This video would all make perfect sense except for the big inclusion of the smiling face of the only US president to put sanctions on Israeli settlers, freeze military aid to Israel (* - since Reagan), or other weird little weak-sauce attempts to reign in our favorite partner for war crimes out of a whole world of war crime adjacent ally countries. And the assignation of blame to him for the “antisemitism” bill which as far as I know has nothing in particular to do with him.
Is that enough? Fuck no. Does it excuse Biden’s support for their crimes including providing literally the bombs that are being used to blow up women and little children and hospitals? Fuck no.
Is it worth digging into why this channel which is supposedly so passionate about advancing left wing causes in the United States, has as its only two videos that I’m familiar with, two very Biden-specific videos (this one and a “why voting is a bad idea if you are a left wing person” video) the logic of which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense if you take it at face value, but makes perfect sense if you’re trying to come out with a big slick professionally produced video about why left wing people should not try to stop Trump from coming to power? With no particular other solutions to offer, other than making sure Biden doesn’t get elected?
Fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck yes.
(Incidentally, if you click on the video and then click away after a few seconds, it’ll downgrade it in YouTube’s metrics and make the algorithm less likely to show it to other people. If you’re interested in that kind of thing.)
(Here is a quick summary of the video, created by pasting the transcript into GPT after I grabbed it quickly and scooted away to avoid encouraging this video to the algorithm:)
Second Thought is a 100% grassroots-funded operation. If you’d like to help support the channel, get early access to every video, and join the Discord, consider becoming a patron.
The way to the Senate, colloquially referred to as the “anti-Semitism bill,” might tempt you to think, “Oh good, we’re finally doing something about hate speech.” Well, that is not the case. HR 690, or the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, is once again a Trojan horse piece of legislation whose real intent is to make it illegal to protest the Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people. This is just the latest attempt by our corrupt and morally bankrupt ruling class to maintain the status quo.
HR 690 will be the first time a concrete definition of anti-Semitism is enshrined in US law. At first blush, that sounds like a good thing. However, the definition in question is the one agreed upon in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which includes some common-sense things like, “Accusing Jewish people of secretly controlling the world’s governments is anti-Semitic.” That’s great; such statements are genuinely anti-Semitic. However, the definition also includes items such as, “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” and “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
This is problematic because many argue that the State of Israel has pursued policies reminiscent of apartheid. The legislation effectively bans calling Israel what it is: a racist apartheid regime. Additionally, it would restrict the ability to compare Israel’s actions to those of the Nazis, which some see as legitimate given certain similarities in policy and action.
On campuses across the United States, protests have erupted against these policies, driving the bill. The student movement has transformed into a cultural schism, with young people and university staff on one side and militarized police and Zionist agitators on the other. This bill, if passed, would criminalize dissent, marking a concerning step towards the legalization of fascism under the guise of fighting anti-Semitism.
In conclusion, while the bill presents itself as a protective measure for Jewish people, it could also severely limit free speech and criminalize valid criticism of Israeli policies. As the protests grow and the debate intensifies, the distinction between legal actions and moral righteousness becomes ever more apparent. The challenge now is to continue advocating for justice and human rights, despite potential legal repercussions.
As president he has the ability to restrict arms deals, veto this bill and voice dissent, has said that Palestinian protestors are antisemitic and lawless, has changed his redline so Israel could do more genocide while saving face, has doctored evidence to prove no genocide is occurring, has a cabinet (assigned not elected) voicing unwavering support to Israel, has circumvented congress for arms deals, has voiced support towards police violently breaking up peaceful encampments, has personally relayed fabricated propaganda (40 decapitated babies) to the american public and recanting it privately. You’re asking why the ‘leader of the free world’ is being criticized by communist? Because he’s actively complicit in a genocide and is directly pressured by an upcoming election to change course or inevitably lose. Everyone should be disgusted by biden and working overtime to ensure focus groups begin to show that Israeli support will demolish his chances of getting into office. Otherwise this will continue and quite honestly I don’t believe any of you really cared for this to change.
