US Politics: The sides have gotten… weird

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Continue.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Kalbear,

Idk what you're on, but I clearly said you can't bitch and moan if you don't vote, but it's perfectly fine to complain about having to vote for someone you don't like. I strongly dislike Hillary, but I still voted for, however that didn't stop me from ripping her. 

[TrackerNeil]

There seems to be a lot of "Oh, Chatywin, you said this two weeks ago and now you are a hypocrite" stuff going on in this thread, and I don't understand where it's going. Do you want to address the points he's making, or just tee off on him? The former is interesting; the latter isn't.

A person can be hypocritical and still be right. Isn't that the more valuable discussion?

Edited February 27 by TrackerNeil

[Kalbear]

58 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

@Kalbear,

Idk what you're on, but I clearly said you can't bitch and moan if you don't vote, but it's perfectly fine to complain about having to vote for someone you don't like. I strongly dislike Hillary, but I still voted for, however that didn't stop me from ripping her. 

So, okay, if you don't vote you can't ever complain. Good, got it. And there is no other actions you can possibly take short of voting that will have any effect on the election, on the outcome, or on the future acts of the presidency. Is that also true? Because if it wasn't you'd be able to presumably not vote but do a whole lot of other things to try and make a difference - and presumably also be allowed to complain about the current POTUS. 

Just want to make sure I understand what specific forms of protest, behaviors, and systems are Expressly Allowed here so that we can ensure we're all in compliance. 

32 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

There seems to be a lot of "Oh, Chatywin, you said this two weeks ago and now you are a hypocrite" stuff going on in this thread, and I don't understand where it's going. Do you want to address the points he's making, or just tee off on him? The former is interesting; the latter isn't.

A person can be hypocritical and still be right. Isn't that the more valuable discussion?

This is an interesting take coming from you given your previously stated viewpoints of liberals gating allowed speech and behaviors as being incorrect. I'm kinda surprised, tbh. The thing I'm teeing off of is the gatekeeping of what is and isn't allowed to be done by people in the political sphere. 

I also don't think that he's particularly right in this case. I think that a whole lot of people - especially minorities - in the US have been asked repeatedly to hold their nose, vote for the lesser evil, and get shit on later. I think that in some people's positions that amount of shit has risen to too high of a level and they should, reasonably, not be counted on yet again to bail out the shitty democrats. I also think that it is not an unreasonable thing to think that for some people choosing not to support a specific leader who is bad in one area that is massively important to them is the right choice. If you personally believe that the US is complicit in a genocide of your people and you are asking for them to vote for that person who is doing that thing, I think that's going way too far. If you're then shaming them and telling them they can't voice complaints because of it, that's even more outlandish to me. 

I see this as a clear difference from "I don't really like these two candidates", and that's one of the big reasons it's different than, say, 2016 for most people we're talking about here. For a lot of folks out there this is a lot more than just a small amount of disapproval. I don't have a lot of respect or sympathy for those random liberals and lefties who are virtue signaling and won't vote when they're not particularly personally affected, but I have a great deal of sympathy for those who are being asked to save the US democracy from itself when that democracy helped kill a lot of their friends and loved ones.

[Bironic]

44 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 but I have a great deal of sympathy for those who are being asked to save the US democracy from itself when that democracy helped kill a lot of their friends and loved ones.

And how exactly are they stopping this help to kill their friends & family by electing Trump?

The contest isn't between Biden and Bernie Sanders/Ilhan omar or whomever they prefer, the contest is between Biden and Trump. And if they don't vote for Biden, they vote for Trump. So the question is, is Trump or Biden more likely to help kill their friends and family? Seems like a nobrainer to me... (and if you think I agree with Biden on this issue or on several other issues I don't).

I don't know much about the American Palestinians but from the other side of the pond they don't really fit into this white christian nationalist dictatorship that is the program for Trumps next and probably infinite term. I wouldn't be too surprised if one day they end up on some one way trip to Khan Younis... maybe in one of these new boeings with open doors...

