But I’ve been repeatedly informed that the democrats are secretly pro-Palestine and were only pretending to support Israel to win over Zionist voters. Now that Biden has nothing to lose, why isn’t he doing anything? Could it be that all those people were full of shit?

Alright, well “expecting them to do the bare minimum” isn’t a winning strategy either. Expecting people to do things they’ve demonstrated they won’t do doesn’t make any sense.

And if neither party supports that reform, do we just keep voting Democrat until the end of time?

This mentality is what the Dems keep applying and it doesn’t work. Trying to shame people into voting isn’t an effective message. You can argue that it should be, but what matters is how things actually are and how a party can act most effectively based on that. It’s either adapt or keep railing against reality and lose.

You know you’re cooked when Bill Kristol is going around like, “Hey, shouldn’t you be running a more progressive campaign to turn out more voters?”

Tammy Baldwin, Elissa Slotkin, and Jacky Rosen are all women who won senate races in states Kamala lost (WI, MI, NV). There’s also Ruben Gallego, a Hispanic man who’s winning in Arizona. So your “simplest explanation” is that these sexist, racist bigots were fine with voting for women (one of them a queer woman at that) and minorities for senate but not for president (for some reason) as opposed to the idea that Kamala Harris was just an unpopular candidate. That’s not the simplest explanation, it’s just the laziest.

I would love nothing more than for this to be true and to hit that one RFK fan we have on lemmy with it, but the article doesn’t really give much evidence to support the title.

Yeah pretty much. 2016 was crazier than this one for sure. This one didn’t have a competitive primary on either side, and it was predicted as a toss-up whereas in 2016 every poll and media outlet was saying it was impossible for Trump to win, and there was no precedent to predict what would happen when he was in office. This is like, after people have had eight years to come to terms with Trump being a thing in whatever form that looks like. The general trend though is that things are getting crazier, and that trend is likely to continue.

Too late lmao

If I hate the game, and the players are the ones with the power to change the rules of the game and choose not to, where does that leave me?

If that’s why Kamala lost, then explain why Tammy Baldwin is winning Wisconsin and Elissa Slotkin is winning in Michigan.

It’s not really all that complicated. The Democrats represent the status quo. The status quo sucks. The Republicans present themselves as an alternative to the status quo. So, people vote Republican.

All the centrist messaging just makes it worse. The Republicans can explain why things suck by scapegoating the poor and marginalized. But the Democrats won’t call out the rich and powerful who are the actual reason things suck, so instead they just try to tell people that things don’t suck at all. They “reach across the aisle” to people like Dick Cheney who are clearly part of the political establishment which only serves to help Trump present himself as an outsider. They adopt all these right-wing positions on immigration, the military, etc, but the people that appeals to already have a party waiting on them hand and foot, giving them exactly what they want. And all the bad shit he does doesn’t matter to them because they believe in lesser evilism and hate the establishment.

Of course, Trump is part of the billionaire class and isn’t any sort of real alternative to the existing system, but as long as Republicans are able to paint themselves that way, and are the only “alternative” game in town, people are going to turn to them when they dislike the way things are going, no matter how shitty they are.

I felt surprised and confused in 2016 when Trump won, but it’s been 8 years. It’s long past time to start figuring out where the Trump phenomenon came from.

Not that specific example, but I have used that approach before. I think the first time was about 10 years ago. There were a couple queer people in my friend group who would throw around the f-slur, which was whatever, but one night when we were drinking one of my straight friends called me it, and that bothered me. So the next day I sent a group message talking about how it made me feel uncomfortable and I didn’t like it being normalized. It was a little awkward, but from then on everyone stopped using it and we all remained friends. In the long term, I think people actually respected me more for standing up for myself (since I was generally more of a pushover), and it stopped a behavior that had been making me uncomfortable and driving a bit of a wedge between us.

Most of the time, stuff like this don’t come from malice, but from people having different norms or expectations and not understanding each other. They might get defensive in the moment, but once they’re aware of it there’s a good chance they’ll stop. While people can be dicks, we are fundamentally social creatures and wired to avoid friction.

I will say it’s easier to confront people when you have a voluntary relationship with them, because if they’re dicks about it you can always just not hang out, but you can’t do that with coworkers. If they attack you for expressing how their behavior makes you feel, then you can probably bring it to HR and you’ll have a stronger case to say it’s malice.

I’m not going to discuss how I feel about you doubling down on “minority rights have always been handed down from above” because I don’t want to get banned, suffice to say I have no interest in discussing anything further with you.

Voting isn’t actually support

On the other hand, making a deliberate choice not to act does mean supporting whatever happens without your action

Interesting. So, by drag’s logic, a Trump voter isn’t responsible for supporting Trump, but a nonvoter is.

It’s amusing to see the kinds of ridiculous knots y’all tie yourselves into trying to twist around language in an attempt to resolve your cognitive dissonance and punch left.

That’s the “crabs-in-a-bucket” approach. We will never get anywhere if we’re willing to sell each other out and tear each other down to get ahead or protect ourselves. I’m never going to sacrifice solidarity with the oppressed in the hopes that our oppressors will be merciful. If I were that much of a coward, I wouldn’t have transitioned in the first place.

You say I will always lose with this path, but you don’t know that. What I do know is that I will always lose following your path. As far as I’m concerned, that’s the only thing that’s guaranteed to fail. Solidarity is the only viable strategy and the only one that makes any logical sense at all. As well as being the only moral position. You wanted to play that card of “look them in the face,” well I could never look a Palestinian in the face and explain why I’m selling them out just to save my own skin. They will level all their slings and arrows against us, but it is still better to stand against them together than to fracture and join them and fight against each other for a momentary respite until they inevitably turn on us.

Claiming that every victory every marginalized group has ever won was just handed down from above by appeasing the rich and powerful is absurd, ahistorical, and offensive.

What answer is that? All I’m doing here is interrogating your worldviews, and it seems I’ve found a pretty significant bit of cognitive dissonance, haven’t I?

Not an answer to my question.

Oh, I can say it to my own face, I’m trans. But I’ve also told all my trans friends that I’m not voting for Kamala, and have no difficulty doing so. There isn’t a single person in the world I wouldn’t look dead in the eye and say it to.

Your analogy fails to the account for the fact that you’re strengthening the very people who put you in that situation in the first place, so it is not a valid analogy (among many other reasons). You “accounted” for the cause in saying that the city council “failed to fix” the problem. In reality, they intentionally caused the problem, and doing your “triage” empowers them to cause it to happen more and more, neither of which you accounted for at all.

Today, Palestinians are the ones being “triaged.” Tomorrow, it could very well be us. By your calculus, if the democrats decide to throw us under the bus because they see us as too much of an electoral liability, you will still happily accept them as the “lesser evil” and all the arguments you’re using now to support killing Gazans, you will deploy then to support killing us. “The Democrats just want to sacrifice trans people, the Republicans want to go after trans people and gay people and…” Don’t try to pretend you wouldn’t, unless you’re prepared to explain why your “triage” analogy wouldn’t apply there too.

An injury to one is an injury to all. If we don’t stand up for Palestinians, if we allow minorities to be picked off one by one, then we are doomed because there will be no one left to stand up for us.

Are you asking which of the two major parties in the US is the “second” party, making the US more democratic than if there were a single party?

Yes, that is what I’m asking. To say that having more than one party makes our system more democratic means that there must be at least two parties whose existence both make the system more democratic. So, does the Republican party, whose candidate tried to overturn an election, make the system more democratic? Does the Green party, which the person I responded to said should face legal retribution for their role as a “spoiler,” make the system more democratic? Maybe the Libertarian party? Which one?