Depends, if for example they’re destroying a rail line used to conduct the Holocaust and it coincidentally caused that, then yes. If it’s entirely unrelated, then no.
Not sure what that question has to do with anything.
Have you ever seen “The Rock” with Sean Connery and Nick Cage? To make it really succinct, I support your position and I would be on alcatraz with you (metaphorically speaking), but when it comes time to launch the rockets, I’m with General Hummel and it sure seems to me like .ML would really like to just pull the trigger.
I guess it depends a lot with how “related” you find things.
Its pretty clear in the US that genocides in other parts of the world (or even at home in the not so distant past) are not given appropriate weighting by political parties in power. However, there are still hungry families, people who need medicine, and various other forms of suffering right in the town where you live if you’re a US citizen.
I don’t even disagree with the position you have that minimizing genocide is abhorrent. However, by talking about “what is related or not” I personally feel like society is spraying blood from the femoral artery and there’s the “tourniquet party” and the “shoot people in the femoral artery” party and you’re like “FUCK THE TOURNIQUET PARTY, they abetted genocide! I’m out!”. Or “Because of their apparent support for genocide, I will vote for the cautery and surgical foam party, even if they HAPPEN to be a 9 hour drive away.”
On the one hand, this issue is really fucking important. On the other hand, riding the morality of the issue to the point that you do nothing to fix or address ANY problem (which makes a person who only posts about it basically indistinguishable from a neck bearding grouper) is also important to realize.
Kids were and are dying in Palestine. I have a hard time seeing how the moral thing to do is to make sure some kids grow up without parents in the because they got disappeared by ICE (or any of the issues above). I’m telling you these issues are not related to me: fight genocide AND fight police state / hunger / healthcare etc. The other guy is making the same argument but I guess he wants to open a Waffle House or some shit.
From where I sit, you have made “minimizing genocide” a weapon that even hurts more people , and simultaneously allows you to feel good about doing nothing by doing nothing.
The democrats are not “the tourniquet party.” Tourniquets stop bleeding, the democrats want to cause more bleeding. They are the “stab your femoral artery again” party. They don’t fix shit.
If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there’s no progress.
If you pull it all the way out that’s not progress. The progress is healing the wound that’s below, that the blow made. And they haven’t even begun to pull the knife out, much less pull, heal the wound…
They won’t even admit the knife is there.
Throughout history, there have been plenty of times when people supported genocide on the premise that it prevented some greater threat. I’m not aware of a single time in history where that position was the correct one.
Compared to whatever the party of trump is, idk how any sane person can equivocate and just say “yeah it’s all the same either way”. The kind of person I guess with no trans or foreign friends maybe, but even still.
By way of understanding each other, I agree on point 2 and disagree with point 1.
They may go to the same place and maybe it all started in 1970 or something. But I wasn’t here then and neither were lots of people who I believe are similar to me. I want change in a radical way, but I would settle for slowing the house from burning enough for us to have room to do something meaningful. D is a counter burn and R is gasoline.
If everyone who didn’t show up because of genocide in palestine (or darfur / tibet / cambodia) voted, would trump still be president? I don’t honestly know.
What I DO know is that things are objectively worse now than they were before the 2020 election and there was no party in that election that adequately addressed the problem. So sure, maybe this is an instructional moment and there will be a huge surge on the left in 2024. On the other hand, maybe there won’t be an election at all because of “war with domestic terrorists” or something. I understand the argument of “nobody WANTS to vote a lesser evil anymore” when it’s between the likes of Al Gore and Mitt Romney. When it’s Trump, Project 2025, and a risk of validating Jan 6 (which we unfortunately did), I’m sorry but even though I agree with your position my gut feeling is to blame you MORE than my dumb Trump voting family because at least they got duped. You (generally) walked right into it and said “Ha. Yeah. Win without me.” and then left it to burn, knowing full well that this bullshit we are living was a possible, or even likely outcome.
“Why did this thing I did nothing to stop happen if it was the worse option?” Well. I don’t know, but I know who I’m more frustrated with about it.
See, the difference between our perspectives is that you’re punching down at voters rather than punching up at politicians. Maybe if every single person who stood by their valid moral principles was convinced to abandon them, it would’ve changed the outcome. I don’t know how that’s supposed to be achieved, exactly, aside from trying to shame people for having morals, which I don’t expect to be particularly effective.
Alternatively, instead of changing the public in order to be in line with what politicians want, we could change politicians to be in line with what voters want. I think the word for that is “democracy.”