IMHO they should protest, strike, demonstrate, rally, build caucuses, PACs, lobby groups, gather money, door to door campaigns, media campaigns etc. to push for more propalestinian politics and politicians within the democratic party. If they don't vote, the party will just ignore them even more than before. And they will probably lose the ability to vote "next time", since Trump doesn't really believe in voting anyway (unless he wins of course, and he wins always no matter the results).

Maybe there will be american palestinians in the House, Senate and one day an american palestinian President?

Edited February 27 by Bironic

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Bironic said:

And how exactly are they stopping this help to kill their friends & family by electing Trump?

I didn't say they were. I'm saying that asking them to vote for someone who they believe is complicit in killing their friends and family is morally wrong, and it is a reasonable thing to think that they'd have some difficulty in doing that. 

1 minute ago, Bironic said:

 And if they don't vote for Biden, they vote for Trump. 

I don't see how that works. They can just not vote for either. It may result in Trump winning but it is not part of their direct action. 

Again I normally side with this kind of thinking but when you're talking about someone who was complicit in killing people you know I think the calculus changes. 

1 minute ago, Bironic said:

IMHO they should protest, strike, demonstrate, rally, build caucuses, PACs, lobby groups, gather money, door to door campaigns, media campaigns etc. to push for more propalestinian politics and politicians within the democratic party. If they don't vote, the party will just ignore them even more than before. And they will probably lose the ability to vote "next time", since Trump doesn't really believe in voting anyway (unless he wins of course, and he wins always no matter the results).

I think they're doing all of those things, but if they don't get the results they want I don't know that you should be particularly angry with them for choosing not to vote for the genocide person. I also think that it is not remotely their fault to not vote for that; it's a policy choice Biden is making, and that has pros and cons. He is betting that the pros of supporting Israel will outweigh the potential loss in voting, but that shouldn't give him carte blanche to make whatever policy choices he would like. Same is true if he sided with the Palestinians. It might be no solution is viable and that Biden is just fucked, but his choice does and should have consequences, and those consequences are Biden's to own. 

Also, there is a reasonable case to be made that if they just vote for this anyway and accept this behavior and vote regardless that that gives zero incentive to change anything at the party level. I'm not entirely sure I believe that, mind you, but I can't easily disprove it. 

[Kalbear]

Back to the original stuff about immolation, this NPR article from today talks about it more as well as the history:

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/27/1233985097/self-immolation-political-protesters-history-aaron-bushnell

I thought this was especially interesting:
 

Quote

A self-immolation also played a role in starting the Arab Spring.

In December 2010, Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire outside a government building to protest poor economic conditions and corruption.

Demonstrations broke out across the country, and Tunisia's longtime President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was forced out of office about a month later. The unrest in Tunisia sparked other protests across the Arab world.

That's a pretty big effect! Again, point is not necessarily to change minds - the point is to spur action. And hey, look at this:

 

Quote

He said some news reports as far back as the 1960s about self-immolators, such as Quaker protester Norman Morrison who set himself on fire outside the Pentagon in 1965 to speak out against the Vietnam War, have tended to pathologize the protesters and imply they were mentally ill.

"On one hand, that's understandable, because it's kind of hard to imagine a more extreme act," Downey said.

But he notes that it is also a way for viewers to avoid wrestling with the content of the protest itself — and how bad conditions must be to drive someone to such extreme lengths.

"There's a way in which that insulates the reader from really considering the message," Downey said. "But I think, in my mind, it's kind of incumbent on us to actually perceive the thing that is difficult to perceive and to think about why someone would choose this type of act."

 

[Fragile Bird]

I see the story is headlined by a phone number for a suicide help line.

And I see, contrary to the claims made in the previous thread, that it isn’t a method of protest used historically for hundreds of years, but originated with the Vietnamese monks in the 60s.

There's a reason they preface the story with the help line, you know. And yes, I still say anyone who commits suicide is not in their right mind at the time.

[Underfoot]

Just got back from voting in the Michigan primary, where there's been a big effort to get Democrats to vote "uncommitted" (an option on the ballot) to send Biden a message on supporting a ceasefire and to stop sending weapons to Israel. 

