President-elect Donald Trump’s promise could lead to a 60-day cease-fire, allowing Israel to suspend hostilities until military support resumes under the new administration.
But it means your vote could have helped bring the victory to someone less genocidal.
I know Harris is not a pro-Palestine person, but she’s someone we could have talked to and could have felt the pressure of her voters. At the very least she doesn’t support the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza, unlike Trump, who couldn’t give less of a shit about Palestinians and is happy if Israel leveled them down
P.S. I don’t want to make you feel guilty. The political system the US people live in is a shit. I’m just disappointed that maybe she could have had a chance of winning if people didn’t abstain.
she’s someone we could have talked to and could have felt the pressure of her voters.
No, she absolutely isn’t.
Politicians are never more receptive to voters’ concerns than just before an election. Once they have people’s votes, they tend to shift further in the direction of interests groups and the establishment. Like, for example, on the campaign trail, Obama promised to end mass surveillance and protect whistleblowers, but once he was in office, he did the opposite. Harris on the campaign trail, after the widespread campus protests, was the most pro-Palestine she would ever be, which is to say not even the slightest bit and completely unconditionally supportive of material aid to Israel.
It used to be that politicians would promise to do good things on the campaign trail, and then usually not follow through. But now they don’t even have to promise anything, because people will just project whatever views and values they hold onto whichever candidate they like regardless of anything they say or do.
Harris and Biden are unconditionally supportive of everything Israel does. Short of direct involvement of the US military, it’s not really possible for Trump to be meaningfully worse than that.
Right, I don’t deny that Harris was less evil on other issues, but I do not subscribe to the ideology of lesser-evilism. Just because one side is more evil doesn’t mean that the other side is worth supporting when they’re both irredeemably evil genocidal psychopaths who deserve eternal torture in the deepest circle of hell. Lesser-evilism doesn’t make sense from either a moral or strategic standpoint.
There’s a social experiment that’s been studied where the researchers give two people $100 to split, but the first person makes one offer on how to split it, and if the second person doesn’t agree, then neither of them get anything. If lesser-evilism was correct, then what would happen is that the first person would offer a $99-$1 split and the second person would accept, because $1 is a lesser evil than $0. But that’s not what actually happens. The reality is that most people have a certain minimum threshold, somewhere around $70-$30, and below that they’ll tell the other person to get fucked.
This is not really an irrational behavior, though it may appear so in the context of the experiment. For example, if the experiment were repeated multiple times with the same participants, than accepting the $1 means that you will only ever be offered $1 in future negotiations because you’ve shown you’ll accept it.
In reality, I’m pretty sure that lesser-evilists understand this concept on some level. It’s just that either their minimum threshold does not preclude the genocide of foreigners in far away countries, or they convince themselves that the democrats aren’t actually as bad about that as they are. But for me, I do recognize that Harris is a complete monster, and I also place value on Palestinian lives, so I said no to the $99-$1 offer and now I have $0 which I fully anticipated and have no regrets over. Maybe next time they’ll come back with a reasonable offer that doesn’t include genocide.
But it means your vote could have helped bring the victory to someone less genocidal.
I know Harris is not a pro-Palestine person, but she’s someone we could have talked to and could have felt the pressure of her voters. At the very least she doesn’t support the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza, unlike Trump, who couldn’t give less of a shit about Palestinians and is happy if Israel leveled them down
P.S. I don’t want to make you feel guilty. The political system the US people live in is a shit. I’m just disappointed that maybe she could have had a chance of winning if people didn’t abstain.
No, she absolutely isn’t.
Politicians are never more receptive to voters’ concerns than just before an election. Once they have people’s votes, they tend to shift further in the direction of interests groups and the establishment. Like, for example, on the campaign trail, Obama promised to end mass surveillance and protect whistleblowers, but once he was in office, he did the opposite. Harris on the campaign trail, after the widespread campus protests, was the most pro-Palestine she would ever be, which is to say not even the slightest bit and completely unconditionally supportive of material aid to Israel.
It used to be that politicians would promise to do good things on the campaign trail, and then usually not follow through. But now they don’t even have to promise anything, because people will just project whatever views and values they hold onto whichever candidate they like regardless of anything they say or do.
Harris and Biden are unconditionally supportive of everything Israel does. Short of direct involvement of the US military, it’s not really possible for Trump to be meaningfully worse than that.
Okay I understand your point. Unfortunately Palestinians are not the only targeted ones. We have
Harris said and has showed to support them. Trump vowed to destroy all of them.
Right, I don’t deny that Harris was less evil on other issues, but I do not subscribe to the ideology of lesser-evilism. Just because one side is more evil doesn’t mean that the other side is worth supporting when they’re both irredeemably evil genocidal psychopaths who deserve eternal torture in the deepest circle of hell. Lesser-evilism doesn’t make sense from either a moral or strategic standpoint.
There’s a social experiment that’s been studied where the researchers give two people $100 to split, but the first person makes one offer on how to split it, and if the second person doesn’t agree, then neither of them get anything. If lesser-evilism was correct, then what would happen is that the first person would offer a $99-$1 split and the second person would accept, because $1 is a lesser evil than $0. But that’s not what actually happens. The reality is that most people have a certain minimum threshold, somewhere around $70-$30, and below that they’ll tell the other person to get fucked.
This is not really an irrational behavior, though it may appear so in the context of the experiment. For example, if the experiment were repeated multiple times with the same participants, than accepting the $1 means that you will only ever be offered $1 in future negotiations because you’ve shown you’ll accept it.
In reality, I’m pretty sure that lesser-evilists understand this concept on some level. It’s just that either their minimum threshold does not preclude the genocide of foreigners in far away countries, or they convince themselves that the democrats aren’t actually as bad about that as they are. But for me, I do recognize that Harris is a complete monster, and I also place value on Palestinian lives, so I said no to the $99-$1 offer and now I have $0 which I fully anticipated and have no regrets over. Maybe next time they’ll come back with a reasonable offer that doesn’t include genocide.