38
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
38 points (91.3% liked)
World News
490 readers
44 users here now
News from outside of Australia
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Welp, I said I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened but damn; how disappointing. Dark times ahead for the US and likely the rest of us I think. Would absolutely love to be wrong though.
Yeah just off the top of my head that's probably it for Gaza and Ukraine. Unless Europe and the rest of us grow some serious spine soon.
Harris supports israel just a much as trump no way in hell u can blame trump lol.
Honestly, as one of the most pro-Palestinian people around here, nope. Trump, unlike Biden/Harris, feels no need to pretend to be doing anything to stop Israel, and in fact would be representing his voters by giving Israel more money and support. Things probably can't get much worse for Gaza, but Lebanon has dark days ahead of it.
The pretending is in some ways worse.
In practical terms Biden/Harris have given the Israeli government everything they wanted. Harris is participating in a genocide. Nobody should have voted for her.
But the Biden/Harris Whitehouse paying lip service to humanity/sanity (including ceasefire) seems to have given a lot of people a fig-leaf to vote for a génocidaire, and more generally to go about their lives as if their government is not committing genocide.
See also 'kids in cages'. There's a sizable number of Americans who, it seems, can only see the atrocities their government is committing when there's a Republican in the Whitehouse.
That... makes sense actually.
zero_gravitas posted a very educational video showing younger biden saying "if there were not an Israel, we’d have to invent one" and "the best 3 billion dollar investment we make". So I don't think he has a history of even pretending to stop them. It will be the same thing again, as it has been with almost every US president.
I remember having the luck of being in front of a tv when, before trump won for the first time, I saw him complaining about why american money goes to israel and if he wins he would stop that. At that time I knew his position would change completely once he was elected. But if anything, the crazy orange candidate has a much better history of being "against" israel than the other senile, though in the end it made no difference. Both supported them as much they could, and the girl would do the same.
But the fact that she showed them support just makes it worse. At least people who voted trump for the first time could be fooled into thinking he would do something about israel (if they ignore all his other insane promises).
So, you don't have to worry. Israel wise I don't think anything changed and the genocide would not be worse (as it can't anyway) if trump lost.
Edit: I can't find his post, but here's the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HZs-v0PR44 Lovely leaders they have there. Not that Australia fares much better with military issues, but at least we are not so powerful, therefore not so dangerous.
Why u such an advocate for em? Its clearly not about minimising human suffering else u would be concerned with any of the multitude of numerically more harmfull things.
So first: People can be concerned about more than one thing at once. I am concerned about climate change, the war in Ukraine, the genocide in Sudan, the worldwide slide into fascism, etc etc, but nobody here needs to hear about these things, so what's left is Palestine as a reasonably divisive topic where real conversations can be had.
Second: I'm Arab. It's the same reason why Westerners tend to care about Ukraine more than Gaza.
U forget about tuberculosis or do those 1.8million people per year not matter? Id argue its the single area where the most progress can be made
I'm not arab, but as he said, you can worry about more than one thing. But I think the biggest difference with your tuberculosis example is: One is a problem due to lack of action, the other a problem due to direct action. You have to be competent to do something about one, while the other, just by not doing anything (by not giving them loads of money and weapons) they would already solve the problem.
So one problem requires effort to be solved, the other, they are putting effort to create the problem and it would be as easy as just not doing it. In theory pressuring them in just not doing something should be easier than doing other work.
Put in a different view, what would be your worse behaviour?
-A person you know died of turberculosis and you didn't take them to the hospital
-A person you know died because you shoot them, or you gave someone a gun and money and told them they could shoot them?
Which action would get more people against you?
Tuberculosis is definatly due to a direct action. As a country ur not allowed to manufacture a vacccine cos the us companies hold the patents and u get sanctioned if u break intellectual property law.
Both ur cases are equallity as bad. All people are equal therefore all death is equal therefore the reason of death doesnt matter.
Imagine this
1.8million of ur friends will die every single year u can stop this ever happening again for a one time payment of 3hours of us military budget.
40thousand of ur friends will die just this once because they invaded ur home kidnapped and raped ur daughter so u continued to pay ur taxes so the cops can shoot them before they do it again.
Which action is less morally justified?
Sorry, your scenario is too stretched for me to comment on it.
I can only comment regarding their patent system and I 100% agree that the north american patent system is a cancer on the entire world. A massive problem that needs addressing. But as mentioned before, you can worry, and work on more than one problem without invalidating them. But that problem involves much more variables and powerful companies/ people/ countries to be resolved. I won't comment if that is the solution for the problem you present since I think it's more complicated than that. But, again, I think destroying the north american patent system would benefit the whole mankind. I just have no idea how that can be solved without the whole world going against them.
The rest, I guess I can only say that you can't judge which battles people decide to fight, if you agree they are fighting something bad. You fight to demolish their patent system and others fight to end their imperialism. Both fights are valid and everyone except the abusers would benefit from them.
And ur cenario was just as ridiculous.
Im not arguing against gaza im simply making the observation that curing a global disease is somthing we have done before (smallpox, polio, etc). Curing the middle east is somthing we have never succeeded at. The more achievable task is also 50times more impactfull on reducing harm to our speicies (assuming u see all people and therefore all deaths as equall).
I absolutely will judge people on the battles they fight if only when there is a more effective way to acheive what they claim to be fighting for for.