2813

No, i don’t think that’s remotely similar.

What are the unintended consequences of condemning genocide?

2814

The protest is “use this as a soapbox to talk about how we should be condemning genocide more.” Whoch, yes, is a bit counter-intuitive, but there’s a bit of logic there.

If this vote caused the measure to fail, you could make a perfect-enemy-of-good argument. As is, it’s mostly a question of whether this was the best strategy for boosting this conversation.

2815

Seems like you can vote against genocide, while also speaking out against genocide.

2816

Well, the genocide in question was nearly 100 years ago. Not really a current event or anything pressing. So the fact that the House suddenly brought up a long stalled resolution that was waiting around to die and suddenly rushed it through has a lot more to do with the House wanting to poke Turkey than anything at all to do with genocide. So the conversation should be about whether it’s appropriate for the House to be poking Turkey. Reducing the conversation to “Why wouldn’t someone vote against genocide” and substituting the window dressing for the actual relevant issue at hand is exactly how we ended up with overly draconian drug laws, etc etc. Hence my comparison.

2817

Dissapointed in Omar. Terrible move. “I refuse to acknowledge a genocide because of American slavery?”

That’s a small, narrow mind there. It also shows her true character, which is apparently selfish and conceited.

2818

This seems like a bad take by everyone.

She’s not protesting that the genocide isn’t real but voting against against the whole concept of a vote against genocide being nothing but a lever for political disputes and not actually about whether such a thing like a genocide actually happened or not.

But… it’s on her to explain that position, and this is clearly something she either hasn’t done or is unable to do.

2819

More like due to other genocides being committed by Americans which is only quasi acknowledged, when convenient.

She’s not explaining herself very well though, and should probably work on that sort of thing before she tries to take a stance.

2820

Well Turkey also seems to be pretty gun-ho maybe about committing another one, so reminding them that we didn’t forget about it isn’t a bad thing. The whole reason they weren’t condemned previously was political, so saying we’re doing it now for political reasons is… what?

I mean either Turkey gets a permanent pass or we call them out. Calling them out when they’ve decided to go autocratic and have been hinting about committing another one (who was a strong US ally until Trump fucked it up) seems like the best time to do it.

Using her logic when should it ever be acknowledged? Cause to me her answer is effectively : never.

It’s a dumb hill to die on, with basically no support from anyone. She could’ve voted for it and also released a statement about other genocides. Hell, that would likely be more effective.
“Now that we’ve finally acknowledged a nearly century old genocide, perhaps it’s time to acknowledge other genocides we’ve been afraid to mention…”
Instead we get… this.

2821

It’s the opposite. Her logic is that it should always be condemned and that only condemning it when you dislike or have beef with the perpetrators is bullshit. Don’t use genocide as a bargaining chip that you ignore when you get something in exchange.

It’s absurd to argue that she’s the one saying genocide shouldn’t be condemned because her stance would force people to choose between condemning all genocide or none. If they choose none that’s on them not on her.

And I think her stance has done its job of drawing far more attention to this than it would have. If she votes for the bill then makes a speech about it, there’s a lot of ho-hum “yes, yes, of course we should condemn them all, but who has the time, really? I mean you want us to consult some experts, draw up a list, write out a line or two for each genocide, and then vote to condemn all of them. That’s just tedious. What’s that? American slavery and treatment of Native Americans? Yes, yes, all very bad, tut tut and all that, but we can’t condemn that stuff. We just condemned the slaughter of Armenians! We’re all out of condemn for a bit now.”

2822

Given Omar’s position on sanctions (sanctions to bring about regime change are awful, except when directed at an antiimperialist approved target (i.e. Israel, previously South Africa), in which case she is all for them), I think it’s more useful to see this through the lens of her antiimperialism than any confusing explanations she might have offered or imagined excuses you choose to offer for her.

She is against the US condemning anyone because it is an expression of America’s power and right to make judgements. She would rather tyrants are free to respress and genocide their people than America become involved in any way. The only exception is tyrants who are identifiably the product of “Western” right (but not left) wing ideology. (Pinochet, South African Apartheid, Israeli occupation). That she is part of the antiimperialist political movement is not a secret, but a lot of people seem unwilling to acknowledge what that means in terms of foreign policy., because they never come out and say it - you have to deduce it from observing their policy positions.

2823

I’m starting to consider Omar a liability to the Dems. Wouldn’t mind seeing her primaried out ,even if it meant a neoliberal.

2824

In other words, a strategic blunder, which is miles away from “actually secretly supports genocide” that that Twitter person appears to be reading into it.

It feels like people (not necessarily ones here, bit Twitter, etc) are deliberately misinterpreting her, when I feel the intent is pretty clear, even if the statement wasn’t as clear as it could have been.

On the one hand, she could probably be more careful with her words. On the other, she knows she’s already a target for right-wing media, and probably isn’t interested in letting them dictate her actions when they’re going to demonize her no matter what, so she may just be in permanent “fuck it” mode. I think she could probably be more deliberate, but my opinion doesn’t really matter.

I’m intrigued by the idea of a party placing deliberate lightning rod members in the public eye as a means of deflecting criticism where it doesn’t matter (time spent attacking Omar is time not spent attacking more vulnerable members), or as a way to trial balloon controversial subjects (e.g. the Green New Deal introduction ).

I don’t know that it’s actually deliberate, and I don’t know how the benefits would compare to guilt by association with more extreme ideas. But I wonder how much place there is for using more extreme party members deliberately.

2825

I assume the right -wing spin on this will be “she’s Muslim, so she won’t criticize a Muslim country.”

2826

This.

2827

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Cortez actually supports genocide.

It’s just another dumb thing she’s done. She doesn’t think things through tactically.

This kind of vote doesn’t strengthen her hand when she wants to take a stand against modern genocide. It’s going to weaken it.

2828

Cortez voted for the bill. This is about Omar.

Who, by the way, was one of three people to vote “Present”. Including Bernice Johnson, a Democrat who doesn’t recognize the Turkish genocide at all.

Another 11 voted Nay. All Republicans, and I presume they recognize and approve of genocide.

But by all means, let’s focus on Omar. Non-Muslims aren’t required to condemn Turkey.

2829

My mistake, I thought this was Cortez. All the same stuff applies to Omar though.

So Bernice Johnson is dumb too?

And they’re all dumb too? Am I right in thinking that the GOP members are reluctant to condemn genocide, because it’s going to make them look even worse when the Kurds get slaughtered? That’s not a real good argument against taking this vote.

Honestly, what is the actual reason to not condemn genocide?

2830

This is the the stupid liberal thread. I’m surprised about the 11 Republicans that voted no because it was only 11. At this point, I would expect more to be outright pro-genocide.

2831

Between the Democrat who does not believe that the Turkish genocide is real and the Democrat who thinks this is the wrong time for the House to finally condemn it, I don’t see why we have exclusively focused on the latter.

Because it’s a political stunt. The main purpose is not really to remember Armenians. The main purpose is to help Kurds. Which is not a bad goal, but one can object to Armenians being exploited this way.

It’s like when Trump brings up the murder of Mollie Tibbets. Nobody actually approves of her murder. But Trump doesn’t really care about her. The only reason he brings her up is to push an anti-immigrant agenda. One might wish that she were remembered only for her own sake.

2832

What bad agenda is being pushed by condemning the Armenian genocide?