Edit: or just watch the video ad free on piped, don’t count your view as engagement and form your own opinions. Or instead put the entire works of Norman Finkelstein into chatgpt and make decisions on a summarizer, shoot let’s just all rely on chatgpt to stay informed. What could go wrong!
Dude I’m not saying Biden is good on Israel. He’s enabling genocide. If it sounded like I was saying he’s doing a good job, I am not.
I am saying it’s weird that a video that is super concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people is singularly focused on the one type of action – finding things that you can look at sideways in such a way that it’ll depress support for the Democrats in the general election – that is almost guaranteed to make things worse for them, worse for student protestors, and worse for a whole bunch of other people. Like this thing is solely focused on the antisemitism bill, which has universal support from the Republicans, almost-universal support from the Democrats, and not super-active resistance (which he should be giving it) from Biden. And the person they’re blaming for it is… Biden.
It’s like someone in the middle of World War 2 who’s very very concerned for the plight of oppressed people who is suddenly very very vocal about the fact that Churchill is a racist warmongering dickface. Like yes… he is. Why are you saying that and what is your alternative you’re pushing? If it is “let’s do uncommitted votes, let’s do a protest, let’s divest from Israel, let’s resign from the State Department, let’s do these things that will put pressure on Biden now and generally hopefully help the Palestinians,” then fuckin-a let’s rock and roll, we can be friends. If it is “let’s let Trump come to power because I’m mad that Biden is continuing American empire with all its crimes instead of ending it,” I’m gonna have some questions about your motivation in saying that.
Surely that makes sense? Or no?
I haven’t watched the video, but I want to address your rhetoric, because it has several issues.
What you are engaging in is a form of projection.
No one is obligated to give you a solution to a problem, or does their identification of a problem imply they have some kind of ulterior motive. You are projecting what you wish their motivation was onto them, and then attacking them what you imagine their motivation to be.
Saying that Joe Biden’s electoral chances are weak and he has little chance of getting elected doesn’t mean I support Trump. Before we can have a conversation about alternatives, we need to be honest with ourselves about what the facts are. Being clear eyed about facts doesn’t mean I support your perceived opposing interpretation of what those facts mean.
When and if you do this thing, you are projecting a false narrative onto people. In projecting that false narrative, you shut down the legitimate criticism they are bringing forward, which is a kind of gaslighting.
There are two primary fallacies at work here, the red hearing fallacy and the false choice fallacy.
The red hearing fallacy is that instead of addressing the premise of the argument the interlocutor is making, you are projecting onto them a perceived motivation (your perception), identifying that as the issue, and attacking that. Its way of distracting from their premise and making the argument about something it isn’t or didn’t’ start as.
The false dichotomy fallacy is that this is a binary between Trump and Biden, which has nothing to do with the arguers premise. Its not clear to me that the video even mentions Trump (I’ll check it out once I get this response written), which isn’t at all what they were arguing. Its another form of gaslighting, that if you are bringing these criticisms forward, you must support Trump.
The original interlocutor owes you answers to neither of those. I bring this criticism of your rhetoric to your attention because I’ve been seeing the identical sequence of fallacies, in almost the exact same order, being used across lemmy in an attempt to shut down criticism of Biden, to ignore his realistic chances of re-election, and in-general, to gaslight people as if they were Trump supporters because they are bringing forward legitimate criticism of Biden.
Suppose I tell you your house is flooding. Your current response would have two components: “Flooding is far less damaging than fire”, and “You must be a fan of fire if you aren’t telling me how to put stop the flooding”.
Neither of those have anything to do with the original premise of if the house is, in-fact, flooding.
No one owes you a solution to your problems. Them bringing up that you have a problem doesn’t make them a proponent of some other problem.
Suppose I tell you your house is flooding.
I have a better analogy.
My house is flooding.
