(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 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)
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Removed by mod
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 that this 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 if 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.