the primary response to the virulent racist and transphobic rhetoric of the debate being laughter is actually so disconcerting. the memes are not funny we are not “so back” and i think the whole response just shows that america in general does not value the lives of any marginalized people especially if they have nothing
how does electing trump lower the gun pointed at palestine?
how does electing kamala? how did electing biden?
you know what. let me answer this in good faith.
this ask is in response to my previous post, where i stated:
"keep your eyes open about what you are voting for, so that your vote does not become another vote in service of genocide, and you are part of a structure of accountability for your government. yes, you are voting in self-preservation. but no, you are not being asked to protect anyone to your own detriment. let me put it more simply: as a nation, you aren't being asked to jump in front of a bullet to save palestine from genocide. you're being asked to lower the gun."
as a matter of fact, the US is a partner in the genocide. through weapons funding, through diplomatic immunity, through the media apparatus and through boots-on-the-ground soldiers. this was only further reinforced by netanyahu's address in congress today, which affirmed (needlessly, as we already knew) that israel and the US are "standing with civilization against barbarism" and other genocidal dogwhistles. but he said that for a reason: he's letting american politicians know they are just as culpable for this genocide. it is their genocide too. under international law, biden is liable for delivering weapons to a nation plausibly accused of genocide, not to mention under american law as well for delivering weapons to a nation preventing humanitarian aid.
this is bipartisan policy. both democrats and republicans support the US war machine. US foreign policy has been uniformly bloodthirsty for the past few decades, with some variation that ultimately led to nothing. democrats might kick up more fuss about human rights, but they will ultimately wage the same wars with the same disregard for international law, and have shifted right on israel in ways that even george bush did not entertain.
because this is so deeply entrenched in US politics for myriad historical, political and financial reasons, there is currently no electoral solution for palestinians within US politics, and more urgently there is no electoral solution for the genocide in gaza within US electoral politics. long-term, there might be. the increase of democrats boycotting netanyahu's speech, the election of democrats like rashida tlaib, and the pressure from constituents are indications of an enormous shift in US policy towards israel. but this is very slow change, and people in gaza are dying very quickly.
prior to 2020, there was a certain belief that democrats had some red lines that republicans don't wrt gaza. however, bidens management of the past nine months have completely disabused everyone of that notion. even someone like rashid khalidi, who believes firmly in the power of persuading americans in the imperial core, has been caught off-guard by biden's management of the war, stating that he will not vote for him.
as you might have realized over the past few years, the way the current system is set up leaves very little avenue for constituents to affect policy in the US right now, especially since democrats are extremely adept at pacifying the masses with nominal acts (notably on items like policing and environmentalism in particular) in service of their donors. mass protests are actually an indication that the political system has failed at providing an avenue for political participation except taking to the streets. it is normally a last resort. for some issues it is a first resort, because there are few other options unless you've got lobbying money. now multiply that x100 for foreign policy, where popular opinion has little sway and there are few democratic pathways for the average american to engage with, especially since it is not considered a priority as american deaths in wars have become negligible.
what does this mean? it means it is very, very difficult to pressure politicians on palestine, even though they are wholly involved in palestine and using your tax dollars to do it. in regular times, it is participation in apartheid and occupation, which is bad enough. but right now, it is participation in one of the worst crimes mankind can commit: genocide. the US is not just dropping bombs, it is also a partner in a starvation policy that is deeply sickening. it is medieval to deprive 2 million people, 50% of them children, trapped in a blockaded area of food and water, but this is a strategy the US has not only endorsed, but also assisted israel in carrying out.
because biden has been so batshit insane, there is functionally no way trump can be worse. biden (and blinken) spoke of red lines, but have gradually walked every single one of them back, because this is what democrats do: they pacify you until you no longer notice the boiling water. there is no more money trump can send, and there are no more weapons trump can send, that would make a difference to what israel is doing. they have enough money and weapons and diplomatic immunity to nuke gaza if they want to. they are not being held back by biden, they are being held back by their own limitations, their own internal disagreements, partially by saudi arabia, partially by egypt, by the palestinian resistance factions, and more significantly by hezbollah, yemen and iran. when people say "trump can do more genocide" they're not wrong that things can get worse, but they are wrong that they need trump to get worse. they can also get worse under the next democrat, just as they got worse under biden, because there is no mechanism in place to stop it.
now unlike biden who was ideologically and fanatically zionist, trump is an unpredictable opportunist. he might have done worse, and he might not have. he is actually far more likely to be influenced in any which way—but not by people, by other countries such as saudi arabia, egypt or russia. it doesn't really matter because again: the genocide didn't happen under trump. it happened under biden. it is an atrocity that the full scope of which has not been truly uncovered, and it is still really, horrifically bad—not just because we've seen kids being ripped apart daily for nine months, but because we've also seen the democratic establishment categorically prevent every international mechanism (including the highest court in the world) from stopping it. so even if trump wants to do More Genocide, the biden admin has conveniently removed all diplomatic obstructions that would stop him from doing so, and set a precedent for ignoring both the ICJ and the ICC, which was already in place since bush and further cemented since by obama and then trump and biden. it has simply been a two decades of Things Getting Worse in the middle east, and electoral politics of voting for the lesser evil have played no small part in that, and intentionally so, but there's no need to confront that right now i guess!