This has been all over the news lately and I even got a call asking if I'd commit to voting uncommitted. I think they're hoping to get 10% set to uncommitted for the Democratic ballot.

I'm going to be very curious how this plays out tonight; Michigan is still a swing state and if enough people show they're unhappy with Biden here, it's possible (possible (possible)) that he might change his actions. At least, that's the hope. 

I voted uncommitted 

Edited February 27 by Underfoot
Typo

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

And I see, contrary to the claims made in the previous thread, that it isn’t a method of protest used historically for hundreds of years, but originated with the Vietnamese monks in the 60s.

It didn't originate with them; it became more popularized, as the article indicates. 

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

There's a reason they preface the story with the help line, you know. And yes, I still say anyone who commits suicide is not in their right mind at the time.

And you'd be 100% wrong, and you're totally fine to do that. I worry greatly about people copying this behavior and I worry greatly about people doing this for the wrong reasons too, but that doesn't mean they're always that way; the example of people killing themselves to avoid terminal illness is a prime example of how incredibly wrong you can be. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

@Kalbear,

Idk what you're on, but I clearly said you can't bitch and moan if you don't vote, but it's perfectly fine to complain about having to vote for someone you don't like. I strongly dislike Hillary, but I still voted for, however that didn't stop me from ripping her. 

I think people have a right to not vote and bitch and moan. I voted for Hillary (grudgingly) and Biden (grudgingly, but now I appreciate him), but I respect people who don't vote as a strategy. The two party system is beyond broken, and people have to send messages.

Of course it doesn't help that Trump is back, and him winning is going to hurt a lot of people. But I think Democrats have, for too long, campaigned on "we're not as bad as the others" which has really disenfranchised folk.

Additionally, I really don't think these kinds of voters are that numerous. If you look at states that make voting easy and accessible, their voting participation is really high. Typically people aren't voting because of Republicans making it really hard for them to vote.

In Colorado, our youth population is pretty active in voting--but voting is easy here. Would I like to see more vote? Certainly. But I just don't think we can sit here and say, "If you don't vote, you can't complain" hoping that will encourage and motivate. We need to give people a reason to believe that voting matters.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

19 minutes ago, Underfoot said:

Just got back from voting in the Michigan primary, where there's been a big effort to get Democrats to vote "uncommitted" (an option on the ballot) to send Biden a message on supporting a ceasefire and to stop sending weapons to Israel. 

 

I'm pretty worried about Biden's chances due to this issue specifically. Young people are really moved by the horror of what they're seeing happening to Palestinians, and they're feeling unheard by the Biden administration. He needs to figure out something on this as the youth vote was instrumental in the midterms in not losing the Senate and not getting completely destroyed in the House.

[Fragile Bird]

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It didn't originate with them; it became more popularized, as the article indicates. 

And you'd be 100% wrong, and you're totally fine to do that. I worry greatly about people copying this behavior and I worry greatly about people doing this for the wrong reasons too, but that doesn't mean they're always that way; the example of people killing themselves to avoid terminal illness is a prime example of how incredibly wrong you can be. 

Sorry, Kal, someone with a terminal illness in such pain and despair they put a gun to their head is not in their right mind. They are in a desperate state of mind. And that’s why I have no problem with assisted dying legislation in Canada, where people can calmly ask for help dying peacefully and with dignity.

[TheKitttenGuard]

An opinion piece that is just a summation on what Moderate to Conservative Democrats typically. Honestly though, to me it more Overton window but it speaks to the board current conversation. Below are a couple excerpts I thought related

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/27/opinions/michigan-primary-biden-israel-immigration-halpin/index.html

Opinion: Don’t take the progressive threats in Michigan seriously

Quote

Although Democrats have become more liberal since the 1990s, the Gallup data shows the ideological trends among the wider electorate mean that there is more for Biden to lose than to gain in pursuing a hard-left perspective in politics. Likewise, the Pew Research Center’s political typology shows that a mere 6% of Americans overall fall into the “progressive left” camp with extremely left-wing views on issues such as immigration, the Black Lives Matter movement, the military and America’s engagement in the world

....

