But at what cost?

I’ve read the resolution, and I don’t see anything in the document that I disagree with. There are some references to the Durban conference in there that I don’t fully understand, but from a cursory reading of the Wikipedia article it seems that people’s main gripe with it is its anti-zionist position (a position I vehemently agree with, Zionism is colonialism and genocide). That, to me, seems like a reasonable enough explanation as to why the US would vote against this resolution (I hope I don’t need to, but I’m happy to elaborate), and that, in turn, explains why client states voted against (or abstained).

I do acknowledge that the rhetoric closely mirrors Russia’s anti-Ukrainian propaganda, but just because a bad person misuses “nazis bad” for nefarious purposes does not make “nazis bad” any less true.

It’s a bit ironic on some level when talking about an anti-nazi resolution, but having looked into it, I’ve arrived at the position that the votes are the way they are because the US tends to vote in favor of Zionism.

The resolution very likely was phrased in a loaded way or had some bit that was dubious

These resolutions are publicly available on the UN website, are typically quite short, and actually quite easy to read in general. This one in particular is only 11 pages long, which includes skippable boilerplate. So this assertion is relatively easy to back up and doesn’t need to rely on assumptions, and it can actually be quite fun to read one of these resolutions; you get to feel like a proper journalist or scholar or something. So I would suggest you give it a read and seek out the bit that you find most objectionable.

Personally, based on not much more than gut feelings and historical precedent on similar distributions in votes, am a bit more uncertain than you about the reason behind this distribution. If we take the Palestine cease fire vote in the UN of December 2023, for example, you have a very similar distribution. And I know for a fact that that was an earnest, unobjectionable resolution, that was only voted down by the US because it was in their material interest to do so, and voted down by US client states (or abstention) because they’re client states. But on the other hand, we also have the obvious context of Russia using this exact language as an excuse for their illegal invasion of Ukraine, so it’s entirely conceivable that there’s a section in there that says sth like “and thus, Russia shall invade Ukraine, and we’re all cool with that”. As such, I’m on the fence, and I’ll read the resolution later. But do give it a go yourself! It’s a very satisfying exercise

Claiming that the genocide, apartheid, and colonialism perpetrated by Israel is in any way complex or nuanced is such a disgustingly smug way of revealing you haven’t spent even a moment thinking the situation through, or reading up on the history. Gross.

You too!

No, I don’t think it’s nitpicky, and I think it’s relevant to modern day political discourse. It demonstrates that progressive policies and positions are a viable political strategy for the democratic party. I think it’s important to stress this, because a lot of liberals today feel like courting the right is the only way to possibly win an election for the democrats. Stating “always have been” plays into this delusion, and it’s good to remind ourselves that it’s a complete and utter falsehood.

I don’t think this is correct. There was a marked post-Reagan shift to the right. Sure, they were never socialists, but decades ago they at least tried to do something for the working class.

In their moral justification, the argument of the lesser evil has played a prominent role. If you are confronted with two evils, the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Its weakness has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget quickly that they chose evil.

-Hannah Arendt

A geologist buddy of mine works on analyzing soil for placing wind farms.

A lot of people who studied physics do not end up in the “murder children for money” field. You have a choice, and you chose the deeply, deeply immoral path. You’re not fooling anyone, probably not even yourself.

You’re a very entertaining poster

Sorry but here again you’re just wrong on a factual level. China is not capitalist. Read whatever Cowbee writes, they’re usually good at explaining things.

No, sorry, this is incorrect. There are much more efficient and fair modes of production out there. Case in point would be Cuba, or China. The leaps and bounds they’ve made in spite of the largest and most murderous economic power in the world trying to sabotage them every step of the way should be evidence enough of that.

Bro bro no listen we need to capitalism better

But have you considered iphone?

No no no you don’t get it bro, what we have right now is adjective capitalism, that’s very different from real capitalism. Bro if we had real capitalism things would be so nice

There is no alternative ™

We’re talking about democrats here. They’re a firmly right wing party.

You misunderstand their incentives. They’re beholden to the billionaires, not to you.

They’re called the apartheid defense league for a reason