Depends, if for example they’re destroying a rail line used to conduct the Holocaust and it coincidentally caused that, then yes. If it’s entirely unrelated, then no.
Not sure what that question has to do with anything.
Have you ever seen “The Rock” with Sean Connery and Nick Cage? To make it really succinct, I support your position and I would be on alcatraz with you (metaphorically speaking), but when it comes time to launch the rockets, I’m with General Hummel and it sure seems to me like .ML would really like to just pull the trigger.
I have not seen that movie.
The acting is a little bad in some places but it’s a very decent action movie IMO. You can’t have a Cage movie without some bad acting I think.
I guess it depends a lot with how “related” you find things.
Its pretty clear in the US that genocides in other parts of the world (or even at home in the not so distant past) are not given appropriate weighting by political parties in power. However, there are still hungry families, people who need medicine, and various other forms of suffering right in the town where you live if you’re a US citizen.
I don’t even disagree with the position you have that minimizing genocide is abhorrent. However, by talking about “what is related or not” I personally feel like society is spraying blood from the femoral artery and there’s the “tourniquet party” and the “shoot people in the femoral artery” party and you’re like “FUCK THE TOURNIQUET PARTY, they abetted genocide! I’m out!”. Or “Because of their apparent support for genocide, I will vote for the cautery and surgical foam party, even if they HAPPEN to be a 9 hour drive away.”
On the one hand, this issue is really fucking important. On the other hand, riding the morality of the issue to the point that you do nothing to fix or address ANY problem (which makes a person who only posts about it basically indistinguishable from a neck bearding grouper) is also important to realize.
Kids were and are dying in Palestine. I have a hard time seeing how the moral thing to do is to make sure some kids grow up without parents in the because they got disappeared by ICE (or any of the issues above). I’m telling you these issues are not related to me: fight genocide AND fight police state / hunger / healthcare etc. The other guy is making the same argument but I guess he wants to open a Waffle House or some shit.
From where I sit, you have made “minimizing genocide” a weapon that even hurts more people , and simultaneously allows you to feel good about doing nothing by doing nothing.
The democrats are not “the tourniquet party.” Tourniquets stop bleeding, the democrats want to cause more bleeding. They are the “stab your femoral artery again” party. They don’t fix shit.
Throughout history, there have been plenty of times when people supported genocide on the premise that it prevented some greater threat. I’m not aware of a single time in history where that position was the correct one.
Compared to whatever the party of trump is, idk how any sane person can equivocate and just say “yeah it’s all the same either way”. The kind of person I guess with no trans or foreign friends maybe, but even still.
I don’t say that the two parties are exactly the same, but 1) they will both lead to the same result and 2) they are both fundamentally unacceptable.
By way of understanding each other, I agree on point 2 and disagree with point 1.
They may go to the same place and maybe it all started in 1970 or something. But I wasn’t here then and neither were lots of people who I believe are similar to me. I want change in a radical way, but I would settle for slowing the house from burning enough for us to have room to do something meaningful. D is a counter burn and R is gasoline.
If the status quo was enough to address Trumpism, then why is Trump president?
If everyone who didn’t show up because of genocide in palestine (or darfur / tibet / cambodia) voted, would trump still be president? I don’t honestly know.
What I DO know is that things are objectively worse now than they were before the 2020 election and there was no party in that election that adequately addressed the problem. So sure, maybe this is an instructional moment and there will be a huge surge on the left in 2024. On the other hand, maybe there won’t be an election at all because of “war with domestic terrorists” or something. I understand the argument of “nobody WANTS to vote a lesser evil anymore” when it’s between the likes of Al Gore and Mitt Romney. When it’s Trump, Project 2025, and a risk of validating Jan 6 (which we unfortunately did), I’m sorry but even though I agree with your position my gut feeling is to blame you MORE than my dumb Trump voting family because at least they got duped. You (generally) walked right into it and said “Ha. Yeah. Win without me.” and then left it to burn, knowing full well that this bullshit we are living was a possible, or even likely outcome.
“Why did this thing I did nothing to stop happen if it was the worse option?” Well. I don’t know, but I know who I’m more frustrated with about it.
See, the difference between our perspectives is that you’re punching down at voters rather than punching up at politicians. Maybe if every single person who stood by their valid moral principles was convinced to abandon them, it would’ve changed the outcome. I don’t know how that’s supposed to be achieved, exactly, aside from trying to shame people for having morals, which I don’t expect to be particularly effective.
Alternatively, instead of changing the public in order to be in line with what politicians want, we could change politicians to be in line with what voters want. I think the word for that is “democracy.”