More than 100 Arizona Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and progressive Democrats and community leaders have signed a letter making the case for those reluctant to support Kamala Harris against Donald Trump.
“We know that many in our communities are resistant to vote for Kamala Harris because of the Biden administration’s complicity in the genocide,” the letter, published Thursday night, reads.
“Some of us have lost many family members in Gaza and Lebanon. We respect those who feel they simply can’t vote for a member of the administration that sent the bombs that may have killed their loved ones,” the letter continued. “As we consider the full situation carefully, however, we conclude that voting for Kamala Harris is the best option for the Palestinian cause and all of our communities.”
again: convincing anyone should not be your goal; you will only piss yourself off if you try and especially so if they’re snarky or default to insults and the point of the quote is not to paint democrats in any light.
i don’t know what your views are, but i used to be a liberal and this is how i see the quote as it pertains to what’s happening right now and how material like it changed my views by engaging leftists on the lemmyverse and using it to challenging my own views:
…the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice…
we’re being forced to pick between two genocide options. yes one has a chance at being worse than the other and that’s not the point here. we’re told that we MUST chose between these two options to enforce the peace through the barrel of a gun.
… who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action” …
this one applies in multiple ways but the one that both pertains to this discourse and still matters is the two genocide choices we’re being forced to select is manufactured since peace through violence is automatically not viable, so going third party is a direct action that moderates don’t agree with; strongly.
… who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” …
this speaks to the bulwark comment you shared: when they refuse to stop the genocide (or atleast attaching restrictions to the weapons) they’re accelerating the issue so that we have to make a decision here and right now because “now is not the time” since the election’s next week. this is intentionally done to push the narrative that “we vote now and then try to push a harris administration later” and that seems reasonable on the surface given the circumstances; but those circumstances were manufactured to force a time table to works in the genocider’s favor.
also: pushing an administration on something that lobbyist work against has never worked and convincing yourself that it can only helps push to conversation towards that genocider time table.
additionally; we’ve been voting for the lesser evil for a few generations now and doing so has painted us into this corner of a choice between 2 genocides. there is no indications that taking the same action that we have always been taking are going to yield different results this time and this genocide along with the erosions of legal protections on a variety of issues is sufficient argument that things will continue to devolve if we keep doing the same thing as we have been doing.
… Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
a deeper understanding requires time & effort; it’s much easier to skim the information to make a decision and doing so perpetuates a shallow understanding were we don’t know the recent history that explains why we’re being forced to chose between 2 genocides.
when people of shallow understanding get together because their views align it creates an environment where dissension is not tolerated; especially when it’s properly educated and informed because that creates a counter reality with enough substance to rival the shallow understanding groupthink. the number of people who only skim the information will always vastly outnumber the people who put the time & effort in and that creates a world where there’s an “obvious” right answer from the majority’s perspective and the few weirdos who have learned of that counter reality are just silly because they won’t accept “common sense.”
I agree with you that we are being forced to choose between 2 genocides. Knowledge of that situation doesn’t change that fact. Awareness of being between a rock and a hard place doesn’t get you out of the trap. But you’ve heard this again and again, and I’ve heard THIS again and again. Correctly identifying a problem is not the same thing as having a solution. I applaud your dedication to the ideal of seeking a third path. You are trying to show me the problem, but I’m well aware of it. I don’t even disagree with you that it IS a problem. I, in fact, agree with every single reason you’ve given for the decision you’ve made. I simply believe that the action you’re taking is totally futile and counterproductive, and won’t achieve any of your stated goals. You don’t agree - that’s fine. Do what you like. I’m waiting for a proposal with even a passing chance of success. I’m not even waiting, as Dr. King says, for a more convenient season. I’m waiting for a plan that will WORK. Dr. King was advocating for direct action which would have the possibility of success. Dr. King said that after he’d built a movement of millions of followers. After he’d organized massive marches. After he’d won the hearts and spirits of so many. He was talking about real action he could take. He wasn’t advocating martyring oneself in a completely futile gesture with a small number of his friends.
knowing that you’re in a trap is only a start and understanding the problem is a necessary step before you create a solution.
i haven’t shared any of my decisions or goals with you besides trying engage with someone with different views and sharing how i think we can best benefit from that engagement, so saying it’s “totally futile,” “counterproductive” or that “it won’t achieve anything” can only be presumptive at best.
if you can share those goals or decisions i can try to set the record straight in the hopes of learning what it was i shared that gave you the impression that they were goals and decisions.
and yes, we disagree that’s why i engaged you and we’re not trying to convince each so the discourse hasn’t devolved into gotchas, snark, or insults that defines contemporary american political discourse. i’m getting something out of it and i hope you are too.
You did not explicitly declare your goals, but we wouldn’t be having this discussion if one of them wasn’t ending the genocide in Gaza.
I’d further speculate you want to put an end to the 2 party oligarchy and allow people to have choices that more closely align with their values without forced compromise on important issues.
You may have more, but I’d venture these are two primary ones. And I don’t think either of these are achievable through not voting for Harris this election. Because nearly every option for political activity is going to evaporate in an administration that has absolutely NO respect whatsoever for the rule of law or political activity - doesn’t even see the need to pretend. Look no further than what happened to Hong Kong to see what happens when the imperfect democracy is replaced with autocratic control.
