• Tricky@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    No. And fuck you for taking that position. That Uncommitted position doesn’t ‘punish’ Harris, it simply ensures that a demagogue would be elected. AND just coincidentally, the early actions of that demagogue signals that Palestine simply won’t exist in any significant fashion in a few years.

    The direct result of your holier-than-thou’ position is that Palestine gets fucked 10 times harder. Good job asshole.

    • pjwestin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 days ago

      Well, A) I’m describing the position Uncommitted was in, not giving my own. B) Who the hell are you quoting when you say, “punish?” That word doesn’t appear in my comment, and I definitely didn’t say that the Uncommitted leaders were trying to punish anyone, so what the fuck are you talking about? Are you actually arguing with me, or someone you made up in your head? C) Your entitled, sneering attitude is indicative of why Harris lost; telling Palestinian that Harris won’t oppose the genocide, but vote for her anyway or else; telling teamsters she didn’t need them to win; it turns out that was a losing strategy, huh?

      By the way, I actually voted for Harris, despite her floundering, directionless campaign, but since I’m not a complete idiot, I want to understand people who didn’t. Blaming other people for Harris’s loss might feel nice, but internet temper tantrums don’t win elections.

      Anyway, I could also call you an asshole and tell you to get fucked, but honestly, I’d rather you work on your reading comprehension. You don’t seem to have understood (or at least engaged with) anything I said besides, “Uncommitted didn’t endorse Harris.” Honestly, based on your comment, I’m not even sure you understand what the Uncommitted movement was.

      • Tricky@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        I will apologise for my aggressive response. I conflated your position with direct support for the underlying. That was a mistake and I apologize.

        Re the ‘punish’ comment, I remain completely disgusted with Uncommitted due to their stated goals ’ a protest campaign aimed mainly to pressure Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to achieve a ceasefire in the Israel–Hamas war and impose an arms embargo on Israel

        No such political pressure towards the Trump campaign? I recognize that he isn’t the sitting president but even a casual observer can see that his presidency would likely be significantly worse for Palestine.

        However, re third party or ‘none of the above’ voters, including any teamsters that did not vote for Harris because she didn’t beg, fuck em. I believe their fence sitting (at least partially) enabled this right wing smorgasbord.

        • pjwestin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 days ago

          Well, I get what you’re saying, but I think Harris’ failure to negotiate with these groups is entirely on her. The Uncommitted movement’s goals were very lofty, but their demands were small. They wanted State Rep. Ruwa Romman to give a speech at the DNC, and a leaked draft showed it was a very mild speech that didn’t even condemn Israel. It just called for an end to the war. After the DNC declined, they asked her to meet with families who’d lost loved ones in Gaza, and she ignored the request. Finally, they gave her until September 15th to hold a meeting with them, and she again ignored them, so they decided not to endorse her.

          The Uncommitted movement didn’t create the problems Harris had with the Muslim community; Biden’s handling of Gaza did that. The Uncommitted movement just took that anger, organized it, and put it towards productive action. That’s what activist leaders are supposed to do. The Uncommitted leadership was clearly looking for any gesture towards the Palestinian community that they could take to their supporters, and Harris just wouldn’t do it. You have to do something to win an activist groups’ support. Endorsing her after she snubbed them wouldn’t have convinced the Uncommitted members to vote for Harris, if would have convinced them their leaders were pushovers.

          • Tricky@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 days ago

            And that sentiment, writ across the country, handed the election on a platter to the Republican party. Who will be arguably worse for Palestine that the Democrats.

            Ultimately none of the Uncommitted arguments are wrong - I would go so far to say they are reasonable - but they presume that the alternative is better than the incumbent. Which I believe is manifestly misplaced in the 2024 election. All well and good to withhold support because you’ve been ignored, but this is a prime example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

            Anyway. I respect that you’re clarifying and I appreciate that.

            • emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 days ago

              No, they presumed Harris would be reasonable and make concessions to the will of the people. The fact that she didnt isnt on the people, its on her. She did nothing but try to appeal to the center-right which clearly didnt work, but she didn’t learn andbthe Democratic party still isnt gonna learn. Nobody assumes Trump is better either, they just refused to cave to the Democrat’s clear manipulation of the situation and disdain for the average person.

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      People like you seem to think protesting against genocide is a bigger problem than sending billions in support of genocide. I can’t tell if it’s a matter of diehard party support above all else or simple delusion.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Just acknowledge that we were always getting one of two options. This isn’t confusing in the slightest.

        To extend the analogy used in the comment starting this thread, it’s like leaving your abusive partner to live with a more abusive partner.

        Why the ever loving fuck would you choose the worse option?

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 days ago

          The choices were genocide or genocide. Apparently some privileged people here haven’t noticed that the genocide has already been getting worse and worse for over a year now.

          • capital@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 days ago

            Maybe electing someone unlikely to restrain them at all while simultaneously making shit worse in the US and Ukraine, doing a 180 on what little climate progress we’ve made, making abortion illegal nationwide, and reducing/ending social security will help.

            • hark@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 days ago

              Biden wasn’t restraining israel at all and Harris kept talking about how she’d be a continuation of Biden. Now you’re bringing in a bunch of other issues that aren’t what these voters are focused on. Turns out you have to appeal to voters to get their votes.

              • capital@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                4 days ago

                You seem to be under the impression that all discussions between the two countries happened in public. Do I have that right?

        • Iceman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 days ago

          A perfect analogy where you argue to stay with abusive partner and you are actually a horrible person if you don’t want to stay with your abusive partner. The idea that your partner stops being abusive is also so absurd that it’s out of the question.

          • capital@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            Yeah, yeah. People said this leading up to the election to. The plain logic of “we’re getting one of these two” didn’t seem to click with many, you included.

            I’m a cis white male who makes pretty damn good money so in all likelihood I’ll be fine. That surely won’t be the case for many. I tried. /shrug

            • Iceman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              I bet you did wonders with your “stay with your abuser” rhetoric. With clever posters like you, how a could we possibly have lost? But i am happy to read that the election did matter to you anyway.

        • pjwestin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          As I said in the other comment you left, your interpretation of the analogy makes no sense. Your point would be valid if I were discussing Arab and Muslim voters who voted for Trump, but I’m not; I’m discussing the Uncommitted movement, who endorsed neither candidate.

          • capital@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 days ago

            Oh they only didn’t know whether they wanted to better or worse option. Still pretty goddamn stupid.

            • pjwestin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 days ago

              Yeah, also no, and it you’d actually read the original comment, you’d know that. As I said:

              they declined to endorse her, but still urged their supporters not to vote Trump or third-party.

              They knew Trump was worse, they didn’t want Trump to win, but they needed Harris to make a gesture towards the Arab community before they could endorse her; she didn’t, so they didn’t. She didn’t negotiate to get their endorsement, so she didn’t get their endorsement. It’s very funny that you’re acting like everyone else is an idiot yet you still don’t understand this.

                • pjwestin@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Dude, you need to reread the article, then reread my comment. The Uncommitted movement and Abandon Harris are two different groups.

                  I criticized Abandon Harris in my comment for having unrealistic goals for how far they could push Democrats. Uncommitted had much more reasonable requests. Harris completely blew them off, so they couldn’t endorse her, but they still came out with an anti-Trump, anti-third-party statement. Harris could have one their endorsement with some small, most symbolic gestures, and she fucked it up. Losing that endorsement was entirely the Harris campaign’s fault.