Genocide is morally ambiguous for many people, but for the people who don't vote Republican it is overwhelmingly not ambiguous. You can blame the voters, but that's just another way of blaming reality.
zbyte64
joined 2 years ago
Person unaffected by past bad decisions doesn't see how that's a problem.
This is why we should lock down the OS to prevent people from creating databases of people. There are so many applications out there asking for people's DOB and that's because we let people just install whatever app they want. There's absolutely no positive use case for that.
And all the Palestinian that didn't vote endorsed Hamas and their own genocide. This "logic" is about being right but not about what is good. It's a great example a moral high horse the Democrats are happy to ride in on because it costs them nothing, unlike opposing a genocide. This creates moral ambiguity which the right exploits to win elections.
Nihilism is a problem and the step before that is Cynicism. We can't really know the person but we can know their fruits: are they spending their energy (outside of voting and shit posting) to enact positive change? If the answer is yes, no matter how futile, then they are not the problem
The people who didn't vote because of the genocide agree with you that it is an endorsement, which is why they didn't vote. Voting is not an endorsement, it's a strategic choice and calling it otherwise overplays it's significance and divides us.
I wonder how many lives per day will be spent to keep the island once it is taken. They act like once they open the strait the war will be over.
You said it's not open to debate and I agreed to move on but now you're debating the point. I guess you really do plan on lecturing voters until democracy is saved. After all that happened, you think voters can be reasoned to a better position? Tell me again how unrealistic voters are and I'll laugh harder at the person still trying to debate them.
Technically it is open if you're paying in Chinese Yuan 😂
To be clear, the punishment wasn't him loosing 2B, he wouldn't even notice the difference. The punishment was being told he was wrong by a jury of his "peers".
If you don't even debate whether there should have been a primary after a statement like that then okay, let's say you're right about voters, then what? How does this lesson inform your actions going forward?
Because at least with my perspective the goal is to get better leadership to win more voters over. With your perspective what are we doing exactly? Lecturing voters? Waiting for more faces to be eaten?
Even after Germany was defeated, the people who resisted were still generally looked at with disdain