I thought y’all were sacrificing millions of Palestinians and migrants and Black people for harm reduction, but your queen won’t even commit to the god damn harm reduction.
I thought y’all were sacrificing millions of Palestinians and migrants and Black people for harm reduction, but your queen won’t even commit to the god damn harm reduction.
You have no power, don’t you see that? You’re powerless. The fascists already won and you have no choice but to choose between fascism and fascism. Revel in your powerlessness.
That’s from Bobby Sands, right? I know I’ve heard that quote somewhere before, on the importance of giving up. I think I might get it framed and put it on the wall of my study.
Sometimes giving means doing nothing, and sometimes giving up means you stop playing one game to play another.
You should never give up and do nothing. But playing a losing game sometimes has the same result as giving up and doing absolutely nothing. But giving up, and choosing a new game gives you the agency to play a game that will have a better outcome.
But at what point is playing that losing game doing more harm than good?
You’re so right. You know, I remember Ernst Thälmann was telling me all about that, last time I saw him. He had a much better game to play, it was sounding really good. Hey, what happened to him? I haven’t seen him around, even after the war’s been over.
I’m sorry to break it to you, but your dear friend was executed under personal order of hitler for daring to try and play a game that didn’t involve fascism.
I should introduce you to subcomandante marcos sometime. He’s an interesting guy. Last time I saw him he was enjoying retirement in the mountains of Chiapas, having dared to play a different game and fought to liberate indigenous people in mexico, and worked with them to create a better world. The justice system they made is so good that people from outside the zapatista territories will use it to resolve their disputes and problems. He is living under a better system for having dared to play a game that doesn’t involve systemic oppression and is destroying a lot of hierarchies.
Now then, i’m gonna be going to bed soon, i’m traveling a few hours to meet up with a Palestinian friend I met in a protest a few months back for a big protest in a bigger city. He’s not exactly a big fan of harris, and while his immediate family is safe, it’s certainly taking a toll on him as he watches news stories of his country being bombed to dust by israel, and his people be ethnically cleansed.
He also has this idea that you gotta play a different game sometimes, but what if you are right? What if it fails?
What if we decide to just play the losing game? Well, it seems like that would result in genocide, that’s not good. But hey, at least there is a chance that we get a tossup not getting trump. I don’t think my Palestinian friend would be a fan of that choice though.
A better future isn’t guaranteed, but you will never get a better future by playing the losing game.
Your friend doesn’t want his family to die in the slaughter that’s going on right now, but isn’t at all concerned about what will happen if Trump gets into power?
That’s the wrong read on the situation. Of course he’s concerned. To act as if a muslim isn’t concerned about the muslim ban guy is simply disingenuous.
But why is he required to vote for a party that has actively participated in the genocide against his people?
Saying “But what about trump” when said in this context is generally said through a self centered lens. It can often be substituted for “But what about what trump will do to me?” Expecting someone to vote for someone who is participating in their genocide involves placing your needs above theirs. And why should we expect someone to be a paragon of selflessness when the framing is selfish?
And i get the reflex to say that, i’m queer and project 2025 isn’t exactly gonna be kind to me. I’m in for a bad time if trump is back in office. But i recognize that expecting someone to vote for someone participating in their genocide is fucked up.
Now, you might want to respond “but isn’t it self centered to only consider your own plight, when trump is targeting more people than kamala?”
Now this situation is mutually selfish. But using this argument is hypocritical. And not only that, but we’re now victim blaming!
But there is a better way to look at this whole situation, without victim blaming. Kamala is responsible for her own policies, and the outcomes it has on her election. Why is it a Palestinian’s fault for potentially causing her to lose when it could be Kamala’s fault for alienating Palestinian voters causing her to lose? Blaming the voters excuses the person with the power to change things.
Kamala Harris didn’t invade Gaza, and she was in no way in charge of the US administration that aided and abetted it.
I do agree with a lot of what you’re saying. I wouldn’t tell any Palestinian person that they need to support anyone who’s inside the administration that’s assisting in the mass murder of their family. I’m just saying that Trump will be worse for the Palestinians, so for someone else who’s also on the outside to say that voting for Kamala is a bad idea is a horrifying mistake, to me.
Kamala might not be invading gaza personally, but instead of taking any meaningful to stop the invasion, she is reinforcing the invasion by refusing to take actions to stop the flow of bombs that are the means of genocide.
Kamala has the ability to try and get biden to halt sending weapons, or even try and get biden to force israel to stop more directly, like what Obama did when he was in office.
She also has the ability to say that she will stop sending the weapons used to commit genocide to israel, but instead of that she refused to do so.
Just because she isn’t biden doesn’t mean she is powerless, she’s the fucking vice president.
Is there anything worse that you can do besides full support of genocide while saying genocide is bad? Is it full support of genocide while being even more racist?
And that brings us back to what I was saying about choosing to play a different game in my first comment.
The act of voting isn’t the problem when you take a look at non-voting. Instead, it’s the participation in the loosing game, and the implications of that.
By participating, you fight at a disadvantage. It goes without saying that there are a lot of problems with the electoral process, but things are a lot worse tan gerrymandering and voter restrictions.
Non-voting is also taking the stance that voting will not save you. If you want a better world, playing this shitty losing game will not take you there. The ends and the means are intertwined, if you play shitty games you win shitty prizes.