They have more in common with Nazis with their Lebensraum settler colonialism and apartheid system full of their riff on concentration camps.
But, fun fact: Western interests, including Israel, sure do seem to conveniently benefit from Daesh attacks on those aligned with Palestine - at opportune moments. I'm just saying.
Caring more about chalk on sidewalks and buildings than genocide is now mainstream liberalism.
I am choosing neither so obviously this argument is not true.
Yes I know the reference, parent is just calling them stupid really. Though I appreciate you taking the time to explain it and write it up! I wrote a comment to this effect but explaining what I am saying in regards to it here.
Good movie BTW, everyone should watch it, especially if you have ever seen a garbage chauvinist pop Western like anything with John Wayne in it.
Yes, this is absolutely true. And comparing those who say, "why should I even engage?" with those who overemphasize electoralism I have a hard time saying the latter are more correct. There is a visceral truth to someone who votes for X to get positive change all of with all their friends, then doesn't see that change because X sold out, screwed them over, told them a line, etc. That is more valid and politically astute than mental gymnastics for why those who campaign on something don't fight for it once in office.
So long as the resistance fights it is certainly backfiring in that way. Though I forgot to mention that Zionist settlers never really planned to establish two states, they wanted an expansionist status quo and are getting it. But if they ever actually advocated for two states and worked on it, it would be as Bantustans. Zionists could never tolerate Palestinians as equal neighbors on "their" land.
It's a great movie, I always tell people to watch it!
In the movie, this is a reference to the racist townspeople in the "Western". It's poking fun at the Westerns that romanticized allegedly good and pure settlers (colonizers) and to sympathoze with them. You weren't supposed to think of them as, in Wilder's terms, "morons".
Parent was just trying to call people morons. It's not a clever reference, I got it. But those people are, specifically, Muslims so put off by the genocide of Palestinians that they'd vote against the administration supporting that grmocide. I would say their political acumen is more developed than the genocidal sheepdogging that we see in this thread, people that can't even say the word genocide trying to imply they're the adults in the room. At least they can understand basic leverage and independent action.
But I was making note that the "morons" reference in Blazing Saddles is about settler-colonists whereas the people parent wanted to call morons are literally people that are reacting against settler colonists and their supporters. I think that is an oversight that can only be made through chauvinism, personally. The person wants to feel better than those moved by genocide, they want it to be as narrow as "those people are stupid". They can't contend with the content.
Americans are heavily propagandized and are politically illiterate. Generally speaking, they do not even know there is a world beyond "liberal" (Democrat) and "conservative" (GOP). It is considered nerdy and wonkish to even know very much about the two party bourgeois electoral system. So their sensibilities only mean as much as propaganda has eliminated any possibility of political education, let alone capacity for action in solidarity with humanity (even when empathy is there, correct analysis is not) for the vast majority of them. That requires developing projects dedicated to political organization and education outside and away from the two bourgeois parties.
Americans should only be cut slack to the extent that they are ignorant. They should not be cut slack for their knowing embrace of war, domination, racism, and so on. And when you simply inform them of the existence of such things, they will rapidly educate you in their commitment to the project. Perhaps they will momentarily feel bad, but most of the time they will quickly find a psychological salve for cognitive dissonance, lest they act outside of the tracks laid down for them by reactionary and genocidal capital. Our work on the left is to peel off more and more from those tracks and turn them into fellow track-peelers, this is naturally an opportunity for exponential growth if we can consistentlu break past what keeps them on-track.
"The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them." - Julius Nyerere
You should not support Hitler just because you think Goebbels is worse. You should work against both genociders, not be an advocate for one.
A 1000 year Middle East conflict “isn’t a complex issue”?
I already stated what is not complex. It is that there is an ongoing genocide and that you and others are sheepdogging for the perpetrators. I stated it directly and your response continues this pattern of avoiding even mentioning the term genocide even though it is the topic of this thread and the points I have made.
Re: "1000 year middle east conflict", this is itself an ahistorical, chauvinist absurdity that papers over the real modern history of colonialism and Zionism and usually has a few dashes of Islamophobia thrown in as well, though yo be honest I would not be surprised if the people sheepdogging for genociders were not particularly familiar with the details of that reference.
More realistically, the "it's complex" line serves as a way to avoid thinking about or interrogating the topic, it is a way for the ignorant to feel secure despite knowledgeable troublemakers telling them specific but inconvenient things. Like, say, that you should oppose genocide.
Either you’re obviously too ignorant to hold intelligent opinions on this matter, or you’re clearly arguing in bad faith by stating obvious falsehoods.
At the moment I'm trying to navigate middle schooler level chauvinist talking points and asking you to address what I say rather than what you make up. Oh, and to remind you of my main and original point, the one you are afraid to even mention!
Why should anyone take you seriously?
This is Lemmy, there is a limit to which anyone should take anonymous forum comments seriously.
But you should take genocide seriously. If you are not knee-jerk advocating against it, and are instead trying to support its perpetrators, you had better have the very best knowledge and justifications, better than I can even imagine, to make a case for why you support those carrying out the greatest crime.
Everyone should take genocide seriously and that is what people should listen to in my messages. They should also recognize that the responses to my advocacy require dishonest behaviors.
Naturally, as the election approaches, liberals will increasingly panic and try to shut down anything that disagrees with their (pro-genocidal) party line. But I have and will continue to peel those with empathy and honesty off of that track.
We need to build socialist parties that approach electoralism with a realistic analysis of what it can and cannot do.