Trump winning supports the genocide of every LGBTQ+ person in all of North America, be it directly or indirectly. No one wants what is happening in Gaza. But, I have to say the potential genocide (in the sense of complete erasure of culture as well as open murders with little to no consequences sense) here is even higher.
I have the unfortunate circumstance of being a trans woman in GA. I already have had to completely shut off most contact with people, both work and personal.
I’ve already had rocks thrown at me in an attempt to kill me (this was years ago, even). I already feel like I have to carry a gun. If things go the way they seem, I will even have to order in groceries because it will further empower the people that hate my existence.
The foreign policy is shit, no question. However, I don’t like the possibility of being raped and murdered by some asshole that thinks he understands Co² emissions after watching some video.
I have a lot to say here, especially as a very blue collar machinist. I will refrain, though.
In conclusion: by “avoiding” the genocide in Gaza (which would have in my opinion had a much higher chance of being resolved with Democratic policies), you have also doomed people like me to maybe live in fear for the rest of our lives.
Why would you use a source that improved so much since, to support your argument that Gaza is presently the worst situation?
You're right that I only commented on your first source, but then why would you use it and put it on the top if it doesn't make your case? Your use of the word 'slightly' is disingenious. Unless more food came in hundreds of thousands of people were going to starve. To say that not starving is a 'slight improvement' is an understatement you're deliberately making to obscure this. This is easily countered by the report I cited as well: they improved to the same level that 5 times more people are on in Sudan. So which of those two is worse by this metric, today?
Your second source is a single doctor who says it's like nothing he's seen before. While I appreciate him weighing in, I don't think that provides conclusive proof that a certain conflict he's working in is 'currently the worst in the world'.
Your third source is paywalled, but from what I can read it's about the first two months of Israel's retaliation on Gaza, citing the number of 18.000 deaths over this period as the reason why they considered it 'nothing we've seen before'. So first of all they're talking about a period in the past where the death toll was around 6 times as high as it is today, which also means that your above suggestion that only the situation described in the first of your four articles has 'slightly improved is, to my opinion, not very honest. Secondly, citing the death count as the reason for this doesn't say everything. Is a single Sudanese village being massacred to the last child 'worse'? Is more Sudanese being massacred over a longer period less so?
Your fourth source is not one of 'the biggest humanitarian organisations' but rather a single career politician. And it's his job not to understate any crisis he's commenting on. Here he is calling the one in Sudan "the largest displacement crisis in the world".
For clarity: I'm not trying to say that I don't consider the situation for the people in Gaza SuperBad, because it is. But there are conflicts where far more people are suffering and they're forgotten and falsely considered 'less worse' not because they are, but just because they don't even get 1/1000th of the media attention.