah yes, insurrectionist part II electric boogaloo.

        The choices on the table are dogshit or arsonic, but if you don’t choose you’re still going to have to eat one of them.

        In order to avoid eating either, we should probably focus on getting the one off the table that will fucking kill you.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just don’t eat either of them? It’s not hard. You simply go eat something else and ridicule people who are eating the dogshit.

            • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              That would be cool. But no I’m just not going to eat dog shit. Millions of other foods, and hundreds of other candidates, I don’t get any bonus points by voting for the winner. It’s literally the least you can do.

              • dodgy_bagel@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Biden is the president whether or not you individually voted for him. You’re figuratively eating dogshit right now. Be glad it isn’t arsonic.

    • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      AIPAC has heavy stakes in the Democratic Party. They run primary challenges and fund conservatives against anyone who expresses anything close to Palestinian sympathy. (Summer Lee is a good recent/current example.)

      Those 22 Ds likely exist at the behest of AIPAC money.

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      If your response to seeing Jewish antizionism is to downvote congrats you’re an antisemitic piece of shit.

      • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Death to israel is an anti semitic slogan. End the war and fuck the israel government but death to a nation of people is just crazy

  • Drusas@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, she was censured for seemingly calling for the end of Israel. That is not the same as Palestinian freedom.

    • coradora@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      She only called for the end of the apartheid state that systematically tortures the Palestinians under its brutal occupation. She called for equal rights for all Palestinian people so that they are no longer second class citizens.

      It was wrong when America, Britain, South Africa, and countless other colonialist countries did it in the past, and it is wrong for Israel to do it now. Apartheid is a disgusting system that brutalizes millions of innocent civilians. The average age in Gaza is like 19 years old. They are mostly children.

      Do you condemn Israel for the murder of over 4000 children?

      • Drusas@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This has nothing to do with me. I’m just stating a fact. She was censured for the river to the sea comment, not for calling to end the apartheid state.

        • coradora@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          What do you think the statement from the river to the sea means? It means that in all lands of current day Israel/Palestine, the Palestinian people should exist as first class, free citizens of the state. Not as second class citizens of an apartheid government.

          It’s not calling for the genocide of Jews. It’s calling for the end of Israel’s brutal occupation and for the peaceful coexistence of all people, like they lived before the region was carved up by European colonial governments.

          • prole@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It refers to a one-state solution. A legitimately possible solution with a lot of support. And no, it’s not anti-semitism and it’s not about killing or getting rid of anyone. It’s bad faith to frame it as such.

          • Drusas@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re arguing that to the wrong person. I understand nuance. Apparently House representatives do not.

  • qwertyWarlord@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    NO, she was censured because she posted a video using a slogan popular with anti semitics, let’s get that right. I understand she’s trying to appeal to her people but you can’t just come out and support hatred from the other side.

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re being antisemitic by equating anti-zionism with antisemitism.

      -someone who’s Jewish side of the family was directly affected by the holocaust

      • steakmeout@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh fuck off with that argument. The slogan is about slaughtering Jews of Israel to push them to the sea. Someone using a slogan that is bigoted is just bigoted. Fuck your dissemble attempts.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You’re continuing to equate being Jewish with an jewish apartheid state, which, as I said before, is antisemitic.

          Destroying Israel doesn’t actually mean killing Jewish people there, that’s some settler-ass logic. Can you name a single time that an apartheid state was destroyed that resulted in all the settlers being killed? Destroying apartheid states is much less violent than apartheid.

          Go to a pro Palestine reality and see Jewish people lead “from the river to the sea” chants if you want a visceral illustration of how silly the propaganda you’ve bought into is.

          • steakmeout@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m Jewish, you don’t get to speak for me. You don’t get to tell me what is and what isn’t antisemitism.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You do realize a state can dissolve without literally everyone dying right? When East Germany and West Germany reunified the entire population of both countries didn’t die. When apartheid collapsed in South Africa all the settlers didn’t die.

                • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  “death to america” does refer to an end to the US empire- not the American people. I’ve talked with a fair number of Iranians who dislike their own government and Americas reign of terror around the world.

                  From “the river to the sea” means an end to the apartheid government in occupied Palestine. It’s projection from the murderous settlers that a unified non-apartheid state would mean their own extermination- because that’s what they do to the undesirables in their unified state.

                  The government isn’t the people.

                  Marg bar Amrika

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh of fucking course it is going to be violent, unless the settler state caves. That is how anticolonial movements always go. But it is a lesser violence vs the continued violence its existence is predicated on.

                  Please pick up wretched of the earth by Fanon at your local library, it is a very necessary read for westerners.

          • JoeHill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            I never said anything was antisemitic. I said that what you are saying is “Death to Israel”. And it seems that you agree.

              • Narauko@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                So here’s my honest question, why are the Jewish people relatively singled out as excluded from being allowed to desire a state/homeland? Is there an argument that the Jewish people did not originate from that area of the world, and if so, where is the actual Jewish homeland? Did the Jewish people spring forth fully developed from Zeus’s forehead? The argument seems to be that all indigenous peoples should have at least parts of their lands and autonomy restored to them all over the world; except for the Jews, because fuck them they don’t deserve a country for non-antisemetic reasons and they should have integrated into a new Arabic country of Palestine instead of splitting the land.

                Ignoring the history of Jewish treatment in other countries around the globe for centuries, I don’t understand how, for a land that is the historical birthplace of several peoples, it is considered good for one of those peoples to fight for it and bad for another of those peoples to do the same. It all seems to come down to where anyone’s specific biases fall, while everyone claims to not have any biases.

