@HeavenlyPossum @chromatic

...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

@woozle @chromatic

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?

@HeavenlyPossum @chromatic

What authority does he have? IANAL... (and unlike the GOP, Dems do feel some compunction to stay within the law...)

@chromatic @woozle

In his authority over the justice department, in his control over the national guard, and in his bully pulpit.

Or maybe he’s helpless?

@HeavenlyPossum @chromatic

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.

@woozle @chromatic

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!

@HeavenlyPossum @chromatic

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.

@chromatic @woozle

Hm, so he doesn’t want to stop the violent suppression of peaceful protests?

@HeavenlyPossum @chromatic

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.

@chromatic @woozle

Ok, thanks for helping me answer my question: “no one”

@HeavenlyPossum @chromatic

I can't stop you from putting everything in absolutist framing.

I'm sure the authoritarians will be fine with this, too.

@HeavenlyPossum

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.

@chromatic

@woozle @chromatic

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.

@HeavenlyPossum @chromatic

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.

@gekitsu @woozle

So again, voting would an ineffective strategy for achieving a society in which snipers are not deployed against student protesters. I agree.

@gekitsu @woozle

That there are no candidates for whom Americans could vote who want to or are capable of delivering a society in which snipers are not deployed against protestors.

@HeavenlyPossum

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?

@gekitsu

@gekitsu @woozle

Seems like the people in charge of deploying snipers—ie, the state and the people who run it—could deliver that pretty easily.

I could have also asked “who should we vote for if we oppose genocide in Gaza” and gotten pretty similar answers: no one.

@HeavenlyPossum @gekitsu

HOW could the Democratic Party deliver that?

@gekitsu @woozle

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.

@HeavenlyPossum

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.

@gekitsu

@woozle @gekitsu

I’m sorry this has been so frustrating for you! If the democrats didn’t make that decision, then they were unable to stop it or disinterested in stopping it.

@HeavenlyPossum @gekitsu

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?

@woozle @gekitsu

Am I throwing women under the bus? They already lost a national right to abortion under Biden.

@HeavenlyPossum @gekitsu

You're seriously going to make that argument?

I think my counterargument to that should be obvious enough -- so I'd like you to make that obvious counterpoint, and then explain how it's mistaken.

@gekitsu @woozle

I have made that argument.

@HeavenlyPossum @gekitsu

So, you truly don't see the very obvious flaw in it?

@gekitsu @woozle

Nope, seems pretty sound to me. Biden was unable to stop the repeal of Roe; Americans voted for Clinton but ended up with Trump in the presidency; when Biden was vice president, the democrats controlled the presidency, the house, and a super-majority in the senate but declined to legislate national abortion rights (despite campaign promises by Obama to do so).

So, much as with the “snipers to suppress protests,” we find that voting for both parties has produced the same result: the end of abortion rights at the national level.

@HeavenlyPossum

I think you must have a very weird understanding of how government works, even when it's functioning in the best possible way (which it never is, because there are always powermongers throwing gold-plated sabots into the works).

@gekitsu

@woozle @gekitsu

I would argue that I have a keen sense of how government works, and that you have a charmingly naive faith that the spectacle aspect of governance outweighs the systemic purpose of the state as a system that produces consistent systemic results.

Give democrats a trifecta with a supermajority; vote for Clinton, vote for Biden…and still lose abortion rights. Vote and do everything right and…the same result.

@HeavenlyPossum @gekitsu

So, I now understand that you are not on the side of reasoning from evidence, but rather cherry-picking the evidence to support your position.

Given that, what is your end-argument? Are you suggesting:

• there's no point in voting
• people should vote GOP
• people should vote 3rd-party
• something else?

@gekitsu @woozle

Surveying the last 14 years of American politics seems like the opposite of cherry picking.

My point was “there is no party for which Americans could vote to produce a society in which police snipers deploy against student protesters” and you confirmed that point a while ago. I thanked you for your help and am sorry if that has caused you stress.

@HeavenlyPossum @gekitsu

Sure, let's take those claims as valid, for the sake of not continuing to argue about them.

What's the point? Why is this important for people to understand?

@woozle @gekitsu

It doesn’t seem important to you to understand that, regardless of which party you might vote for, the government will continue to violently abuse your most basic rights?

@HeavenlyPossum @gekitsu

Sure, that would be very important to understand, if true.

My question is: how should this affect how people act? Are you arguing that there's no point in voting?

@gekitsu @woozle

I haven’t, and as a rule don’t, advise people whether to vote or how to vote if they do.

Since you’ve literally spent the last however many hours telling me precisely that my point is correct—that voting for democrats will not and *could not* produce a society in which snipers are not deployed against protesters—saying “if true” reads as pretty disingenuous. I don’t feel particularly comfortable continuing this.

@HeavenlyPossum @gekitsu

I did not concede the point the way you have it phrased, no; I specifically stated the opposite.

Getting back to my question, though: you're saying that there's no clear conclusion to be drawn from this fact (which, as you say, we've now spent the better part of a day arguing over)? If it doesn't have any real-world consequences, why is it so important? Why spend so much time advocating for it?

I'll tell you the conclusion I get, and which I think most people in fedi would agree with: your claim just underscores the importance of voting -- for Democrats, of course, there being no real alternative -- this November.

Most people here are well aware of the dangers of another GOP presidency and of GOP operatives gaining or retaining majorities in Congress, the courts, etc.

Many of us, however, may have become complacent as the GOP's infighting and unpopularly draconian legislation, topped off by Trump's increasing parasitic control of their resources, have made their prospects look very dim. There may well be a "Blue Wave" in November -- so, while this won't instantly stop all police abuse anywhere, we will at least be on the right path to police reform. Yay!

Your arguments, however, serve as a chilling reminder of the fact that a lot of voters who should be on our side, due to nominally being caring people who want a just and equal society, are (for some reason) instead looking through a few carefully-selected microscopic lenses that take in only the flaws in the Party of Less Evil (aka The Good Cop Party) -- of which there are many, of course -- and completely fail to consider how bad the alternative would be for pretty much everyone except a few angry billionaires.

The unavoidable conclusion is that it's even more important than we may have realized to get as many people to the polls as possible, to make up for... whatever it is you and your fellow travelers (I assume you have some) plan to do in November (not vote? vote for RFK? vote for GOP fash? You won't say what your plan is, so we have to assume the worst).

So, you know -- thank you for bringing this up and reminding us that we have a lot of work to do. ​

@woozle @gekitsu

You literally and explicitly agreed with my claim in the toot linked below.

If I hope to get anything out of this (now extremely unpleasant conversation) that I’ve asked to stop more than once, it’s to convey to open-minded people that the state does not exist to produce outcomes *for them,* but for the state’s interests. Electoralism is, at best, a circus that exists to let people feel like they’re “doing something” every two to four years. It’s an outlet, a diversion; it’s designed to consume the public’s energy via empty ritual and create the appearance but not substance of agency. The state satisfies the public’s desire for change through superficial shows.

Because you have ignored me and lied to me, I will not be engaging with you anymore.

https://toot.cat/@woozle/112350165652828992