HeavenlyPossumSo if someone wanted to vote for “a society in which snipers are not deployed against student protests,” which candidate should they vote for?
Rui Malheiro@HeavenlyPossum in the next election, just make sure the openly fascist party is defeated. If it goes according to history, they will eat each other and break into two or three parties. Then, you *might* have their support to reform electoral law into proportional representation. With some luck and good grassroots movements, you can then tackle on the not openly fascist party and work your way into a democracy.
The democrats hold office now, while snipers are being deployed against students
@HeavenlyPossum I know and it's sad, but not different from when your youth was protesting for the end of white previleges, the end of Vietnam war or the end of sexual discrimination. The best hope you have is to end the two party dictatorship. The endgame is the goal and it's akin to sacrificing the queen to enable the checkmate.
So we should vote for the party that’s overseeing violent repression of protests, because that party will (sometime in the future) be better or be replaced by something better?
@HeavenlyPossum no. You should vote to *make sure* you will have a chance to vote again in four years.
This advice come from experience. I live in a country where we could not (freely) vote for 50 years.
But that’s not what I asked at all. It’s ok if the answer to the question “who should you vote for to end the violent suppression of protests” is “no one.”
Woozle HypertwinIt's a choice between {the party that might not prevent positive change on this issue, as well as countless others} vs. {the party that will happily shoot you and anyone else who disagrees with them}.
Sorry, which one is which?
Dems: the party which at least tries to not be horrible all the time, even though they are still horrible a lot and are way too beholden to capitalist interests
GOP: open fascists who enjoy watching/making other people suffer
Any questions? I can give examples. Think of LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive rights, the right of non-rich people to speak and have opinions...
Oh, but the protests are being violently suppressed right now
By agents of a state run by a democratic president
Which state?
The United States (and many of its subsidiary political units, such as New York, which also have democrats in senior elected office)
I think it's very early to say that Democrats authorized or even support this. Here's what I could find quickly:
There is no clear evidence in the given search results indicating who specifically ordered the police suppression of student protests in California, New York, and Boston. The results discuss several incidents of police using force to break up protests at universities in those states, but do not name the authorities who directed the police response. The search results mention:
- In Georgia, police tased pro-Palestinian protesters and targeted them with rubber bullets at Emory University in Atlanta[1][4].
- In Boston, a violent clash between police and Emerson College students resulted in blood being visible on campus, with police pulling protesters away and dragging them on the ground[1][2].
- At the University of Texas in Austin, dozens of state troopers, some armed with automatic weapons, used batons to disperse protesters[2].
- Police in riot gear violently broke up peaceful protests at the University of Southern California, employing rubber bullets[2].
- At New York University and Yale, police were called in to break up pro-Palestinian demonstrations[5].
However, the search results do not specify which government officials or university administrators directed the police to intervene and suppress the student protests in those instances. More information would be needed to determine the specific decision-makers responsible in each case.
If you have any additional information, or anything which contradicts this, please let me know.
[edit: adding sources]
- [1] https://works.bepress.com/gerald_lebovits/354/download/
- [2] https://www.newyorkappellatelawyer.com/blog/new-exception-to-the-exclusionary-rule-and-fourth-amendment-suppression-issues/
- [4] https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/search-seizure/
- [5] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/22/us/campus-protests-columbia-yale
So either democrats ordered it, or are helpless to stop it?
...or haven't stopped it yet. It's not clear what the timing is on all of this. Maybe Wikipedia has an article...
This looks useful: Pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the United States
So maybe Joe Biden is just waiting for the right moment to publicly denounce the violent suppression of peaceful protests and exercise his authority as president to stop them?
What authority does he have? IANAL... (and unlike the GOP, Dems do feel some compunction to stay within the law...)
In his authority over the justice department, in his control over the national guard, and in his bully pulpit.
Or maybe he’s helpless?
Which specific authority does he have, when it comes to actions of municipal police?
