Sannie Posted July 27 Posted July 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Blade said: I genuinely don't understand some of these takes I'm seeing from leftists about the white women for Kamala call. How can we (as leftists) critique white women for being the reason Trump won and then act like this. Also the "your tax dollars fund genocide" take is so useless. My tax dollars fund genocide. Their tax dollars fun genocide. Our tax dollars fund genocide. What are we supposed to do about that? I can protest every single day and we'll all be complicit in genocide. Yes, it's giving very much white savior lol... but that's kind of the point. A year ago, these very people would be praising this as "white women acknowledge their privilege by supporting women of color". Now it's used as a purity test and a way to feel morally superior over others. 100,000+ white women come together to show support for someone who could be our first female and first black female President and they make it about... Gaza? None of the people in that Zoom, even if they all banded together, would've been able to stop Bibi Netanyahu from enacting a genocide on Palestinians. What is with this fantasy idea that any of us could've stopped it? We have all made it very, very clear. Billions of people all around the world have made it clear that we don't support the genocide, and the genocide happened anyways. These people fetishize Gaza and use it to feel morally superior about anything positive that's going on. "Oh, people who have historically helped disenfranchise black people came together to support a black woman? Let me rain on that parade with something unrelated." It's getting tiring. It is tired. Not to mention, I can almost guarantee a ton of the people on that call DID IN FACT donate or help raise awareness to help Palestinians. The entire point with this new start is the glimmer of hope that we can possibly use our newfound power to push Kamala towards a resolution that will benefit the Palestinian people. We can do that. She has been far more forward-thinking about the genocide than virtually anyone else in a significant position of power. But as usual, these leftists are not interested in actual change, they are instead interested in whining. They are okay with throwing away the possibility of having this power with Kamala just so they can tweet a few more times. Women in the USA who are facing an existential threat to their existence are allowed to be selfish and focus on Kamala right now. This person's Twitter says they live in Washington, DC, so surprise, another leftist living in a deep blue city in a blue territory who doesn't have to worry all that much about what happens if Trump wins. I'm shocked. Edited July 27 by Sannie 2
Communion Posted July 27 Posted July 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sannie said: Billions of people all around the world have made it clear that we don't support the genocide Not to dunk but this is a good example of why the kind of liberalism as described in the tweet above is criticized. Because you'll see people say something like this but... support is not abstract. Support is material. Guilt is not material. Empathy is not material. Palestinians are not empathy-starved. By materially supporting someone who supports giving Israel bombs to kill Palestinians - whether this be through giving this candidate money, voting for them - you and anyone else doing so very much materially support genocide. This is the contradiction in first world liberalism. The language of "white women for Kamala" comes off silly - in the context of liberals also punching down on Palestinians and their loved ones - because it attempts to signal some kind of understanding of privilege yet the same people are unable to reconcile with the privilege innate to the American identity as those within the belly of the beast. An inability to reconcile with the material reality that the American national identity is predicated on the exploitation of those in the Global South. Your ranting about "leftists!!!" comes off as weird because American leftists are largely the most willing to embrace nuance. That the average American leftist understands it's just as futile to individually shame other marginalized Americans just trying to make sense of voting as liberals punching down. And that these conversations only ever come about as a reaction to liberal antagonization and punching downward on the matter of voting. *YOU* explicitly though have never been against genocide and people like you actively make Kamala losing more and more a possible reality with your craven and ghoulish behavior than any anti-war activist could. See: On 3/29/2024 at 10:20 PM, Sannie said: If you have family in Gaza, again, Biden is not obligated to protect them. Edited July 27 by Communion 1 2
Orsay Posted July 27 Posted July 27 Why do I feel like Kamala's still gonna lose and the Dems will be so triggered by a second Trump win against a woman that we won't have a female president like ever
Sannie Posted July 27 Posted July 27 https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRofT73d/ I know this is just one person so it's not indicative of anything, but I guarantee there are a ton of women feeling this way, and with comments being made about Kamala's gender and the **** from Vance, the number will only increase. 1
CaptainMusic Posted July 27 Posted July 27 5 minutes ago, Orsay said: Why do I feel like Kamala's still gonna lose and the Dems will be so triggered by a second Trump win against a woman that we won't have a female president like ever If Kamala loses, the first female president will likely be a Republican as the dems probably won't nominate another woman for awhile. In the UK all 3 female prime ministers have been conservative.
