Liberals lost the farm betting there were enough people who felt strongly enough about nothing fundamentally changing to outnumber everyone else. You could only look at that gamble charitably if you thought it would win them the election against a fascist, but turns out it didn’t. Now there’s no charity left for them to hide behind.
They collaborated in a genocide for nothing - that’s on them.
I’m not a single issue voter no matter how morally complex the situation is.
Is the world in a better state now?
How about the country?
How about your life?
Liberals lost the farm betting there were enough people who felt strongly enough about nothing fundamentally changing to outnumber everyone else. You could only look at that gamble charitably if you thought it would win them the election against a fascist, but turns out it didn’t. Now there’s no charity left for them to hide behind.
They collaborated in a genocide for nothing - that’s on them.
Yes, it’s all very complex and whether or not to commit a genocide depends on many factors.
Unironically yes.
Uhh, what now?
He’s unironically a Harris supporter. Like not ‘shes better than Trump,’ but ‘shes a good candidate for president.’
There’s no value in engaging with that rightwing genocide fan.
I wouldn’t call myself a fan of hers but I think during the last election she was the best choice.
I’m still trying to wrap my head around what complexities might make genocide the right thing to do.
https://lemmy.world/post/29132313/16871246
I laid out my reasoning here pretty clearly.
Which one of those makes the moral justification for Genocide, specifically, complicated?
I don’t think there’s anything clear about that comment.
But the tankies are the genocide apologists, somehow
I find the term ‘tankie’ is rude to tanks.