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re premise is nonsense, there are anti-apartheid movements whereever apartheid states exist. There was an anti-apartheid movement in South Africa way before now.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That literally isn’t antisemitic, conflating antizionism and antisemitism is antisemitic

          -someone who’s Jewish side of the family was directly affected by the holocaust

          • JoeHill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            Who said anything about antisemitic? The fact that multiple people replied to me about antisemitism is telling that YOU think it is antisemitic and need to defend yourself.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You’re talking about the original phrase that had Rashida accused of antisemitism, and given the context it seems like you think “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” is antisemitic.

              Correct me if I’m wrong. I’m just very tired of dealing with zionist antisemites and may have jumped the gun.

              telling that YOU think it is antisemitic and need to defend yourself.

              The one thing you know about me is that I’ve said the Jewish side of my family was directly affected by the holocaust. Do you think this is appropriate to say to me? If this was a real life interaction, would you say this outloud?

              • Madison420@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                We all know what they meant, they can hedge if they’d like but I don’t think anyone is buying what they’re selling.

          • JoeHill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There was no “literal pre mandatory Palestine border.” Under the Ottomans it was multiple sanjaks under the vilayet of Damascus.

            What you call “from the river to the sea” did not exist as an administrative boundary until Winston Churchill created it in 1922 by splitting Mandate Palestine into Transjordan and a new, smaller Mandate Palestine.

            Does nobody study history before spouting off?

            • Madison420@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes there was, it was administered under the same borders as before the ottoman invaded just subdivided to three sub states because that’s how the ottoman maintained control.

              Does nobody study history before spouting off?

              Do they indeed.

              • JoeHill@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                “Just subdivided into three states”.

                Thank you. Like I said, those administrative borders never existed. It’s a British colonial construct.

                • Madison420@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Three states that make up the same border and we’re referenced to as a whole as Palestine, you’re not making the point you think you’re making. The United States is quite a bit more than 3 states, are you implying the US doesn’t exist?

        • PotatoKat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Conflating Israel with Jewish people is anti-semetic

          You’re just too deep in the sauce to realize that, anti-semite.

          • JoeHill@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            Where did I conflate Jews and Israel? Where did I say anything about antisemitism?

            Nice strawman, bro.

            • PotatoKat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do you have a problem with the elimination of a genocidal fascist state? If you’re not conflating Jews and Israel then I don’t see why you’d have an issue with the words “death to Israel” unless you support their fascism or their genocide.

              • JoeHill@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                13
                ·
                1 year ago

                lol. “Genocidal”. I’ve been loving reading all the international law analysis from people who couldn’t even get into law school.

                • PotatoKat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So tell me, what do you call the bombardment, forced displacement, limiting of Water, removal of communication for everyone in the area, bombing of refugee came, hospitals, ambulances sent by red cross, etc etc Israel has been doing in Gaza?

    • Sami_Uso@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “On May 3, 2022 the ADL website referred to the slogan as, ‘a slogan commonly featured in pro-Palestinian campaigns and chanted at demonstrations.'” he writes. “Nowhere in the 2022 description is there a mention of antisemitism…On October 26, 2023, the position on the website was changed to include, ‘is an antisemitic slogan’.”

      Note the date. The slogan wasn’t considered antisemitic before October. Don’t fall for their bs. Pro-palestine does not mean antisemitic regardless of what these people want you to think.

      • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t fall… For the Antidefamation Leagues bullshit regarding what qualifies as hate speech?

        They’re the defacto people who describe it in America lol.

        • Sami_Uso@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nah sorry I meant “their bs” in a more general sense. “They” as in anyone equating Israel criticism to antisemitism.

    • Pulptastic@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes and no. If a terrorist group co-opts and reinterprets my national slogan, whose slogan is it? Which interpretation is right? Which interpretation was she using?

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s pretty much always meant kill all the jews there. Also once a slogan or symbol gets corrupted it’s not really usable anymore, see the swastika.

        • تحريرها كلها ممكن@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          No it doesn’t. The only people who are guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing are the Zionists, Palestinians just want to be free on their land, they want their land back

          • PotatoKat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            A significant portion of Palestinians want to be rid of jews. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard extraordinarily anti-semetic things from my family that escaped Palestine. And if that’s the case think about how the people who still live there feel. At the very least I was able to convince my dad that his problem was with the state of Israel and not Jewish people (all the Jews who spoke out were a big help in that), but for my family that lives a half a world a way that’s not something I can reasonably do.

            To be clear fuck Israel and Palestinians should be free from their oppressors. But both of them want ethnic cleansing it’s just that only Israel has the power to do it (it also doesn’t help that Israel killed/black bagged all the major speakers/organizers who weren’t extremists throughout the 70s-90s)

            Also from the river to the sea is not inherently anti-semetic

            • ghost_of_faso2@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Imagine blaming a country currently being genocided and who’s had decades of aperthied/mass rape inflicted on them for then having extremist views about there oppressors.

              How about take the boot off there neck then we can talk?

            • تحريرها كلها ممكن@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Hamas didn’t attack Jews anywhere in the world. They are solely focusing on freeing their land from Israeli occupation. Hamas is made up of orphans and refugees. I don’t blame Palestinians for mixing up Zionism with Judaism because that’s what Zionists have been doing for decades

        • wildn0x@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Logic falls apart when you realize swastikas are still common in asian countries. Don’t let the terrorists win.