Harrier Posted July 27 Posted July 27 4 hours ago, Orsay said: Why do I feel like Kamala's still gonna lose and the Dems will be so triggered by a second Trump win against a woman that we won't have a female president like ever This is certain to be a consequence of this, yes. It will mean the first female president is almost certain to be a Republican. I've always said the Republican party is wildly stupid to not nominate women because it addresses their number one weakness as a party - the female vote - in one fell swoop. Conservative women are electorally successful in general, outside the US too. White women will vote for a female Republican candidate in droves as long as she's not MTG or something Even someone like Nikki Haley, who isn't even that great a politician, would beat pretty much every democrat currently in the mix.
Dera Posted July 27 Posted July 27 all of our american taxpayer dollars are going to keep funding genocide if we don't elect an administration that divests from Israel. I don't have the highest hopes for the harris administration either, but trump's christofascist party is going to raze gaza to the ground. electoral politics are not the solution, but they are another liability we have to handle. I understand the resentment if some see lots of commotion for kamala, and feel that the same mobilization wasn't galvanized against the genocide beforehand... but just as @Communion was saying, empathy is not material. american civilians have been raising alarm about the genocide for a long time, and we're still here. voting for the career politician who at least mentioned dead children in her Israel-apologist speech is the most "material" contribution the majority of americans can even make to oppose the genocide. 1
Dera Posted July 27 Posted July 27 let's keep pressuring the harris campaign on social media to repudiate biden's zionist policy though because they will try to play both sides if we let them
Harrier Posted July 27 Posted July 27 One point I will make about rhetoric and materiality, is that they are not always two completely separate things. A change in rhetoric can have a material impact: for example, pissing off the Israeli right wing as Harris did recently, if done consistenly, may create an oppositional dynamic between a centre left American administration and a far right Israeli regime. This might influence Israeli decision making, without Harris doing much - say, they might fear she will actually drop American support for Israeli violence, and thus change their approach in Gaza to reduce civilian casualities. Contrast this with the rhetoric of Trump (or even of Biden) which will embolden Israeli leaders to do whatever the **** they want, even though both administrations are still supporting Israel. I'm not here to claim that it is ideal - only that it's not worthless. It is never all or nothing and shouldn't be treated as such if your actual goal is making a difference here, as opposed to moral grandstanding. Also of note, I think the yelling at the Harris campaign not to pick Josh Shapiro on the basis of his Zionism (and other rw positions) is a great idea and totally the right approach here. Perfect example of productive pressure as opposed to encouraging nihilism and disconnecrion with electoralism 3 1
Thickorita Posted July 27 Posted July 27 I think why this whole white women mobilising for Kamala thing is a bit tone deaf is because they only seem to activate when things directly affect them. For example, Jennifer Pannedston has been silent most of the time but she only spoke out against JD Vance because the comments he made impact her directly. Like good on you for mobilising, but there have been problems with Republicans way before abortion. 1
If U Seek Amy Posted July 27 Posted July 27 13 minutes ago, Thickorita said: I think why this whole white women mobilising for Kamala thing is a bit tone deaf is because they only seem to activate when things directly affect them. For example, Jennifer Pannedston has been silent most of the time but she only spoke out against JD Vance because the comments he made impact her directly. Like good on you for mobilising, but there have been problems with Republicans way before abortion. Unfortunately most people do not care about issues until they're personally impacted. People just don't have the time to learn about every issue in the world and have concern about it. This behavior would cause immense stress on anyone. I personally don't see them as problematic for simply not being performative online about something when they have their own lives to live 7
CaptainMusic Posted July 27 Posted July 27 16 minutes ago, If U Seek Amy said: Unfortunately most people do not care about issues until they're personally impacted. People just don't have the time to learn about every issue in the world and have concern about it. This behavior would cause immense stress on anyone. I personally don't see them as problematic for simply not being performative online about something when they have their own lives to live And if they did speak out about other issues many of these people complaining would say they're pandering anyway. 4
