Are you still yelling at people who don’t exist? After nearly a whole month?
Man, imagine what you could accomplish if you invested the energy you put into picking fights with your allies into fighting the actual enemy.
Thanks for reading what I wrote. I’ve been working hard on building community, and it has been a meaningful experience so far. I wish I could share more about that, but this is clearly not the thread for it.
I am fighting the actual enemy. And I’ve been telling you guys to stop fighting imaginary problems and join in the fight against the real enemy. I’m not going to quit the real fight and join in your imaginary fight.
I think you missed the point of my post completely. It wasn’t about her, in particular, but about the rhetorical strategy her communication employs.
Little Nemo also missed the point. You are so committed to the binary, to black and white, that you don’t seem to understand that there’s a continuum, a grey area, a space in between.
1 mph is slow; 60 mph is fast; 120 is too fast. But if you’re going to go too fast, you can’t get there without passing 60 mph. All freeway speeders drive 60 mph at some point on their way to “too fast.” There isn’t a bright line between 60 and “too fast” the way there is between 0 and 120.
You’re expecting a bright line to cross from “not genocide” to “genocide,” or “not racist” to “racist,” and seem to prefer that we ignore the repercussions of current reality in order to fight the evils of current reality. Weird, and fine if it works for you, but it’s really not how everyone else works.
Are all people who go 61 MPH on their way to 120 MPH?
In the numerous local rallies that my wife and I have attended, never once have we been grilled – asked to “ranked-choice vote” the particular issues – being very specific – that drew us to that event.
It’s almost as if you’re drawing some sort of mystifying equivalence between @Der_Trihs and Laura Loomer here.
Due respect?
In my early days on the SDMB, I remember one venerated Doper saying to another venerated Doper – one whose stance he found inexplicable – that the latter had chosen an odd hill on which to die.
This really seems like an odd hill on which you’re choosing to – proverbially – die. It’s painfully reminiscent of an ad hoc flameout that I/we witnessed from Smapti, and – interestingly – on pretty much the same subject.
I’m going to regret this I’m sure… You want to tell us who the real enemy is?
By the way - this is an excellent post, because it very effectively demonstrates the problem with the “genocide” crew.
Genocide is a legal term. There absolutely is an extremely clear line between “genocide” and “not genocide”, like there is between “murder” and “not murder”. That’s what legal terms are so rigorously defined, with legalistic language rather than natural language. Specifically, the line between “genocide” and “not genocide” is termed dolus specialis. It’s a thing genocide advocates like to ignore, because it ruins their point of calling anything they don’t like “genocide”.
“Racist” on the other hand is a vague descriptive term. You’re right, there’s no bright line between “racist” and “not racist”. So it’s super telling that you would compare a rigorously defined legalistic term like “genocide” to a vibes based term like “racist”. It’s because you treat genocide like it’s a vibes based term. To you and your ilk, genocide doesn’t mean “the set of actions legally defined as genocide”; it quite literally means “thing I don’t like”. And your post perfectly (though presumably unintentionally) demonstrates this.
Bricker would be proud of you.
In other words, you are still mad that people don’t agree with your genocide denial and support for genocide.
No. Did I say that they were? My entire point was that it’s a grey area.
I literally posted the UN definition of genocide above!
I don’t define it as “things I don’t like.” Please read for comprehension.
And yet, you also said:
You ignore the UN definition when it’s convenient for you. That’s ok - so does the UN.
My primary issue with that – apart from the fundamental nature of this OP – is how much intent comes into play, and how much, and to what degree, that must be litigated and adjudicated. It’s worth referring to that UN page again:
The same argument applies to your use of murder as an example. As a nation – or, in the case of Genocide, as an international community – we adjudicate these things at great length.
Which differs significantly from taking impassioned sides on a message board.
Sometimes, the aggressive certitude of positions taken on this Board – where the actual and critical facts are inherently neither known nor knowable isn’t a great look.
Fun, though. Big, BIG fun. I gotta’ say …
That doesn’t mean that there is a gray area.
You either are, or are not, a murderer. That’s a factual question, and there is an absolute answer to it (in any given jurisdiction, at least).
Society may not know the answer offhand and may need to work to figure it out, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a binary.
Not in this thread, you aren’t. In this thread, you’re fighting a made-up shibboleth that does not exist anywhere in the real world.
“I’m not going to fight Trump on deportations, because I’m fighting him on genocide,” is 100% an imaginary problem.
This is also an imaginary problem, because literally no one is asking you to do that.
That’s not a nice thing to say about Der_Trihs. Unfortunately for all of us, he isn’t made up and unfortunately for anyone forced to interact with him in person he does exist in the real world.
The shibboleth is not, “Trump is going to commit genocide!” The shibboleth is, “Trump is going to commit genocide, and therefore, I will not invest any effort in resisting Trump that’s not specifically about the genocide he’s going to commit.”
Is that what Little Nemo said?
I thought it was more like, “When DerTrihs is ranting and raving about Trump committing genocide and feeding all Hispanic people to alligators, normies wipe the spittle off their face and decide that lefties are as crazy as MAGA are”.
Yes, explicitly and repeatedly