I see you didn’t even manage to get that lever pulled last election because genocide isn’t very popular regardless of your cheerleading. Pulling the lever would’ve never stopped the genocide, but derailing the train would have. You didn’t want genocide to end, you just wanted to go back to brunch.
You know, at least back when Lincoln was president, voters at least had a spine to do something about issues they were ethically against. They were willing to completely abandon the Whig party to back the new republican party (which killed the Whig party). This isn’t a fundamental change to the system, but even still it is farther than you’d be willing to go to prevent genocide. Perhaps what leftists need is for people like you to be less chickenshit genocidal white supremacist sellouts who hem and haw about the correct way to do genocide to prevent as much blowback to yourselves as possible as you live in the luxury that has been paid in the blood of the global south.
Or maybe ask me which state my “lever” was in and realize how futile your argument is for the majority of states and the majority of the population. Even if we had universal popular vote to determine president, as you seem to assume, that doesn’t remove the fact that the two choices were both supporters of genocide and the train deserves to be derailed and the track destroyed.
Pulling the lever would’ve never stopped the genocide, but derailing the train would have.
This point is totally useless without a way to derail the train. Not just a vague conceptual idea of what could theoretically derail the train, that’s useless. Without an actual mechanism to realistically do so, sufficient buy-in to implement that mechanism, and sufficient organization to actually follow through on that implementation, this is a totally useless argument. The necessary mechanism, buy-in, and organization does not currently exist. If you lack the ability to detail the train, it doesn’t matter how much better the world would be if the train was derailed. It’s pure fantasy, and it gets in the way of actual realistic praxis.
The problem is that those organizations are being built as we speak, and so should redirect people to those organizations. That’s realistic praxis. By pretending that these organizations will magically appear one day without needing to life a finger, you’re absolving yourself of the responsibility to do so and are calling “realistic praxis” upholding a genocidal system.
Just because you can’t imagine getting off your ass and building a better world doesn’t mean that everyone else shares your love for learned incompetence and your defense of fascists.
It’s funny how libs always assume that moral objectors aren’t doing anything besides voting. Do you think we aren’t out organizing our communities so that eventually we will have the mechanism to destroy the train?
And how do you think that mechanism gets built if it doesn’t start with a refusal to get on the train in the first place?
And finally, if moral objectors are so impotent and meaningless, then why do you keep blaming us for your candidate’s loss?
I see you didn’t even manage to get that lever pulled last election because genocide isn’t very popular regardless of your cheerleading. Pulling the lever would’ve never stopped the genocide, but derailing the train would have. You didn’t want genocide to end, you just wanted to go back to brunch.
You know, at least back when Lincoln was president, voters at least had a spine to do something about issues they were ethically against. They were willing to completely abandon the Whig party to back the new republican party (which killed the Whig party). This isn’t a fundamental change to the system, but even still it is farther than you’d be willing to go to prevent genocide. Perhaps what leftists need is for people like you to be less chickenshit genocidal white supremacist sellouts who hem and haw about the correct way to do genocide to prevent as much blowback to yourselves as possible as you live in the luxury that has been paid in the blood of the global south.
Or maybe ask me which state my “lever” was in and realize how futile your argument is for the majority of states and the majority of the population. Even if we had universal popular vote to determine president, as you seem to assume, that doesn’t remove the fact that the two choices were both supporters of genocide and the train deserves to be derailed and the track destroyed.
This point is totally useless without a way to derail the train. Not just a vague conceptual idea of what could theoretically derail the train, that’s useless. Without an actual mechanism to realistically do so, sufficient buy-in to implement that mechanism, and sufficient organization to actually follow through on that implementation, this is a totally useless argument. The necessary mechanism, buy-in, and organization does not currently exist. If you lack the ability to detail the train, it doesn’t matter how much better the world would be if the train was derailed. It’s pure fantasy, and it gets in the way of actual realistic praxis.
The problem is that those organizations are being built as we speak, and so should redirect people to those organizations. That’s realistic praxis. By pretending that these organizations will magically appear one day without needing to life a finger, you’re absolving yourself of the responsibility to do so and are calling “realistic praxis” upholding a genocidal system.
Just because you can’t imagine getting off your ass and building a better world doesn’t mean that everyone else shares your love for learned incompetence and your defense of fascists.
It’s funny how libs always assume that moral objectors aren’t doing anything besides voting. Do you think we aren’t out organizing our communities so that eventually we will have the mechanism to destroy the train?
And how do you think that mechanism gets built if it doesn’t start with a refusal to get on the train in the first place?
And finally, if moral objectors are so impotent and meaningless, then why do you keep blaming us for your candidate’s loss?