Rotunda Posted July 27 Posted July 27 (edited) 5 hours ago, Communion said: Because you'll see people say something like this but... support is not abstract. Support is material. Guilt is not material. Empathy is not material. Palestinians are not empathy-starved. By materially supporting someone who supports giving Israel bombs to kill Palestinians - whether this be through giving this candidate money, voting for them - you and anyone else doing so very much materially support genocide. This is the contradiction in first world liberalism. I don't think you're wrong, but facilitating the election of right wing individuals who boldly call for the extermination of Palestinians can also be read as empowering genocide. I think my issue with a specific subset of online leftists on the issue of Palestine is that we're meant to believe that everyday liberals have blood on the hands for the actions or inactions they take re: Palestine, but online leftists are allowed to vaguely gesture towards the idea of a Free Palestine and act like their decisions or indecisions can't also contribute to negative impacts on Palestinians. I don't mean this to say that leftists have a moral obligation to vote for the "lesser of two evils," but there's so much discussion from liberals/leftist about what the other is endorsing, and a general lack of introspection on the impact of our choices. Edited July 27 by Rotunda 6 2
jadeabove Posted July 27 Posted July 27 8 hours ago, Blade said: I genuinely don't understand some of these takes I'm seeing from leftists about the white women for Kamala call. How can we (as leftists) critique white women for being the reason Trump won and then act like this. Also the "your tax dollars fund genocide" take is so useless. My tax dollars fund genocide. Their tax dollars fun genocide. Our tax dollars fund genocide. What are we supposed to do about that? I can protest every single day and we'll all be complicit in genocide. People are angry and tired. This is a result of months of consuming distressing images. The damage done by this genocide is bigger than the casualties it caused. It will affect the US elections 100% 1
Blade Runner Posted July 27 Posted July 27 (edited) 13 minutes ago, CaptainMusic said: And if they did speak out about other issues many of these people complaining would say they're pandering anyway. It's so funny. They spend days and days asking privilage people (in this case, white women) to organize and do the work because they have power, and when they do, the usuals react in such a nasty, idiotic way. Y'all probably don't like her, but this makes me think about how people ask billionaries like Taylor to donate their money but they started to talk sh+t when it leaked that she was supporting some causes during her recent tour; saying she was only doing it for attention. It's a total nonsense. Edited July 27 by Blade Runner
Redstreak Posted July 27 Posted July 27 Are there any campaign events this weekend? Beshear is going to Iowa today right?
Rotunda Posted July 27 Posted July 27 2 minutes ago, Redstreak said: Are there any campaign events this weekend? Beshear is going to Iowa today right? Atlanta tomorrow as well
modeblock Posted July 27 Posted July 27 White women are gonna white women, it's not right but it's okay. BUT I think it's bad faith to try to take segments of bad takes or whatever from a well-intentioned and actually beneficial event to low-key discredit their efforts. They ARE trying, and honestly as a POC, even with the inevitable deluded micro aggressions, I commend their efforts, especially when they actually raised some COINS for America's favorite prosecutor. 3 3
Tovitov Posted July 27 Posted July 27 3 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said: Compassionate complicity Jennifer Rubin is neither a campaign surrogate nor a member of the administration. If the pro-Israel wing of the party needs to tell themselves Kamala will be the same as Biden on this issue, they're welcome to. Kamala's speech last week made me think she's more akin to Obama's Israeli-skeptical stance he had in the later years of his administration. Still pro Israel but would have actually cut large chunks of military aid by now. 1
Tovitov Posted July 27 Posted July 27 17 minutes ago, Rotunda said: Atlanta tomorrow as well He must be a finalist if they're actually flying him out of the midwest.
Redstreak Posted July 27 Posted July 27 You know it's kinda funny, a mini running theme in this election campaign cycle so far has been idiot sons. Hunter going to court and talking his dad into staying in for as long as he did, the trump sons freaking out over trumps safe VP pick and convincing him to go with Vance
choerry Posted July 27 Posted July 27 It's over Beshear bros. I'm mentally preparing for Kamala to pick Shapiro. https://x.com/casestudyqb/status/1817122156997693863?s=46
Recommended Posts