I've seen people get upset about discussing what's happening in Gaza and trying to dismiss it by saying 'no politics'; if America was at war (I mean an actual war, not a beatdown of a country that can't fight back) and we had enemy troops occupying our country and slaughtering a ton of people, would we really consider discussing it a taboo and as just 'politics'?

If a black person in my old neighborhood got gunned down by the police, am I not supposed to get upset because black people being murdered by pigs is just politics? (I mean I ask but people would probably classify it as being similar to BLM and they consider BLM to just be 'politics')

MLK hit that right note with his letter from Birmingham jail (I'm posting a large portion because it's all amazing, but the part I recall most starkly and keep quoting time and again because of its importance and universal relevance I've gone ahead and bolded):

"...You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

…We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

…I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

  • SacredExcrement [any, comrade/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Assuming you are talking to democrat voters, it is because of the simple reason that it is deeply inconvenient.

    Theirs is a party that has existed on the basis of being 'morally superior' to their counterpart, so it openly encouraging a genocide somewhat damages their ability to hold that position. So their simple stance is to not acknowledge it, and if forced to do so, insist that the opposition would be worse in some nebulous way, because 'they always are'; the lunacy of the implicit claim that a genocide is 'better' when a liberal government runs it is not acknowledged either.

    • Evilsandwichman [none/use name]
      hexagon
      ·
      1 month ago

      As disgusting as some lib articles I've seen are, a small portion of me is at least grateful for their honesty when they ask their audience "why should we care?"

      The writers still deserve to be thrown into the Nazi pit, but at least they're honest (although my standards still place honest Nazis in the pit).