Oh look, we are both misunderstanding each other, posting protests as if I am against them. Look friend, neither of us like genocide. We both recognize it as a genocide. We both think action against the state in protest of the genocide to be a good thing. We both have probably participated in similar forms of action to that effect. Let’s give each other the benefit of the doubt on that front. My argument is that voting does not diminish any of those actions. But not voting does nothing but increase the chance of a worse outcome overall both in relation to the genocide of palastinians and the harm that would come domestically to other at risk folk.

Terms like “it legitimizes electoral politics” or similar are nice self justifications for ignoring that choice, but you and I both know regardless of choice in the matter, the genocide will continue. So keep protesting. Keep direct actioning up the place. But also, take the half second to engage in a wee bit of lesser evilism, even if it hurts our pride to do so.

There. I didn’t do any shut up middle school lines. I made an argument.

Them palastinians will sure appreciate your direct action of not voting. That’ll fix them right up.

By specifically acknowledging that no matter the choice, the genocide will continue and purposely putting that concept at the front while also acknowledging between the two options, one will be better than the other. I mean, your currently providing GDP toward genocide. If it was so all encompassingly important to you, you would be more radical than to argue on Lemmy. Put your life on the line soldier, or accept that there is only so much us western haters of genocide can do in this specific case at this specific point in time.

Ah yes, let’s get the consumer product safety commission on the problem of school shootings. Hell, since they are so able to ban the way blinds chords are setup, why aren’t they ending climate change? The genocide of palastinians? I for one demand the consumer product safety commission do it’s fucking job and reform the American policing system.

Except that the people saying this are making a distinction between the two. Do you want to interpret what they are trying to say or do you wanna play word games? Disingenuous.

I’d love to see an explanation for that one.

Endorsement means you like them. This makes it clear they do not.

Landlords do not build housing, nor do they do repair work. So I’m gonna say the scarry trigger word for all you libertarians out there to gasp at. Gubberment.

Imagine a world where housing was given on a per-need basis. People still need to travel for work and stay for months at a time, except it’s understood that the job getting done is more important than a landlord profiting off the fact you have to travel for it.

The lack of a landlord also does not prevent you from temporarily using open housing either.

The lack of a land lord does not mean the house disappeared off the planet.

Yaaay. Here, for your skills in understanding of space and time better than random internet you get the “I am smart” award.

Idk man, I felt pretty bad when I hooked a fish through the eye and released him now an eye down

Nothing. That’s why they are asking. Because they don’t know what would happen. A lot of people go out of their way to avoid making assumptions about things they don’t know.

No stupid questions. That means don’t be snarky.

I just find it neat that former and current “communist” (broad term for this) countries have a high level of home ownership. People largely like to pretend that under communism you own nothing, while in reality, nations who even for a brief period of aspiring to communism had given what were peasants who didn’t own their own shirt a whole ass house and let them own it. No rent, No payment. Just supplied it.

It’s neato. An interesting statistic that dispels partially the myth that (what the OP said I think, it may have been another person) that communism never built wealth for anyone. It did at times. Just not in the way we normally like to view it. The american dream to own your own home.

But I am not willing to sit and argue every minute detail of this explanation. Such as when one person said “not a single one is communist” Which while technically true, is not worth the time to discuss with someone who is just using a very common bait.

Because it is self evident. Pretending you don’t understand is you acting in bad faith. If you actually cared about it instead of trying to bait an argument, you would be asking better questions. Instead you demand more to start a fight with and you will not get it.

Nah, you get it. It’s not hard to infer.

Nah. I think you get it, even if you’d rather pretend not to. But remember, you are what you pretend to be.

I think you get the point.