Now that’s an interesting point. I wonder, how could we reach a point where opposition to genocide becomes policy? I’d say one way would be to rhetorically oppose genocide and influence more people in the direction of not tolerating genocide. So yeah, I hope that what I say influences others, because I do care about opposing genocide.
And that’ll stop it. Right? You do nothing, and it doesn’t happen. Because otherwise you’re just jerking off.
While ignoring that the other candidate wants to end democracy.
The part where he tried to overthrow democracy seems kind of important to your plans of voting for the most perfectest candidate ever, who has no evils whatsoever.
Haven’t we been over this multiple times at this point? I don’t subscribe to your lesser-evilist ideology. I never have, and now it’s more clearly a failed idea than ever, in light of the fact that it’s led people to support genocide. I’m not interested in whataboutisms regarding Trump, who I’m also not voting for.
“Amoral!” Opposition to genocide is “amoral” now! Fascinating.
It’s very funny that you talk about “preserving democracy” while simultaneously lecturing me about how that very “democracy” is conducting a genocide and giving people no option to oppose it. Doesn’t sound very much like a democracy to me.
You’re not actually doing anything, to stop that. You’re just sneering on the internet about how hard you’re gonna do nothing.
Voting to stop one problem is still important even if it doesn’t stop all problems. Or even another specific really horrible problem. But if you cannot stop that, maybe you should do something about the parts you can stop. Yeah? Otherwise you’re not taking a meaningful stance on any problem. You’re doing nothing. You are letting all of those problems happen.
Doing nothing is still better than doing a bad thing, such as supporting genocide.
I feel like you’re still not quite grasping that I simply do not believe in lesser-evilist ideology. Making appeals to me based on that framework is a waste of time.
Now that’s an interesting point. I wonder, how could we reach a point where opposition to genocide becomes policy? I’d say one way would be to rhetorically oppose genocide and influence more people in the direction of not tolerating genocide. So yeah, I hope that what I say influences others, because I do care about opposing genocide.
You are telling people to do nothing to stop fascism or genocide. You want to feel morally superior about this useless inaction.
2020 was decided by thousands of votes. 2000 was decided by hundreds.
You are enabling fascism and patting yourself on the back.
Well then, I guess I’ll be making history as the first time ever that drawing a red line against genocide was the wrong position.
And that’ll stop it. Right? You do nothing, and it doesn’t happen. Because otherwise you’re just jerking off.
While ignoring that the other candidate wants to end democracy.
The part where he tried to overthrow democracy seems kind of important to your plans of voting for the most perfectest candidate ever, who has no evils whatsoever.
Haven’t we been over this multiple times at this point? I don’t subscribe to your lesser-evilist ideology. I never have, and now it’s more clearly a failed idea than ever, in light of the fact that it’s led people to support genocide. I’m not interested in whataboutisms regarding Trump, who I’m also not voting for.
And I calling out how your self-congratulatory inaction is amoral apathy parading as moral superiority. Welcome to the conversation.
My ideology will not make a difference in what Israel is doing. Neither will yours.
Your ideology will not make a difference in whether America ever has another election. Mine will.
“Amoral!” Opposition to genocide is “amoral” now! Fascinating.
It’s very funny that you talk about “preserving democracy” while simultaneously lecturing me about how that very “democracy” is conducting a genocide and giving people no option to oppose it. Doesn’t sound very much like a democracy to me.
Inaction is not meaningful opposition.
You’re not actually doing anything, to stop that. You’re just sneering on the internet about how hard you’re gonna do nothing.
Voting to stop one problem is still important even if it doesn’t stop all problems. Or even another specific really horrible problem. But if you cannot stop that, maybe you should do something about the parts you can stop. Yeah? Otherwise you’re not taking a meaningful stance on any problem. You’re doing nothing. You are letting all of those problems happen.
Doing nothing is still better than doing a bad thing, such as supporting genocide.
I feel like you’re still not quite grasping that I simply do not believe in lesser-evilist ideology. Making appeals to me based on that framework is a waste of time.