Are they though? How about this, can you still call yourself anti-genocide if you vote for the candidate who puts forth a slower, more well marketted genocide where the same bullets in children and attacks still happen, just with a lot of stern faces and some hand wringing?
can you still call yourself anti-genocide if you vote for the candidate who puts forth a slower, more well marketted genocide
I mean, yes, objectively? Mathematically, only a Democrat or a Republican can win the United States general election. If you can use your influence to vote for Less Genocide instead of More Genocide, that is what electoral anti-genocide is. You don’t have to like it, but those are the options.
abbotsbury, thats not how it works. Lets see if we can model this another way.
By your accounting if a Democratic party candidate said if elected they’d rape 1 kid and the republican said theyd rape 2 kids, you’d count your support of the single-kid rapist as not supporting any kid-rape at all. You’d claim your hands are clean–pristine even. – because you “minimized harm”. And yet a kid would lie raped there with your explicit support having helped it to happen.
By my accounting they are both kid rapists. End of story. Thats both my accounting and enough of the massive democratic party progressives wing that “centrists” who think like you do will never win another election again. Being slightly less evil is not enough to win elections, and its not the same thing as being worthy of coexisting peacefully and leading in our society. Does you understand this? Some things like kid rape and genocide are not to be tolerated at all, whether its part of harm minimization or not.
If only it was. She might have won if her genocide support was actually irrelevant. Progressives, even those of us who held our nose and voted for genocide(D) over genocide(R), warned you that this was a losing issue.
Genocide supporters didn’t care. They got the only thing they wanted regardless of who won. To you, it’s irrelevant.
Are they though? How about this, can you still call yourself anti-genocide if you vote for the candidate who puts forth a slower, more well marketted genocide where the same bullets in children and attacks still happen, just with a lot of stern faces and some hand wringing?
I mean, yes, objectively? Mathematically, only a Democrat or a Republican can win the United States general election. If you can use your influence to vote for Less Genocide instead of More Genocide, that is what electoral anti-genocide is. You don’t have to like it, but those are the options.
abbotsbury, thats not how it works. Lets see if we can model this another way.
By your accounting if a Democratic party candidate said if elected they’d rape 1 kid and the republican said theyd rape 2 kids, you’d count your support of the single-kid rapist as not supporting any kid-rape at all. You’d claim your hands are clean–pristine even. – because you “minimized harm”. And yet a kid would lie raped there with your explicit support having helped it to happen.
By my accounting they are both kid rapists. End of story. Thats both my accounting and enough of the massive democratic party progressives wing that “centrists” who think like you do will never win another election again. Being slightly less evil is not enough to win elections, and its not the same thing as being worthy of coexisting peacefully and leading in our society. Does you understand this? Some things like kid rape and genocide are not to be tolerated at all, whether its part of harm minimization or not.
Say people who do like it.
Irrelevant, still the anti-genocide vote.
If only it was. She might have won if her genocide support was actually irrelevant. Progressives, even those of us who held our nose and voted for genocide(D) over genocide(R), warned you that this was a losing issue.
Genocide supporters didn’t care. They got the only thing they wanted regardless of who won. To you, it’s irrelevant.