Peter Link‘They will vote against Harris’: Arab Americans in Michigan desert Democrats over Gaza
Wakmrow [he/him]I want to laugh but it’s so dark they’re turning to trump
zarkanianHopefully they turn to Jill Stein.
NineMileTowerHamtramck is run by a bigoted shit stain mayor. As welcoming as I want to be to immigrants, don’t bring that sexist, homophobic shit into my neighborhood. Go ahead and vote against Harris, but don’t come complaining when Trump deports your family.
This is the kind of meme that talks past you, degrades you, and then will complain when not responded to.
The meme is not abusive but it does describe a cruel and illogical behavior rife in this thread.
A behavior in support of genocide, no less.
Interesting, this was exactly my mindset on voting at age 10 or so. Guess some people never gets out of that phase?
don’t come complaining when Trump deports your family
You can’t claim to give a shit about people and then say things like this
Angry with the Biden administration – and, by extension, Kamala Harris – for its support for Israel, Arab Americans may be willing to overlook Trump’s history of closeness with Israel’s hard-right leaders.
So, these individuals could be described as the common clay of the new West?
You see no difference between people put off by settler-colonial genocide and… settler colonists? What?
You often try to win arguments by blaming one person for the actions that were taken by others?
I don’t know what you’re referring to.
Does feigning ignorance often work for you as a debate strategy?
You sure they’re feigning?
Given how often they post on this issue and the sometimes verbose spread of bad-faith arguments and disinformation…
Yes I am
I’m not feigning. I don’t know what point you were making. Perhaps you could expound using more descriptive terms?
It seems that you are currently so agitated that my honest statement of not knowing what you mean must actually be a sneaky bad faith strategem.
Oh, so is it amnesia then? Because you seemed pretty clear on the topic of discussion until I cornered you. Then, magically - or just conveniently - you have forgotten what we’re talking about.
And pretending to be psychic and read my mind (or, perhaps, hallucinating) via the internet doesn’t make you right. How is that even rational?
Why should anyone believe what you say when it’s clearly either a bad-faith argument full of disinformation or evidence of your ignorance and inability to comment intelligently on this topic?
Oh, so is it amnesia then? Because you seemed pretty clear on the topic of discussion until I cornered you. Then, magically - or just conveniently - you have forgotten what we’re talking about.
Feel free to rephrase and expound on what you said. I do not see how it applied to what we were talking about, and therefore don’t see its meaning.
And pretending to be psychic and read my mind (or, perhaps, hallucinating) via the internet doesn’t make you right. How is that even rational?
As I said, I recognize behaviors and clichés. And you have not yet contradicted a single prediction and have accidentally confirmed a few.
Why should anyone believe what you say when it’s clearly either a bad-faith argument full of disinformation or evidence of your ignorance and inability to comment intelligently on this topic?
I have made no bad faith arguments nor presented any disinformation. Please do your best to not make things up and to address what I have actually said.
And, of course, you should be against genocide and act accordingly.
All that you can do is prove your bad faith, you don’t need so many words. L O L.
Please do your best to engage in good faith with what I have said.
That’s how this began, and all I got was bad, faith, arguments, logical, fallacies, and disinformation in return.
Psychologically projecting your bad faith onto me isn’t going to work with any rational person.
This did not begin with you engaging in good faith with what I said, lol. As I said originally, I (clearly correctly) interpreted you as having a defensive posturing, not one showing any interest in understanding. It has only been downhill from there. At this point your comments are just word salad and attempts at quips and insults. You have no actual replies to what I say, so you are also inventing things and using terms that you don’t understand incorrectly.
I invite you to show me some of this “rational person”. I assume that such a person has no need for straw men and pretending to know words just because they sound like a good zinger. I assume that such a person can directly address what I say rather than being evasive.
Alas.
“Nuh-uh!”
Do you often find this to be an effective debate tactic?
A dishonest misquote, aping of my language without any substance behind it. Absurd straw men. Not addressing a single thing that I said.
And all because I say you should be against genocide and should work against genociders, not support them. This truly broke something in you, didn’t? It’s a shame it has only led to doubling down and dishonest behavior.
Is this the “rational person” you referred to?
“no u!”
Do you often find this to be an effective debate strategy?