so where does kamala come in? well, as i said, there are few avenues for voters to influence foreign policy. the only window that exists is when a politician requires your votes. democrats are notorious for lack of follow through. they campaign, they lie, they hope you forget. if kamala is elected, she may be better on palestine. but nothing in her track record suggests that, and there would be absolutely no leverage to force her to be. but as long as she needs to be elected, there is still critical time for pressure, and it is also critical because people are dying right now.
this is also the answer to those of you stating joe biden is still president and its unfair to talk about kamala: joe biden is barely sentient, and when he is he's a geriatric genocidal racist who couldn't be moved on gaza even when he did want to be re-elected. but now he no longer needs to be elected, and has even less incentive to answer to his base (but will hopefully someday answer to the hague).
so again, when you tell me about "electing" trump or "electing" kamala—none of this is what affects palestinians right now. we have no evidence either way of what they might do. we don't even have a promise from kamala to be better right now, aside from generic vp statements on humanitarianism. she boycotted netanyahu's speech, but neither she nor pelosi have mentioned palestinians, who are still undergoing a genocide they are knowing participants in, nor have they acknowledged that israel is formally an apartheid state and netanyahu is a war criminal (bc of course, then they'd have to admit so is biden). everyone is hoping that she is better, and that she can be pressured, but as of right now that remains to be seen.
your concern is the election, my concern is the present. kamala, as a partial incumbent, will be affected if she can't change anything within the next four months. she doesn't have joe biden's record on israel yet. but as netanyahu's speech showed, the genocide was not joe biden's alone. it is a bipartisan genocide from the US political establishment that joe biden presided over and allowed to escalate unencumbered. kamala was part of this, and doesn't have anything to the contrary—yet. all we have to force her to lower the gun is the knowledge that she wants to be elected. trump's base does not want him to lower the gun, but presumably you (kamala's base) do.
so to answer your question: the upcoming presidential election is not the solution for palestine right now, but it is one of the tools that can be used to stop a genocide that both parties are responsible for. electing kamala may be beneficial in the long run—or it may not. but pressuring kamala is now, and it is urgent.
some of you would be content if the state paid you dividends from its warmongering sufficient to live comfortably and that is why we are not the same
i feel like the boeing whistleblower case should radicalize more people. a major airline company is producing planes with less and less regard for safety and it's starting to get noticeable. man takes them to court, which would reduce profit at the cost of public safety. he fucking dies the night that boeings legal team asks him to stay an extra day. if nothing happens about this, i hope it gets through to people that america would literally kill you for a few extra cents
it really is so insanely funny that american identity is so fucking tied to consumerism and nothing else at all that the oldest concept of american tradtion fascists have to retvrn to is the wold of catalog ads
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha OK
I once again recommend the book American Nations by Colin Woodard. The reason it doesn't seem like America has a cohesive national identity is because America is not a single nation. It is a single state (political entity), though even that is divided into what America actually refers to as "states," but nationality is more squishy than that.
Taking "freedom" as an example: one of the greatest conflicts of concept in the American ideals of "freedom and liberty" is that they are two separate concepts from two separate ideological origins. Some Americans (generally northern) subscribe to the Germanic concept of "freedom," which refers to civil liberties and connotes "god-given rights" owed to every person. The southern American states were founded on the Latin concept of "liberty," which is a state of free will bestowed upon the privileged and is distinguished by a comparison to those without the rights of liberty. The terms have more or less merged in usage today, but their ideological underpinnings are clear to see in the politics of different American regions.
If the American southwest feels like a different country, it's because it was until very, very recently. Arizona and New Mexico share a national identity with the Mexican state of Chihuahua, not the majority of America. Indian nations are called "nations" because they are not part of American national identity.
Pluralistic states are historically unstable (though you could argue they are also poorly tested). It's considered perilous for a political state to not have a cohesive national identity, which is why political powers work so hard to construct them. This is why, for example, the Chinese government insists that there is a single "Chinese language" when in fact there are dozens of dialects, many of which are not mutually intelligible. It's why Turkey expelled Greeks and committed genocide against Armenians and has persecuted the Kurds since "Turkish identity" was invented in the 1920s. It's part of why indigenous identity everywhere is oppressed. It's part of why many African and Middle Eastern states, their borders drawn by Europeans without regard to national identity, have such bloody histories of conflict.
Consumerism, advertising, and popular media are the primary means America has chosen to construct an artificial national identity. It couldn't be freedom, because we can't even agree on what that means.