This isn't a binary choice between "can fix it now" and "can't do anything ever". Given the things Biden has done while in office, I can hardly think he's okay with all of this. ...but I haven't yet heard what his take is.
He could, at the absolute bare least, make a public statement in opposition to the violent suppression of peaceful protests by agents of a state he ostensibly leads.
At the other extreme, he could nationalize the national guard and deploy them to protect students from violence by local police.
In between, Biden has a variety of options to respond—or maybe he doesn’t and being president doesn’t matter that much!
Well, here's what the consensus reality appears to be at the moment -- TLDR: he's buying too much into the "support for Palestine = antisemitic" trope. Points to consider: (1) the GOP has apparently been actively advocating for suppression, and (2) you'll never be able to talk sense into them because they're fundamentally fash, whereas Biden/Dems can sometimes be reasoned with.
President Biden has faced a challenging situation in responding to the police suppression of student protests against the war in Gaza at U.S. universities. While the administration has reiterated its support for the right to peacefully protest, it has also condemned "antisemitic" rhetoric and violence among some protesters.
The White House has rejected criticism from Hamas, which expressed support for the protests, with Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates calling Hamas "the least credible voice that exists on this subject" due to its history of terrorism.
Biden has also emphasized his lifelong commitment to combating antisemitism and his implementation of the first-ever national strategy to address this issue.
However, the administration has faced accusations of carrying out a "police state crackdown" on the protests in alliance with the Republican Party.
Hundreds of students have been arrested at campuses across the country, with some alleging excessive force by police.
The FIRE organization has emphasized that while colleges can set reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on protests, they cannot limit the views being expressed.
Biden's handling of the situation is being closely watched by both Jewish and Arab American voters in key swing states.
While the protests have so far been a distraction, they could potentially build momentum and lead to scenes of unrest at the Democratic National Convention in August.
The president will need to navigate the issue carefully to maintain support from young voters while also addressing concerns about antisemitism and violence.
Hm, so he doesn’t want to stop the violent suppression of peaceful protests?
the administration has reiterated its support for the right to peacefully protest
..and I don't know what else he may be doing that is within his legal power.
Ok, thanks for helping me answer my question: “no one”
I can't stop you from putting everything in absolutist framing.
I'm sure the authoritarians will be fine with this, too.
The authoritarians who are deploying snipers against peaceful protests?
@woozle I do agree with
@HeavenlyPossum that no one of those parties, in their current standing, *deserves* the votes of rational people.
Even so, considering the current state of affairs, I believe you need to choose the lesser evil and vote Democrat because each vote not cast is one less vote the Actual Fascist Party will need to win.
Perhaps I'm being a little unfair.
Taking your question literally:
if someone wanted to vote for “a society in which snipers are not deployed against student protests,” which candidate should they vote for?
-- you are correct that right now the answer is "none". The Dems can't stop local police from deploying snipers, and the GOP doesn't want to.
If that very narrow and binary question is the only lens that matters to you, then that's the answer.
If that binary question is truly the only lens that matters to you, though... then I have to question your ethical framework.
Yeah, in my ethical framework, state violence is pretty bad and having rights is pretty important, so I can see why that might be questionable for some people.
So, yeah, the Dems are historically bad on this issue (separating Palestinian rights from antisemitism -- not the same thing at all, of course). Palestinian rights are human rights.
Thing is, I don't see how the Dems aren't by far more amenable to reconsidering this position, over time -- and some Dems have been actively supportive.
Try finding any support among the GOP.
The choice is between (a) Dems: slow, reluctant support and (b) GOP: active hostility and suppression.
I think that is a much more useful answer to your question, even if it doesn't literally answer the exact question you asked.
(...and that's without going into all the other rights which Dems do actively support, and which the GOP opposes. I'd like to see one example of a civil right that the GOP is better about, or even not-clearly-worse, than the Dems.)
