Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
I thought it was obvious that I was speaking from the campaign's perspective vs. the protestors. For the protestors, something like that statement is an actionable item that they can hopefully hold her feet to the fire on if she becomes president. For the campaign, it makes the candidate look like less of an ####### than chastising people who are against genocide does.
|
I see, I was still dealing with the question about whether the protestors should have done what they did. For them, then, the instrumental goal is to get her to make that statement about supporting a ceasefire. That is instrumental in that the purpose of that isn't as an end in itself, but as a means to get her to do things as president that, in turn, are instrumental to the ultimate goal of fewer dead Palestinian children in the near term, right?
So in that case, you have to be confident about what will happen here - first, that doing this is likely to produce the result of Harris making the statement you want her to make so you can hold her to it later. Second, that once that statement is made, you can hold her to it - her making that statement in response to your chants will be something she will feel tied to and will follow through on once she's in the White House. Third, that she will GET into the White House in order for you to be able to hold her to the statement and take action. And fourth, that whatever action she does take in response to being held to that statement will in fact result in fewer Palestinian children.
Does it really seem reasonable to be confident that shouting "Kamala, you can't hide, we won't vote for genocide" is likely to cause that chain of events to happen? Are you more or less confident in that being the outcome of this action, or that the outcome will be a distraction from her campaign message that makes it less likely for her to get into the White House, which is itself one of the individually necessary conditions for your plan to work?