this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
495 points (91.9% liked)

politics

19080 readers
3562 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The poll found 50% of Democrats approve of how Biden has navigated the conflict while 46% disapprove — and the two groups diverge substantially in their views of U.S. support for Israel. Biden’s support on the issue among Democrats is down slightly from August, as an AP-NORC poll conducted then found that 57% of Democrats approved of his handling of the conflict and 40% disapproved.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MuuuaadDib@lemm.ee 41 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I have a very strong don't blow up kids policy, that doesn't care what religion or political party you subscribe to or even race. If you do blow up kids, we feel strongly that you should just fuck right off and we should do whatever we can to stop those killing kids.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"The terrorists are using schools as shields though!"

Guess you shouldn't use artillery strikes and bombing runs then.

[–] Cannacheques 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Child killers are on both sides though so who are you to speak?

The issue isn't holding a moral high ground or playing into ultimatums of mutually assured destruction since they're already there.

[–] MuuuaadDib@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

I am not funding Hamas, my tax dollars are going to Israel and they are killing kids, nuff said. At this point, I think the world is looking at Hamas in a whole new light thanks to Israel and the media.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So what did you do to stop the US killing kids in Iraq and Afghanistan?

An estimated civilian death toll in the hundreds of thousands, and millions displaced.

What are your plans to prevent or oppose the mass deportation of millions of those Afghan refugees as just announced by Pakistan?

There's just a bit of morbid irony in anyone from the US acting like they are on a high moral horse here when their own country has exported an order of magnitude more harm around the world largely to crickets within the country, particularly in comparison to the opposition to something like the Vietnam war.

The US is still currently active in its bombing and involvement in Syria. Thousands of civilians killed by coalition forces, hundreds of thousands fled the country as a result of the conflict. Have you even done anything about that one?

It's just wild when civilians in the US get riled up by the foreign policy conflict of the week, take their sides typically along partisan lines, and pat themselves on the back for taking their stand. "We'll hold our politicians accountable." Meanwhile the actual joint military and intelligence branches have their hands in a half dozen conflicts around the world and are directly responsible for much greater harm that's just far less publicized in Western media because of press relations forged in the wake of Vietnam, and stories like this don't get picked up past the investigative groups researching them.

The US routinely blows up kids and has a long history of refusing to submit itself to international courts.

But no, Americans don't focus on changing the policy and scope of their own government's actions (the thing they in theory have greater influence over). They just get worked up over the actions of other governments allied with the US - and then either are upset about funding Ukraine if Republican or upset about funding Israel if Democrat. At least this week. I'm sure in a few months we'll have moved on to a new Kony 2012 people are "very upset about and not going to forget about until something is done."

(Seriously, the idea the current events will have any real impact on an election a year from now is laughable.)

I'd even be willing to bet at least 95% of all the Americans complaining about foreign governments bombing things couldn't even point on a map to all the places that their own government has bombed children in just the past decade.

[–] MuuuaadDib@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]

The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: "Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany." B: "And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?").[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).[6]

Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood.[7] Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.[citation needed]

Both whataboutism and the accusation of it are forms of strategic framing and have a framing effect.[8]

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified.

[–] MuuuaadDib@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you are qualified to discount anyone related to a subject, that you don't have any access to their research or the education to know about it? I certainly don't, so I just listen to what they say and not attack them or who they are related to.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I opened with a question.

What have you done to stand up for or inform yourself regarding similar priorities with your own country's behaviors overseas?

Go ahead and give me your qualifications there that make me think your attitudes regarding foreign government behaviors aren't hypocritical and simply a partisan fad.

[–] MuuuaadDib@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Sorry new app, this was related to another discussion of dismissing science and going into research with bias. Sorry about that.

[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I have a very strong don’t blow up kids policy,

How about take an adult version of that and support actions that stop the blowing up of kids in the long run? I.e. the destruction of a terrorist organization.

[–] docAvid@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How about understanding that more killing doesn't bring the "destruction of a terrorist organization" - it brings more terrorism.

[–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That doesn't always hold true. For instance, the number of nazis was brought down very significantly around the end of WW2. Even though there's been some resurgence, the number of them is still pretty low compared to peak.

[–] MuuuaadDib@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

When the terrorists are armed with US weapons and blow up Tel Aviv we will talk then. When doctors and the nurses and Americans are blown up by Hamas in Israel we will talk then as they level Synagogues and hospitals and the fleeing refugees. Israel has lost all their moral support at this point, took a tragedy, and highlighted their history and evil racist beliefs and supremacy as the "chosen people" not unlike the "master race" before them.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm sorry I wasn't aware that Hamas is using infants?

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No, but the did kill a lot of them intentionally and have stated their goal is to do so again and again until all the Jews are dead.

[–] xerazal@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You know, Israel could single handedly dismantle Hamas non violently by accepting a two state solution where the two sides work together for mutual benefit.

Just saying, hamas has whatever support it has purely as a resistance movement against Israel for their apartheid regime. Their support would fizzle away if Israel were to do the right thing and try to actually improve the material well-being of the Palestinian population and give them the freedom and state they've wanted.

The problem is, right now what Israel is doing is only going to hurt them in the long run, not help them. The ideology of Hamas is that, an ideology. You can't kill an idea with bombs, that only makes it stronger. And Israel is only digging their own grave by constantly killing civilians at this level, because every Middle Eastern Nation around will never try to work with them again and probably start warring with Israel again, and I'm sorry but Israel isn't gonna survive that. They were so close to finally getting some sort of peace agreement with Saudi Arabia, and now that's nothing but a pipe dream again.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Weren't they on the cusp of a two state solution before Arafat pulled out?

[–] xerazal@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yea.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207243717/23-years-ago-israelis-and-palestinians-were-talking-about-a-two-state-solution

Arafat's negotiators on the Palestinian side were serious about wanting a two state solution and wanted to come up with a deal with the Israelis, but something stopped Arafat from going through with it. He told clinton he didn't want to give up Jerusalem as it's a holy site to muslims (it is for Jews and Christians too, so ngl I don't think anyone wants to not have Jerusalem. But that's Arafat, not all Palestinians. Yes that was their leader, but yk not every leader has unanimous support from the people.

[–] roboticide@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

He basically was willing to discuss all the areas where the Israelis were making concessions. He wasn't willing to discuss any of the areas where the Palestinians were supposed to make concessions. So it seemed like he had just said no.

But what I subsequently learned - about 18 months ago, I had a dinner with a former Palestinian negotiator who'd been part of the delegation. He said the whole Palestinian delegation had decided among themselves they should accept it. They went back to Arafat, and Arafat said no. I subsequently heard from another Palestinian on that delegation who said Arafat thought he could still do a better deal under Bush because he thought maybe Bush will be even more forthcoming.

Holy shit, so Arafat alone basically blew the best chance we had.

Jerusalem should just be made a UN protectorate or independent third city-state at this point as part of a two-state solution (like the Vatican).

And yeah, I know everyone will hate that idea, but hey, at least then everyone will hate the idea.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

You know, Israel could single handedly dismantle Hamas non violently by accepting a two state solution where the two sides work together for mutual benefit.

That's news to Hamas.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, until Israel goes away. Israel != Jews.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's ironic there's a commentary right above you arguing that Israel could get Peace by simply offering a two-state solution we're both States exist.

At this point if Israel goes away it be genocide. There's whole generations of people that were born and raised in Israel. There's really nowhere for those people to flee to where they'd be safe other than maybe the US.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The country is not the people. Saying you want the country gone is entirely different.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Without the country who will protect the people who live there?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whatever government is put in place after. Exactly the same as every other post colonial region.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago

Specifically who?