United States | News & Politics

7245 readers

146 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

105

The state of US political discourse (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

269 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jwiggler -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, these things work on a small scale, as society grows and becomes more complex, it starts to require things likes specialization, delegation of works, and gasp, central planning. The same way complex organisms require things like nervous systems and brains. That's why every large scale society ends up being structured in a hierarchical fashion. The evolutionary pressures select for that sort of structure because it's more efficient.

Actually, the archaeological record proves this to be false, as some of the cities they've found consisted of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. You're just perpetuating a pseudo scientific idea of social organization, in the same way that capitalists do.

But you don't seem to be really interested in actual conversation, just "you're complicit in genocide."

Which, again, there isn't much I can do besides go to protests and declare, "yes, it is a genocide. Yes, the US and the democratic party is complicit, and yes, if Republicans are elected they will attempt to legitimize Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and their overall utter destruction of the Palestinian people."

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

Actually, the archaeological record proves this to be false, as some of the cities they’ve found consisted of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. You’re just perpetuating a pseudo scientific idea of social organization, in the same way that capitalists do.

That's small scale compared to millions of people living in modern countries. It's literally an order of magnitude smaller scale.

But you don’t seem to be really interested in actual conversation, just “you’re complicit in genocide.”

Seems to me that you're the one who's not interested in actual conversation, and don't want to talk about what the tangible outcomes of your position entail. Instead, you just want to talk about fantasies of yours that are divorced from the material reality we inhabit.

Which, again, there isn’t much I can do besides go to protests and declare, “yes, it is a genocide. Yes, the US and the democratic party is complicit, and yes, if Republicans are elected they will attempt to legitimize Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank and their overall utter destruction of the Palestinian people.”

The least you can do is not give your vote to people conducting a genocide. That much should be obvious.

[–] jwiggler 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wow! You've convinced me! I'll never take part in a US election ever again! Where can I join your political party, so that they can tell me what to do from the top-down instead? Yay! I'm not a genocider anymore!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I never expected to convince you of anything. It's pretty clear that it's not possible to have a rational discussion with somebody who says they refuse to join a political party due to its top-down organization while voting for a party committing a genocide within a system of top-down organization without any hint of irony.

[–] jwiggler 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I'm really not sure what could be more rational than voting in the direction that leans away from what you don't want (further genocide, further authoritarianism) while still recognizing that direction does not lean far enough, and therefore continuing to organize outside the political system.

What you would have me do is not vote at all (an irrational, symbolic gesture, ceding increased power to hard right authoritarians) and continue to organize outside the political system.

I choose to do both, vote and organize, because that's really the maximum amount I can do here. You say a vote for Harris is supporting genocide. Well, a vote for Trump is also supporting genocide. And a vote for nobody means I have no preference at all. Well, I do have a preference -- I prefer the party that, at least publicly, supports a two state solution. The party which consists of at least a few individuals who actually calls the conflict what it is, which is a genocide. As opposed to the other, which has ZERO members even willing to call it a genocide.

At the same time, recognizing that the system is broken, that the Democratic party is complicit in the crimes of the US, and pushing from outside the political system, for radical change.

I would use the full extent of my power as an individual, while you would prefer me to use only a portion of it. Could you explain to me how that is more rational than using my full power? (and that's a genuine question, because if I know how your mind works maybe I'll agree)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

Olympic level mental gymnastics on display