I will acknowledge this repeated bad faith behavior as an admission that you cannot respond any further in this particular comment chain. I’m sure you will respond with some more dishonest word salad and you are welcome to it.
You’re clearly capable of convincing yourself of anything, regardless of whether it actually reflects reality.
I expected nothing less
It’s a movie reference. You should watch Blazing Saddles, it’s very funny.
It’s a great movie, I always tell people to watch it!
In the movie, this is a reference to the racist townspeople in the “Western”. It’s poking fun at the Westerns that romanticized allegedly good and pure settlers (colonizers) and to sympathoze with them. You weren’t supposed to think of them as, in Wilder’s terms, “morons”.
Parent was just trying to call people morons. It’s not a clever reference, I got it. But those people are, specifically, Muslims so put off by the genocide of Palestinians that they’d vote against the administration supporting that grmocide. I would say their political acumen is more developed than the genocidal sheepdogging that we see in this thread, people that can’t even say the word genocide trying to imply they’re the adults in the room. At least they can understand basic leverage and independent action.
But I was making note that the “morons” reference in Blazing Saddles is about settler-colonists whereas the people parent wanted to call morons are literally people that are reacting against settler colonists and their supporters. I think that is an oversight that can only be made through chauvinism, personally. The person wants to feel better than those moved by genocide, they want it to be as narrow as “those people are stupid”. They can’t contend with the content.
Captain AggravatedI’m going to fail at completely or concisely summarize the plot of Blazing Saddles here.
In the movie, there is a deeply greedy railroad tycoon who wants to build a railroad through the desert. The best place to run the railroad through is already occupied by a town of white settlers called Rock Ridge. Meanwhile, a black worker on the railroad becomes both popular and uppity. The harebrained scheme to kill two birds with one stone: Appoint the black man sheriff of Rock Ridge. So the tycoon is relying on the townspeople to be useful idiots and lynch the black man, while simultaneously expecting the insult of a black sheriff to drive the town into chaos so he can break up the town and run his railroad.
There is a scene where the black man, in his capacity as sheriff, greets a little old woman saying “Mighty fine mornin, ain’t it?” She responds “Up yours, N***er!” Upset at this, his friend (a former gunslinger turned drunkard, played by Gene Wilder) to try to cheer him up, saying “these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west.” Gene Wilder ad libbed the line “you know, morons.” which caused Cleavon Little (playing the black sheriff) to genuinely laugh, which made it into the final cut of the movie.
Shenanigans ensue during which a man named Mongo punches a horse to the ground, then Madeline Kahn happens, and it comes out that the tycoon (and the governor in the tycoon’s pocket) is trying to hurt the town and the black sheriff is actually on their side, the townsfolk learn and grow as people and put aside their bigotry, in the words of the mayor “We’re okay, with the ners and the cks, but we DON’T WANT THE IRISH. Ah, prairie shit. Everybody!” meanwhile the tycoon and his cronies are mainly driven by greed and unable/unwilling to grow, accept others or find equitable solutions, and are defeated/humiliated.
=====
So in this context, calling muslim Americans who would vote for the Republicans because the Democrats are in office while Israel is going full Nazi is calling them useful and disposable idiots. Which is exactly what they are. The Republicans actively want to kill muslims. Muslims are black people who aren’t even Christians, the Republicans would exterminate muslims recreationally. They’ll gladly take their votes though, anything for more power. Meanwhile the muslims be over here talking about “The Republicans hate women and jews, I hate women and jews; it’s like they get me, you know?”
Yes I know the reference, parent is just calling them stupid really. Though I appreciate you taking the time to explain it and write it up! I wrote a comment to this effect but explaining what I am saying in regards to it here.
Good movie BTW, everyone should watch it, especially if you have ever seen a garbage chauvinist pop Western like anything with John Wayne in it.
Good movie BTW, everyone should watch it,
Correct.
Western like anything with John Wayne in it.
There’s a movie I would suggest watching called In Harm’s Way. Admittedly it’s a WWII movie and not a Western, but it’s…without wishing to spoil let’s just say it’s the most nuanced John Wayne film I’m aware of.
Thanks for the movie rec! I added it to my queue. There is a lot of overlap between WWII movies at the time and Westerns so if nothing else I will enjoy making comparisons. If you could sum up your takeaway in one sentiment, what would it be?
In Harm’s Way: Not all war heroes deserve medals.