Even with these larger trends in the state, the authors find: “In Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Hamtramck, and Livonia — the Michigan cities with the highest proportion of Arab American voters — Biden defeated Trump by a combined 38,000 or so votes. In 2020, Biden’s statewide margin was about 155,000 votes. Even if his advantage in those four cities was completely erased, Biden would still carry Michigan by more than 100,000 votes.”

 

[kissdbyfire]

27 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I see the story is headlined by a phone number for a suicide help line.

And I see, contrary to the claims made in the previous thread, that it isn’t a method of protest used historically for hundreds of years, but originated with the Vietnamese monks in the 60s.

There's a reason they preface the story with the help line, you know. And yes, I still say anyone who commits suicide is not in their right mind at the time.

Quote

History

The self-immolation (jauhar) of the Rajput women, during the Siege of Chittorgarh in 1568

Self-immolation is tolerated by some elements of Mahayana Buddhismand Hinduism, and it has been practiced for many centuries, especially in India, for various reasons, including jauhar, political protest, devotion, and renouncement. An example from mythology includes the practice of Sati when the Hindu goddess Parvati's incarnation of the same name (see also Daksayani) legendarily set herself on fire after her father insulted her in Daksha Yajna for having married Shiva, the ascetic god. Shiva, Parvati and their army of ghosts attacked Daksha's Yajna and destroyed the sacrifice and Shiva beheaded Daksha and killed Daksha. Later, Daksha was revived by him and Daksha Yajna was completed when Daksha apologized. Certain warrior cultures, such as those of the Charans and Rajputs, also practiced self-immolation.

There are several well-known examples from antiquity to modern times. Kalanos, also spelled Calanus (Ancient Greek: Καλανός)[7](c. 398 – 323 BCE), was an ancient Indian gymnosophist,[8][9][10][11] and philosopher from Taxila[12] who accompanied Alexander the Great to Persis and later, after falling ill, self-immolated by entering into a pyre, in front of Alexander and his army. Diodorus Siculus called him Caranus (Ancient Greek: Κάρανος).[13]

Zarmanochegas was a monk of the Sramana tradition (possibly, but not necessarily a Buddhist) who, according to ancient historians such as Strabo and Dio Cassius, met Nicholas of Damascus in Antioch around 22 BC and burnt himself to death in Athens shortly thereafter.[14][15]

The monk Fayu (Chinese: 法羽) (d. 396) carried out the earliest recorded Chinese self-immolation.[16] He first informed the "illegitimate" prince Yao Xu (Chinese: 姚緒)—brother of Yao Chang who founded the non-Chinese Qiang state Later Qin (384–417)—that he intended to burn himself alive. Yao tried to dissuade Fayu, but he publicly swallowed incense chips, wrapped his body in oiled cloth, and chanted while setting fire to himself. The religious and lay witnesses were described as being "full of grief and admiration".

Following Fayu's example, many Buddhist monks and nuns have used self-immolation for political purposes. Based upon analysis of Chinese historical records from the 4th to the 20th centuries[citation needed], some monks did offer their bodies in periods of relative prosperity and peace, but there is a "marked coincidence" between acts of self-immolation and times of crisis, especially when secular powers were hostile towards Buddhism.[17]For example, Daoxuan's (c. 667) Xu Gaoseng Zhuan (Chinese: 續高僧傳; lit. 'Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks') records five monastics who self-immolated on the Zhongnan Mountains in response to the 574–577 persecution of Buddhism by Emperor Wu of Northern Zhou (known as the "Second Disaster of Wu").[18]

A Hindu widow burning herself with the corpse of her husband (sati), 1657

For many monks and laypeople in Chinese history, self-immolation was a form of Buddhist practice that modeled and expressed a particular path that led towards Buddhahood.[17]

Historian Jimmy Yu has stated that self-immolation cannot be interpreted based on Buddhist doctrine and beliefs alone but the practice must be understood in the larger context of the Chinese religious landscape. He examines many primary sources from the 16th and 17th century and demonstrates that bodily practices of self-harm, including self-immolation, was ritually performed not only by Buddhists but also by Daoists and literati officials who either exposed their naked body to the sun in a prolonged period of time as a form of self-sacrifice or burned themselves as a method of procuring rain.[19] In other words, self-immolation was a sanctioned part of Chinese culture that was public, scripted, and intelligible both to the person doing the act and to those who viewed and interpreted it, regardless of their various religion affiliations.

