this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
287 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
7716 readers
2737 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
While the word "fascist" is thrown around so much that I don't even really understand what it means anymore, the fact remains that Joe Biden is supporting a genocide. He's way better than Trump, and he's the only viable option to prevent Trump, but I'm really hoping we don't twiddle our thumbs for the next 4 years while a lesser-but-still-significant evil sits in office. We need to take significant action to prevent future presidential candidates of either party from being as objectively terrible as our current options.
The US military industrial complex facilitates genocide as fiscal policy. If that translates to 'Biden supports genocide' then the next step is 'the American taxpayer supports genocide', which makes the term 'support' pretty meaningless in these statements.
But yes- obviously Biden is the only rational choice in 2024 and it'd be nice to think we could do better after. Can't say I'm hopeful but I'll vote for Biden to hold a seat for that hope in case it ever shows up.
The American taxpayer doesn't get to choose where their taxes go, so they can't be responsible for atrocities caused by that money. Joe Biden is the president; I understand that there are checks and balances that prevent him from making wild changes out of left field, but he definitely has the power to stop sending weapons to a country he himself has said has gone too far. Would that decision have repercussions for himself and the population at large? Of course. Would those repercussions be significant enough to warrant continuing to massacre innocent people to avoid them? Fuck no.
The fact that Biden chooses not to make that stand is damning, even if he's still the candidate I'll be voting for to prevent the worst outcome. In the end, Biden's choices demand that action be taken by the population, and that action will need to be more than just waiting 4 years and hoping the next candidate isn't as bad; real efforts rivaling the civil rights movement will need to be taken in order to push our government back toward being acceptable again by the time we're voting in new candidates.
Sounds like you just don't want to face the consequences for not supporting genocide with your taxes so you're kinda exactly like Biden ;)
You're right. I'm a disgrace. Each and every one of us has the power to start a revolution, but we don't, and that makes each and every one of us a failure. I talk a big game, but I'm not going to be the one to rise up and stop warmongering. All I have the willpower to do is to hope that someone else finds that strength, and to point out the hypocrisy that I and every other person who supports Joe Biden while pretending to have a clear conscious displays.
Yeah, anyone that doesn't publicly self-flagellate in the right terms about voting for Biden deserves to be ridiculed by someone that does. It's only fair ;)
There's no such thing as fair when innocent people are being gunned down. There's only doing what's right, and failing to do so.
I guess I'm just a pragmatist and recognize my vote is my voice and no amount of moralistic whining at strangers online will help anyone anywhere. But I like your energy.
Do you honestly believe that the civil rights movement would've still happened if people simply kept plugging along, not making waves? Or the American revolution? Would the Nazis have been stopped without military cooperation from nearly ever surrounding country? I'm not saying that positive change CAN'T come about through small incremental steps, but I certainly don't believe that all change can be made so peacefully, nor do I believe that this scenario can be resolved as such.
There's a difference between martyrdom and the simple acknowledgement that you're not doing all you can. There's a middle ground between "I'm perfect and have never done wrong." and "I must flog myself in the streets for my sins."
That's the beauty of a movement! Martin Luther King was devoted to the cause - he was all in, and as a result of that, others could be a part of the movement without needing to sacrifice themselves. The larger the movement grew, the less any individual participant needed to risk. But it needed a hero. It needed someone at the forefront for people to rally behind. I'm not saying everyone needs to be devoted to the cause, I'm saying one person needs to be devoted to the cause so that others can latch on regardless of their inability to be that hero.
The world needs a movement, and yeah, it's not an obligation for any one person to be the spearhead for that movement. It's okay to not be the person that the world needs, but it's still a failure. The thing is that it's okay to fail; people view it as some indication that they're either perfect or worthless, and that's unhealthy. Realize that the world needs something, assess yourself to determine if you're that person, and if you're not, feel that disappointment in your failure, then accept it and move on. The world is too fucked up for everyone to shield themselves behind a perfect wall of innocence.