The question, narrowly framed and carefully positioned as it is, is a right-wing framing of the situation, designed to make two very unequal things appear equal -- and I have a hard time believing that anyone genuinely believes it is the question which matters when it comes to this year's elections.
ThatMan@HeavenlyPossum @woozle @chromatic Woozle is much better with restraint than I am. Once again, I appreciate your moderate voice.
Possum, I totally understand. I don’t have a “good” solution either. The people who have power who would likely use it for good seem too afraid to use it. And the people with power who would use it for evil are more than happy to use it.
We’re in a turbulent period that likely won’t resolve in our lifetime. We got stuck with a raw deal and it feels unfair. Most of my energy is spent just barely keeping my head above water at this point. With the meager remains, I do what I can, which is to cast an ineffectual vote for people and a party that seems to not care.
The door has been kicked in, the windows are broken, and there’s glass all over the floor. I either have to spend the rest of my time cleaning up the mess and probably die before it’s finished, or just die now. Those are both crappy choices, but those are the choices I have. At least, I haven’t thought of a better idea yet, or heard of one. Though I’m starting to wonder if that second choice isn’t the better of the two.
raphael@woozle all in all, i doubt the practicality of the question of ‘which head of state do i vote for to fix an entire society’s broad endorsement of police violence as a solution to problems, while the country is currently set up with heavy barriers between said head of state and its next lower administrative level and down’
@gekitsu RIGHT????
@HeavenlyPossum @gekitsu Short term, yes -- but what's your point? Voting in a national election is rarely a short-term solution to anything. That's not what it's for.
I think at this point you're just toying with me.
Nobody anywhere can deliver that.
Some societies may have come from a situation like that and have transitioned to a more peaceful one, but when does that degree of change ever take less than 4 years? ...especially when the tide of violence seems to be coming in right now, not going out?
Why is this a relevant question?
HOW could the Democratic Party deliver that?
By not deploying snipers against protesters. “No one could deliver that” as if the people making these decisions are a force of nature and not people with agency who could choose otherwise.
That the state does this regardless of who is in charge tells us that it doesn’t matter that much about who is in charge, from the perspective of “living in a society in which you can exercise basic rights without the state sending people with guns to stop you.” Either they can’t, or they won’t.
The Democratic Party did not make those decisions.
As far as we can tell, no Democratic elected leaders did either.
You seem to be conflating everything you possibly can just so you can stick to the position you've taken.
Bishop Whitewind@woozle @HeavenlyPossum @gekitsu I mean straight up though. I've been doing this crap for like 20, maybe almost 30 years now doesn't matter. The only thing that stays the same is the snipers *sighs*
That and the war crimes.
That and the war crimes.
That’s kind of the bigger issue, for which “snipers deployed to suppress protests” is a proxy. The state continues to produce these sorts of systemic results, regardless of which party is “in charge,” because that’s the point of the system: to produce these results. There is no party for which we could vote to stop this kind of behavior because that’s not the point of parties or voting.
@HeavenlyPossum @B_Whitewind @gekitsu
How about this: vote the extreme Right -- (that's the GOP, in case you weren't sure) overwhelmingly out of office so that another party to the left of the Dems can be a legitimate choice.
As long as the GOP is a viable force, the center of gravity will be halfway to plutocratic fascism (or at best neofeudalism).
Parallel to this, let's undermine the "two-party system" by pushing for IRV voting, range voting, any other voting system besides FPP.
The voting system we currently use is pretty much the only reason we're stuck choosing between two levels of bad.
If you're trying to say that the Dems are terrible for not being more pro-active about letting this stuff happen, then all I can say is vote for progressives.
If you're trying to say that all this means it doesn't matter which party we vote for --
-- then I'd say you're throwing one HELL of a lot of people under the bus for the sake of the immediate surface ambiguity surrounding this one issue.
Do you really think we wouldn't have more snipers if Trump had won in 2020?
