- Mod of [email protected] posts a great Greta Thunberg quote, but then tries to use it to justify not voting in the upcoming US election
- Multiple people point out that’s very clearly not what she meant
- Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod
Using your mod powers to decide who is allowed and not allowed to speak is not very anarchist of you, @[email protected]
The core message is good - democracy is not a one-day affair, and we should be more involved. But glossing over “Well yes Trump is worse” in an election against literal fascism with a “BOTH SIDES BAD”, accusations of tokenism, an incredibly tone-deaf call to action to a pressed-upon American public, and a side of American diabolism for good measure? Eugh.
I don’t agree that it glosses over it. She says almost immediately:
and
Pretty strong language. If anything I think she might actually be overstating its significance, though obviously this depends on our predictions of future events which are ultimately unknowable. So I won’t disagree with her assessment even though I don’t completely share it.
But that’s just not the main point of the post. Most people in liberal democracies consider it their civic duty to vote. But they do not consider it their civic duty to engage in direct actions that reduce the harms of violent state actions or build support for marginalized people in their communities. This is a very important and valid critique of our collective political consciousness.
Furthermore, pointing out that both candidates support extremely harmful policy positions, particularly on Palestinian issues but also in terms of fossil fuel extraction, while acknowledging that one is worse, is not the same as “BOTH SIDES BAD”. We need to be able to understand and confront the crimes of the system in order to change it. I am not going to pretend that actively supporting ethnic cleansing is OK because Trump is worse. I think that’s a dangerous way to engage with democracy. It’s exactly the type of thinking that keeps moderate Trump supporters in line.
All language is couched in context. “Election important” and “Trump bad” are mealy-mouthed condemnations that can be read without implication of support for the only practical anti-fascist candidate. If Trump wins, it’ll be a “q.q I warned you q.q”; if Harris wins, it’ll be “I never said to vote for her, she’s just Another Fascist Pig.” It’s intentionally ambiguous language that almost immediately departs to elaborate on all the reasons Harris in particular is guilty and how neither side will change anything.
Call me a cynic, but I fought with this kind of argument all the goddamn time in college.
I agree.
There’s no need to pretend that ethnic cleansing is okay, or that supporting it is okay, or even that failing to oppose it is okay - but there is a need to be clear in opposition to literal fascism, and playing with cheap rhetoric for ambiguity to avoid responsibility for taking a serious position is not something that is in any way respectable. Something (ironically?) that Harris does on the issue of Palestinian genocide.
Speaking as someone who strongly disagrees with “both sides bad,” I think she has it pretty much right on both counts. The whole system is okay with driving us off the carbon emissions cliff and killing Palestinians by the hundreds of thousands. We have to kill the system before it kills us. And yet, at the same time, Trump would be a catastrophic setback we can in no way afford, so it’s also very important to defeat him.