• silverlose@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Okay, I’m not going to claim that US democrats are perfect but saying that they openly support genocide is extremely hyperbolic and undermines your argument.

      The US has done a LOT of terrible things and both parties had a hand in it. I wouldn’t say either of them support genocide.

      • bishbosh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        The democratic party under Biden almost uniformly supported to the tune of billions of dollars in weapons, the ethnic cleansing, of Gaza. This is with knowledge of Israel using systemic sexual violence, collective punishment, school and hospital bombings, killing journalists and humanitarian aid workers, utilizing medical aid outfits as disguises for secret operations, and targeting civilian infrastructure.

        It is not at all hyperbolic to state the plain fact they openly support genocide, as openly supporting the actions in Gaza is openly supporting a genocide.

        • silverlose@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          I think you can make a strong case that the US foreign policy in this region is garbage, and I agree with you, they’ve done terrible things.

          But I still don’t think that they would openly support genocide. If they had, I think you would’ve been able to find a source for that.

          Just so you don’t get the wrong idea here: I agree with what you’re saying but I disagree with the language you’re using. I think it undermines your point.

          • bishbosh@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            If you openly support, both verbally and functionally, an on-going genocide, you openly support genocide.

            Just because they didn’t say “We want to genocide the Palestinians.” at a press meeting, doesn’t mean that they don’t openly support the genocide they were funding, blocking criticism for, and suppressing protest of.

            • silverlose@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              Eh, I think id call it covert or something like that. Saying “openly” implies they like/enjoy genocide or something.

              • bishbosh@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 days ago

                I guess at a point we have to ask what is the purpose of drawing that line. If China says it’s begrudgingly purging the Uyghurs due to their cultural beliefs and the land they ingenious to, are they not openly supporting genocide? Does it matter if they say they like it in press briefings when the only actions they take is to further violence and propagate the ongoing genocide?

                Why is the hypothetical cruelty in their soul the deciding factor, when they are opening doing the work that supports a genocide?

                • silverlose@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  It’s worth something that they at least try to lie about it, no? Like we’re not really at “openly” yet.

                  I’m just making a point about the language used to try to help you be more convincing. When you say stuff like the dems openly support genocide, I imagine a clip of Biden gleefully cheering on the deaths of innocents.

                  I get it’s semantics, and you’re correct in a way it is “openly” supporting that, but it just sounds a bit hyperbolic to me.

                  Don’t forget, we ultimately agree.

                  • bishbosh@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    3 days ago

                    I understand and respect optics arguments, but I think this is why I don’t know that we agree to the degree you think we do.

                    It seems that you think we should be cautious of the optics of unjustly invoking phasing that you don’t feel is justified for the democratic party. To put it a bit more plainly it seems that you are quicker to try and reframe it in such a way that the criticism is not applicable for democrats. To me it seems utterly vital that we use language that is both true and harsh. Openly means without the secret channels governments often use, and nothing about the dems support of Israel is obtuse.

                    I think this is vital because I don’t think we can let slip the genocidal support of the previous administration be forgotten in the haze of the terrors of the current one.

                    The democratic party is a vicious and evil group that in the face of massive mounting evidence, continued to defend, and fund an on going genocide. In an age of perpetual wars and bombings, our ‘progressive’ party claimed they would ensure we would have “the most lethal military in the world.”

                    I don’t want to shy away from this because I think they are blood thirsty people, and should be portrayed as such, especially when it’s literally true.