Someone comes in the house and says OH MY GOD THERE ARE TERMITES ALL OVER THE HOUSE, and demands that any conversation about what we’re going to do about the house has to include the termites, and if you try to talk about the flooding then you’re crazy and trying to change the subject away from the termites, and even if something else is going on (like furniture floating away), it must be connected to the termites, and also by the way there are termite exterminator companies in this town who have a vested interest in selling termite exterminator solutions, although the person in your house who wants to connect anything and everything to termites treats any attempt to bring this up as some crazy conspiracy theory which is just more indication that you’re not taking the termite problem seriously and you must be making things up.
In this case, something totally unrelated to Biden (the antisemitism bill) is getting linked to him in this particular propaganda-adjacent way in this video, and I think that’s notable. That’s pretty much the beginning and end of it from my end. You can come up with whatever strawman you like, where somehow me saying that means I don’t care about the election or trying to silence criticism or defending genocide or whatever. I honestly didn’t even read your whole message. But, the point remains that something totally unrelated to Biden is getting linked to him in this video, and to me that’s notable, and a little strange from someone who keeps swearing that their primary concern is for good things to happen for Palestinians and for US politics. Really that was all I wanted to say about it.
I mean, do you recognize the kind of gaslighting you are engaged in?
Like I really tried to make the structure of what you are doing clear for you.
gaslighting
Okay, sure. Let’s see. I’m gonna go back and read your message in full, and then as soon as you start lecturing me on something I clearly already agree with, or tell me that I believe some wrong / evil thing that I clearly don’t believe, I’m going to stop and come back here and just quote the point at which you did that. I will bet that I won’t get 30% of the way through your message before it happens.
Edit: I made it 5 sentences. Some earlier stuff is maybe debatable, but then you got to “Saying that Joe Biden’s electoral chances are weak and he has little chance of getting elected doesn’t mean I support Trump.” Nobody on any side said even word 1 about Biden’s electoral chances being weak, that I know of, let alone anything about what that would imply about their motivation (although I did draw a conclusion about someone’s motivation from a totally different-from-that behavior.) I’m all done with what you have to say now. You can keep talking, but I don’t plan on reading it or responding.
“Saying that Joe Biden’s electoral chances are weak and he has little chance of getting elected doesn’t mean I support Trump.”
That’s just an example of the kind same kind of fallacy I’m outlining for you. Its fine that you don’t want to respond. I’ll be posting a similar analysis of this kind of rhetoric wherever I see it, so don’t expect it to go away.
Its important because what you are doing is an extremely disingenuous/ deceptive type of rhetorical slight of hand, that I think many people have a ‘sense’ of being present, but if they don’t see it broken out in specific terms, can’t quite put their finger on exactly what you are doing. I’m using you as a test to see where the gaps are, so thanks for the feed back. I’ll tune up paragraph four in the future to draw directly upon the particulars of the demonstrated gaslighting.
We have no obligation to coddle or avoid acknowledging the complicity of a sitting president in a genocide. Biden expressed full support for this bill if it passes. Getting angry at communists for calling out the one person who can flip the situation overnight is ridiculous.
Surely that makes sense?
We have no obligation to coddle or avoid acknowledging the complicity of a sitting president in a genocide.
Was “He’s enabling genocide” somehow not clear enough for you to understand that I agree with you on this? Feels like you’re just assigning some kind of strawman view to me so you can have your little grandstanding, and avoid dealing with the totally different things that my message was actually saying. Which, I mean, sure, carry on if that’s what you want to do, but regardless of that nothing in this is anything that I was doing or anything that I disagree with.
Biden expressed full support for this bill if it passes
Citation needed (not saying you’re wrong, I just haven’t seen it; I’m just curious)
the one person who can flip the situation overnight
Citation needed
(Also, totally separate topic, while I was reading up to write this message: You will never guess why it is that MTG and Matt Gaetz had objections to the bill. I’m serious – it would have taken me quite a few guesses before I arrived at why it is that they’re angry about it.)
Lemmy: What you’ve never heard the legal term justifiable genocide?