Yeah, trains are pretty much the most efficient transit system known to man and it is maddening that we chose other methods at any chance
it was racism!! it was good ole american racism!!! this cannot be forgotten. any discussion abt this topic without racism front and center as the PRIMARY REASON for this change is toothless and impotent.
the auto companies created the term "jaywalking" to demonize walking on streets, associated it with stupidity and "undesirable people", and offered automobile ownership as the solution. they convinced the white upper and middle classes that public transit was a waste of money and did they really want to sit next to Those People on a trip to the park? and CONVENIENTLY built highways through communities of color and immigrant communities, neatly displacing them and gentrifying the surrounding areas in one fell swoop. it was because of RACISM and CLASSISM. the auto companies weaponized racism and classism to sell privileged white people on a stupid technology that actively harms everyone on the planet themselves included.
electric trains are an efficient technology that does a lot of good for communities and is extremely necessary in the coming years of climate catastrophe but we canNOT discuss this with discussing class and race and protecting people affected by pro-public-transit policies while implementing them. we MUST protect vulnerable communities liable to get ousted by luxury apartments built next to the new metro station. rent controlled apartments and redesigned zoning laws are a MUST.
For reference on the history of jaywalking
Biden “can’t” stop a genocide that he enthusiastically funds, “can’t” protect reproductive rights, “can’t” protect our voting rights, “can’t” not fund the police, “can’t” continue Covid relief era protocols in the most deadly surge since the pandemic began, “can’t” not continue to build the wall, “can’t” not keep kids in cages, “can’t” raise the minimum wage, “can’t” cancel student debt, “can’t” stack the conservative Supreme Court, but can bomb one of the poorest countries in the world without congressional authorization?
Okay.
in all seriousness, a few resources i think are helpful with regards to understanding just how thoroughly henry kissinger screwed the world over:
i truly think understanding kissinger, the way he thought, and the things that he did, are all indispensable when it comes to understanding the modern political climate and how foreign policy works in america and therefore, by necessity, in the world at large. the sheer amount of damage he was responsible for should never be underestimated.
this shoudl be an internaitonal holiday. we should all have the day off tomorrow to get fuckin wasted / play a nice board game because henry kissinger died
btw now feels like a good time to plug the organizations that the kissinger death tontine accepted donations-as-submissions from!
i love you USPS I love you NASA i love you taxpayer funded services that actually contribute positively to society i love you libraries i love you public transport
The left needs to stop using this slogan that the right twisted to mean something problematic, and instead invent a new slogan, which the right will also twist to mean something problematic
Hey Americans, double check that you don't have an election tomorrow, Nov 7th 2023, I know the off years are harder to keep track of, but it'd be a shame if Moms for Liberty gets their people on your school district's school boards because of it. If you don't have an election, great!, but just give it a double check for me if you're not sure ok?
The study itself is titled, “Long-Term Regret and Satisfaction With Decision Following Gender-Affirming Mastectomy,” and sought to study the rate of regret and satisfaction after 2 years or more following gender affirming top surgery. The study’s results were stunning - in 139 surgery patients, the median regret score was 0/100 and the median satisfaction score was 5/5 with similar means as well. In other words… regret was virtually nonexistent in the study among post-op transgender people. In fact, the regret was so low that many statistical techniques would not even work due to the uniformity of the numbers: In this cross-sectional survey study of participants who underwent gender-affirming mastectomy 2.0 to 23.6 years ago, respondents had a high level of satisfaction with their decision and low rates of decisional regret. The median Satisfaction With Decision score was 5 on a 5-point scale, and the median decisional regret score was 0 on a 100-point scale. This extremely low level of regret and dissatisfaction and lack of variance in scores impeded the ability to determine meaningful associations among these results, clinical outcomes, and demographic information. The numbers are in line with many other studies on satisfaction among transgender people. Detransition rates, for instance, have been pegged at somewhere between 1-3%, with transgender youth seeing very low detransition rates. Surgery regret is in line with at least 27 other studies that show a pooled regret rate of around 1% - compare this to regret rates from things like knee surgery, which can be as high as 30%. Gender affirming care appears to be extremely well tolerated with very low instances of regret when compared to other medically necessary care.
[...]
The intense conservative backlash, to the point of disputing reputable scientific journals, likely stems from the fact that reduced regret rates weaken a central narrative these figures have championed in legal and legislative spaces. Over the past three years, anti-trans entities have showcased political detransitioners, reminiscent of the ex-gay campaigns from the 1990s and 2000s, to argue that regrets over gender transition and detransition are widespread. Some have even asserted detransition rates of up to 80%, a claim that has been broadly debunked. Yet, research consistently struggles to find substantial evidence supporting this narrative. The rarity of detransition and regret is underscored by Florida's inability to enlist a single resident to bear witness against a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on gender-affirming care.
The funny thing is that they have a huge tourism business, and no one will want to visit if their children will be taken away for being “at risk” of being supported. They’re kneecapping a major part of the economy
Forgive the bad underlining, I'm fucking shaking with rage is all