Chairman Meow ᓚᘏᗢ 🐿️🍉@woozle @HeavenlyPossum @gekitsu not speaking for Possum here but I'd encourage you to consider whether there are circumstances under which voting is not a *long-term* solution either. In which case you could spend your whole life voting yet wind up no closer to justice at the end than you were at the beginning. Perhaps further.
Try asking yourself this as a serious exercise: "what rules should I use to decide whether voting is actually working, and what should I do if I decide it isn't?"
If we don't vote against dictatorship, the people who like dictatorships will vote one in, because they don't stop to debate about it; they just follow orders. They've been getting closer to their goal every decade or so for 40 years now. ...and I should hope that you'd be as concerned about that possibility as I am.
I'd rather survive with a government that at least tries to help people live better, than possibly die under a government which actively sabotages anyone outside their in-group.
The more time and energy I have to spend fighting against powerful people punching down and pulling the rug out from under me and other non-wealthy people, the less time I can devote to working towards a better system of governance and a better society.
I'm not sure why this isn't obvious.
...and now I'm having to spend time fighting against people who want to equivocate between those two options. WTF? Have you really thought this through?
@woozle oh I promise you I have thought it through, and not only that but I've lived through it. So I wouldn't dream of discouraging anyone from voting.
That's why I asked that very specific question. And I still think you should address it seriously instead of assuming I don't know what I'm about. By all means vote, but remember voting is *the least* you can do, and GOTV is only a little more.
If you don't like my other question, here's a new one: what exactly are you "fighting me" about?
I did respond to your question seriously, although it wasn't a direct response.
I'll try again.
I think the problem is that your question is rather open-ended -- which leaves it to me to clarify your meaning. When I choose an interpretation that seems meaningful to me, you can then say "no, that's not what I meant" -- and much like HeavenlyPossum, you can then avoid taking any position on what it is you're actually trying to say.
...so I'll give you some possible interpretations without choosing one, and you can tell me whether any of them is what you mean (or clarify what you do mean, if none of them).
You suggested I ask myself:
[quote]
"what rules should I use to decide whether voting is actually working, and what should I do if I decide it isn't?"
[quote]
The ambiguity here is: what do you mean by "working"? Possible interpretations:
- Do I get what I want, when I vote? (Do I get less of what I want when I don't?)
- How does the outcome of the election affect me (directly or indirectly)? Does it really matter who wins?
- Do we get better social outcomes when more people vote?
- Is the aggregate personal cost of voting (time off work etc.) generally fairly compensated for by the gain in doing so?
So: is it any of those? If not, please clarify.
@woozle the last one is actually a pretty good way to put it, though I would like to emphasize that "in aggregate" across society is the important part, because your personal cost/benefit ratio is entirely dependent on how you feel about the choices you already have.
Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm not trying to discourage you from voting. I'm trying to encourage you to think about whether voting gives you the kind of "power" that you think it does.
@darcher I have no illusions that it gives me any power.
[edit, added] I mean, why would you think that I would think it does? "Power" is not what it's about. It's about keeping too much power from accumulating elsewhere. It's swimming in the ocean. It doesn't confer power, it doesn't even guarantee we'll live; it's just the best chance we've got.
@woozle Ha! That is a very anarchist perspective.
But that makes it sound like you're on team "Voting Is Harm Reduction - Not A Way To Achieve Substantive Change"
Is that a reasonable way to describe your position?
@darcher Halfway. It doesn't achieve substantive change on its own, but it does make such change more possible.
Yes, I am more or less an anarchist (of the "don't burn down the house until you've got another one built and have moved into it (and maybe dismantle it instead of burning it)" school of thought).
@woozle Excellent. Dual Power FTW (unless you prefer to call it something else). We are on the same page as far as that goes.
So to go back to the original question, what is the relationship (in your view) between voting and building the new house? Or, put differently, do you think voting removes any of the impediments to building a new house?
Edit: maybe a better way to ask is HOW do you think voting makes change more possible?