During the Great Schism of the Russian Church, entire villages of Old Believers burned themselves to death in an act known as "fire baptism" (self-burners: samosozhigateli).[20] Scattered instances of self-immolation have also been recorded by the Jesuit priests of France in the early 17th century.[citation needed] However, their practice of this was not intended to be fatal: they would burn certain parts of their bodies (limbs such as the forearm or the thigh) to symbolise the pain Jesus endured while upon the cross.[citation needed] A 1973 study by a prison doctor suggested that people who choose self-immolation as a form of suicide are more likely to be in a "disturbed state of consciousness", such as epilepsy.[21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Sorry, Kal, someone with a terminal illness in such pain and despair they put a gun to their head is not in their right mind. They are in a desperate state of mind. And that’s why I have no problem with assisted dying legislation in Canada, where people can calmly ask for help dying peacefully and with dignity.

But that's not at all what you said. You said that "I still say anyone who commits suicide is not in their right mind at the time". If you're wanting to change what 'suicide' means I guess that's an interesting idea, but that's not normally how that works.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

So, okay, if you don't vote you can't ever complain. Good, got it. And there is no other actions you can possibly take short of voting that will have any effect on the election, on the outcome, or on the future acts of the presidency. Is that also true? Because if it wasn't you'd be able to presumably not vote but do a whole lot of other things to try and make a difference - and presumably also be allowed to complain about the current POTUS. 

Just want to make sure I understand what specific forms of protest, behaviors, and systems are Expressly Allowed here so that we can ensure we're all in compliance. 

If you don't buy the food, don't prep it, don't cook it, don't serve it and then complain about it you're an asshole. Same goes with politics. We're talking about the bare minimum here. Not voting means you can go sit at the kids' table and have shitty chicken nuggets. 

2 hours ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I think people have a right to not vote and bitch and moan. I voted for Hillary (grudgingly) and Biden (grudgingly, but now I appreciate him), but I respect people who don't vote as a strategy. The two party system is beyond broken, and people have to send messages.

And said message is often not received and likely won't be by lack of participation. It could actually cause Democrats to move away from the reason you're protesting to find other people that are actually voting. 

Yes the system is broken, but you have three choices, vote for someone you love, vote for someone you don't or don't vote. The latter is the worst of the three and I'm not going to respect the opinions of the people who do so. I just wish "none" was an option in every election and if it hit a certain percentage (not sure what it should be) it would trigger a runoff with compulsory voting.

[Fragile Bird]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

But that's not at all what you said. You said that "I still say anyone who commits suicide is not in their right mind at the time". If you're wanting to change what 'suicide' means I guess that's an interesting idea, but that's not normally how that works.

We are going to disagree. As far as I can see you are a fanboy of this guy and you think he died for noble and altruistic reasons, with a clear mind. I, on the other hand, believe someone who does what he did had a serious problem. Neither of us are likely to ever know the truth.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

We are going to disagree. As far as I can see you are a fanboy of this guy and you think he died for noble and altruistic reasons, with a clear mind. I, on the other hand, believe someone who does what he did had a serious problem. Neither of us are likely to ever know the truth.

Hey, the person who lit themself on fire in 1965 really did a great job making sure the Vietnam War only last another decade. Results! 

[GrimTuesday]

If the uncommitted vote stays above 10%, it's a bad sign for Biden. Those are voters who are motivated enough to go out in an uncontested primary just to tell Joe Biden that they are unwilling to commit to the incumbent president.