Far left intellectualism

814 comments

The majority of people want an end to the Unconditional Military Support of Israel. That is the requirement for the US to abide by US and International Humanitarian Law as well. It's not that complicated. You can't say you want to support civilians on both sides when you provide one side with the weapons used to commit genocide against the other unconditionally.
The argument for people who are anti-genocide to vote Harris, is that Trump will not only be much worse than the current administration, but will not be able to be swayed by public pressure in the same way Harris might be. The harm reduction argument is true for domestic policies, but is meaningless for foreign policy when the current administration is assisting Genocide.
Harris is significantly more likely to be pressured to change course from public pressure than Trump, that is the right argument for getting people who are anti-genocide to vote Harris despite the current administration's policy. Because the fight doesn't end after the election, but the fight will be much more difficult under a Trump administration.
- The argument against that is that the best time to make a politician to promise something is when their job is on the line. The vote is really the only way normal Americans have to get their voice heard, and it, along with bribe money from lobbyists, is the only thing they listen to.
  The other argument is that morally, many people can't bring themselves to vote for someone enabling a genocide. Especially since Kamala is connecting herself so much to Biden saying she'd do all the same things, a vote for her is a stamp of approval for all of the current administration's policies.
  I've heard people say she has to support a genocide because so many Americans are pro-Israel, and she'll lose the election if she doesn't show unconditional support. That basically forces the anti-Zionist coalition to vote against her to show their numbers and prove they are to be listened to as well.
- The argument for people who are anti-genocide to vote Harris, is that Trump will not only be much worse than the current administration, but will not be able to be swayed by public pressure in the same way Harris might be.
  It's also the "current administration". I'd imagine that despite all of the people pretending otherwise (and kind of buying the "She's Biden", weak-ass attack line from the Trump camp), a Harris-Walz administration will not be exactly the same as the current Biden-Harris one.
  The vice presidency is largely a ceremonial role, and she has to walk a fine line while campaigning for the job of POTUS to not criticize the "current administration" that she's nominally part of and therefore is not likely to break with it very much publicly, but I would find it utterly unsurprising if she charted a completely distinct course from Biden on many issues when she assumes the role.
  
  So far there has been no good evidence she would be less supportive of Israel. Different policies can go both ways
  
  I hope you're right, but I'm concerned that Harris not breaking from Biden on his unpopular positions is seriously hurting her chances to win the election right no. It's a way closer race than it should be
- It's the wrong reason, but Trump seems to dislike giving american money to anyone, and so does his base, so that is a possible point of pressure
  
  Nah, Trump loves getting money from Israel. He would totally accelerate the genocide for that. Trump only cares about Trump.
  But he's using the same tactic as in 2016, where he's trying to come off as the peace candidate and frame his opponent as a warmonger. That's why he's only talks about it as if he'll 'end the war' and leave any details out about how he'll actually do so (more Genocide). It only works because of the terrible policy of the Biden Administration right now on Israel. If Harris pivoted and went for Conditional Aid, it would destroy that framing and give massive gains to Harris in this race
- Why so much Occasional Capitalization of Random Words?
  
  It's the polite way to emphasize words. But also in ideological discussions there's just so many nouns.
  
  That's...no? That's not at all how to emphasize words. Only proper nouns are capitalized. Italics, bold, and underline are how to emphasize.
  
  You're thinking about academic writing. Informal, marketing, opinion pieces, and really most other forms of writing allow for capitalizing as a less intrusive way to emphasize. Heck the military goes full bore and capitalizes the entire word for key terms and names.
  
  Because those are proper nouns. It has nothing to do with emphasis.
  
  Key terms are not always proper nouns. The intent is to be able to see the headline, scan the piece and read the in depth parts only if you need to. So it could look something like,
  Status of Farming Co-op in Opforistan East
  We assess this project to be RED because of missing heavy equipment. Local Civil Affairs unit reports they believe OPFOR elements are involved. State department asset concurs this project is infeasible due to ENEMY ACTION.
  Then add like, 30 sentences of details I don't care to replicate right now. But the idea is as this report goes up the chain everyone can see the status, and the general reason why. Generally you're going to capitalize who, what, why, where, and when if the title doesn't make it clear. So missing here would just be when. But that could also just be the time of the report.
  
  Military writing is weird and follows different conventions than normal writing. That's absolutely not how you write prose.
  
  Of course it's not. I said as much above. It's an example of the Flexibility of Language.
  
  I mean sure, if you want to write things incorrectly no one is going to arrest you, but you'll certainly get comments like mine.
  
  Yup. I can see that. Thankfully, there is no right answer for little things like this in English.

814 comments