cecinestpasunbot

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 18 hours ago (5 children)

I think you might be underestimating the number of democrats that are also war hawks who want to bomb Iran.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

You can systematically murder more groups than just 1.

If you support one genocide for your own personally benefit what's to stop you from supporting another? You're morally bankrupt and completely irredeemable at that point.

If it was that easy, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

It is that easy! You just don't want to admit. You're operating on an absurd moral plane where you think one set of genocide supporters is more redeemable than another. At that point you've already accepted the inevitability of fascism and you're just trying to make a bargain with it. I'm here to tell you fascism doesn't work that way. If you give it an inch it will take a mile.

you’re arguing that doing nothing is the morally superior response.

You can actually do things that don't require you to carry water for genocide supports. Go to a protest and connect with likeminded people. Organize your workplace or community. Engage in civil disobedience against unjust state violence. Instead of pretending that the only choice that matters is the one where you spend five seconds filling in one of two boxes every four years, do something that actually makes a difference.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Less genocide? What does that even mean?! You can't systematically murder a people to a greater or lesser degree. There is no "good" way to support a genocide. Just don't support genocide. It's actually fairly easy to do.

It’s not allowing fascism to take over.

So the people who happily funded and supported a fascist ethnostate committing a genocide and who continue to do so are going to stop fascism? Right, got it. That makes perfect sense.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Stop letting perfection be the enemy of good.

So in this case you think supporting a genocide is a good option?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Vincent Bevins the author of The Jakarta Method actually wrote a book about why the protest movements of the last few decades rarely achieved their stated goals. It’s worth checking out.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Not really. The overwhelming majority of those protests were peaceful. However the media latched on to the few cases where riots broke out which is pretty much what they always do.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If that were true Iran would have almost certainly taken some of the actions I've described. They're trying to use that as a threat to get the US to back down and reign in their attack dog.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (3 children)

They could believe in their longterm capacity for success in a war with Israel and the US but still want to avoid all of the destruction that would entail. If they blow up Saudi oil fields, close the straits of hormuz, and attack US bases then any hope of deescalation is lost.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes. It was the largest protest movement in US history and it did precisely nothing to stop police brutality.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 3 days ago (12 children)

It really depends on how far both sides are willing to escalate.

Israel appears to be emboldened for a variety of reasons. Nobody is stopping their genocide. Hezbollah is on its back foot. Netanyahu sees political gain in a war with Iran. Trump is reckless enough to not reign Israel in.

However, Israel cannot wage all out war without the backing of the US. Iran knows this which is why I think their responses to past Israeli attacks have been fairly measured. These attacks are a serious escalation though and it’s hard to say how Iran may decide to respond.

If they seriously think the US is ready to back Israel in an all out war then we’re going to face consequences globally. Iran has the capacity to obliterate much of the middle east’s oil infrastructure, which the US is heavily invested in. That could cause energy prices to spike and create all kinds of downstream havoc for the global economy.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Yeah honestly, if you're only looking at the campaigns that led to overthrow of the government or territorial liberation then it should be somewhat self evident that nonviolent campaigns have better outcomes. They lead to less death and less destruction of infrastructure which is desirable for whatever comes next. Unfortunately, that's not always an option for people seeking liberation.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Haha speak for yourself. Understanding the underlying mechanics makes it obvious what comes next and I kind of wish we could just skip that part. 😅

view more: next ›