I absolutely do not support the Democrat party writ large, and especially not on the willful disregard for genocide and other atrocities. Don’t decide for me that that is my stance, or put those words in my mouth and effectively tell other people that is how I feel.
My core point is that, Democrats seem to be less vocally approving/encouraging about stochastic terrorism against LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, and other marginalized groups, whether they are privately seeing them as chess pieces or human beings.
If one group is shouting that my cousins are subhuman trash undeserving of equal treatment and dog whistling support for people who advocate violence against them, and the other group is at least not encouraging the same violence, then my cousins would seem to be safer under the second group.
I advocate loudly for party reform or replacement and consider that to be the more important part of civic duty in this arena. When it comes time for an election, past when we can do a lot to change which two people actually have a chance to win a presidency, I will cast my vote for the one less likely to get my cousins killed.
If words and theater alone are sufficient to appease you, if the death of innocent human beings overseas is an acceptable price for the protection of those close to you, then that’s your prerogative. If that is the case, though, then I will not be quiet about how revolting I find your moral calculus to be. And I have no doubt that my nonbinary, immigrant partner would share in my disgust, doubly so if you feigned it to somehow be in her interest.
Do your cousins think that protecting them from harsh rhetoric is an acceptable exchange for the genocide of children? Or are you doing it solely for your own comfort? Because, while we’re sharing anecdotes, if it’s the former, then I suspect that my transgender, pro-Palestine cousin might like to have a word with them.
Jesus, you seem to relish in imagining my meaning to be so opposed to your own. Obviously words and theater enough aren’t alone. I think I made that clear. I also think we are done talking, since it doesn’t seem to matter what I say.
Indeed, I don’t think I can convince you that the deaths of Palestinians should take precedence over the hypothetical discomfort, or even danger, of those closest to you. I can’t convince you that all human beings are of equal value. You’re on your own there.
Your political advocacy clearly suggests otherwise. Usually if you value all human life equally, you would not advocate for a candidate promising “the most lethal military in the world” in combination with pledging “no change” from Biden’s policies of contribution to an internationally-recognized genocide, with the rationale of “it may make those closest to me slightly safer”.
Your espoused values are in conflict with each other. Cognitive dissonance. Sort that out.
I absolutely do not support the Democrat party writ large, and especially not on the willful disregard for genocide and other atrocities. Don’t decide for me that that is my stance, or put those words in my mouth and effectively tell other people that is how I feel.
My core point is that, Democrats seem to be less vocally approving/encouraging about stochastic terrorism against LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, and other marginalized groups, whether they are privately seeing them as chess pieces or human beings.
If one group is shouting that my cousins are subhuman trash undeserving of equal treatment and dog whistling support for people who advocate violence against them, and the other group is at least not encouraging the same violence, then my cousins would seem to be safer under the second group.
I advocate loudly for party reform or replacement and consider that to be the more important part of civic duty in this arena. When it comes time for an election, past when we can do a lot to change which two people actually have a chance to win a presidency, I will cast my vote for the one less likely to get my cousins killed.
If words and theater alone are sufficient to appease you, if the death of innocent human beings overseas is an acceptable price for the protection of those close to you, then that’s your prerogative. If that is the case, though, then I will not be quiet about how revolting I find your moral calculus to be. And I have no doubt that my nonbinary, immigrant partner would share in my disgust, doubly so if you feigned it to somehow be in her interest.
Do your cousins think that protecting them from harsh rhetoric is an acceptable exchange for the genocide of children? Or are you doing it solely for your own comfort? Because, while we’re sharing anecdotes, if it’s the former, then I suspect that my transgender, pro-Palestine cousin might like to have a word with them.
Jesus, you seem to relish in imagining my meaning to be so opposed to your own. Obviously words and theater enough aren’t alone. I think I made that clear. I also think we are done talking, since it doesn’t seem to matter what I say.
Indeed, I don’t think I can convince you that the deaths of Palestinians should take precedence over the hypothetical discomfort, or even danger, of those closest to you. I can’t convince you that all human beings are of equal value. You’re on your own there.
You don’t need to, I already agree with you on that point.
Your political advocacy clearly suggests otherwise. Usually if you value all human life equally, you would not advocate for a candidate promising “the most lethal military in the world” in combination with pledging “no change” from Biden’s policies of contribution to an internationally-recognized genocide, with the rationale of “it may make those closest to me slightly safer”.
Your espoused values are in conflict with each other. Cognitive dissonance. Sort that out.
Cool, you have no interest in understanding me. Have a good one.