Thanks!
Fidel_Cashflowyeah man, denigrate them more, that’ll surely get them on your side! maybe a touch more smug condescension? anything except engaging with their concerns, of course.
I don’t want them on my side. I’m not running for office, and they’re shitty, stupid people.
(your mask is slipping)
Trump supporters? Yeah, I stand by it.
I call conservatives dumb too.
These people aren’t special. Just a different kind of dumb.
personally, I think ignoring the concerns of voters in a historically very important swing state months before the election is a recipe for a disastrous rerun of 2016, and should be avoided if you’re actually concerned with winning, protecting democracy, etc. but I guess we’ll see if the strategy of “fuck you, vote for me” works out this time 🤷
these folks are doing logical loop de loops
Single issue voters, or is this even a single issue because Trump and Harris don’t really have much different on this particular topic? People really have me scratching my head sometimes.
The single issue: genocide
Why are you sheepdogging for genociders? You have always had the option of saying nothing and educating yourself instead.
Just because you’re oversimplifying a complex issue doesn’t make you correct or your choice any better than the alternative.
Unless you’d like to explain how it does…
It is not a complex issue. There is a genocide and there are increasing calls to support those genociders electorally. Instead of supporting genociders, you should oppose them.
Liberals call “issues” complex in order to speak euphemistically about the horrible things they support. They do not actually have an understanding of the alleged complexity, it is just a lazy thought-terminating cliché. When you do understand something, you can discuss it directly. At the moment, you are apparently more afraid of using the word genocide than actually being complicut in it yourself. Is this the “complexity” you are referring to? Your personal discomfort? I suspect so.
Unless you’d like to explain how it does…
Being consistently against genocide is the first step towards actually fighting against it. I have set the bar very low. Can you clear it?
A 1000 year Middle East conflict “isn’t a complex issue”?
Either you’re obviously too ignorant to hold intelligent opinions on this matter, or you’re clearly arguing in bad faith by stating obvious falsehoods.
Why should anyone take you seriously?
A 1000 year Middle East conflict “isn’t a complex issue”?
Israel as a settler colonial entity is around 100 years old. Before that, Christians, Muslims, and Jews lived in the same area with very little sectarian violence for around 800 years.
Thank you for admitting that. I’m correct, however, the rest is completely irrelevant. We’re not talking about those 800 years.
You’d say “its nuanced” about colonizers killing indigenous tribes and the indigenous tribes fighting back.
Making up little fantasies about people you lose arguments to also does not make you correct. At best, it makes you delusional, and, at worst, it makes you a liar.
Do you often lying about random strangers in order to make yourself feel better?
You’re straight up doing it though, like, your nuanced bullshit around Israeli settlers and indigenous Palestinians.
Consider that you have to keep declaring victory because you’re aware on some level that you’re wrong on this.
You’re straight up doing it though, like, your nuanced bullshit around Israeli settlers and indigenous Palestinians
Funny, I never said that nor did I “declare victory”. Do you often find blatantly lying to be an effective debate tactic?
That is what your little middle school demonstration of informal logical fallacies are though, you’re substituting arguments for “um actually fallacy” like it is some checkmate that dismisses everything people are saying.
Notice how you went for an “um actually I didn’t technically say those words” instead of responding to this:
You’re straight up doing it though, like, your nuanced bullshit around Israeli settlers and indigenous Palestinians.
Genocide isn’t morally complicated, and the fact that you’re debate broing about it defensively when people say shit that is just objectively correct, like, “Israel is a settler colonial state commiting genocide” is a real indication that maybe you should step back for five minutes and check in with yourself.
Dude, Palestinians lived with Jews in what was called Palestine until WW2. This is not an ancient conflict unless you believe antisemitic propaganda.
Well no there were Zionist terrorists killing people in that area before World War II. We tend to gloss that over in history though for some reason, maybe it’s because so many people that were targeting were the British and everyone was just kind of okay with it.
The state of Israel is compensation for the Holocaust,
The state of Israel is bribery to try to appease an extremist terrorist group who the Un hoped would settle the eff down if they were given the land they had been killing people trying to steal. They didnt end up appeased, and the world didnt owe them land for the holocaust. They should take that up with Germany and bill them for it, not the rest of us.
Calling it a thousand year conflict is Zionist propaganda. Plain and simple.