Hold on. Let me check.
Yup, quote function is still working.
I don’t think strawmen means what you guys think it does.
Sounds like the correct term is mostly not just “stupid”, but something that recognizes the horrific intent behind the statement. Last I checked, this was about Loomer’s quote, right?
You turned my correct terms for someone advocating fucking genocide, that you asked for, and you put those words in my mouth as what we should call Trump.
Correct.
Yes. Last July, Laura Loomer posted an online message “Alligator Lives Matter. The Good news is alligators are guaranteed at least 65 million meals if we get started now.”
I would call this a very offensive and racist joke. I’d be willing to go with monstrous and obscene. Although I think arresting people and deporting them is more monstrous than making jokes about feeding them to alligators. Because one thing is real and the other isn’t.
I won’t agree with calling it criminal and I wouldn’t agree with any attempt to make it criminal. Telling offensive and racist jokes is part of having free speech. Laura Loomer has as much right to speak as Steven Colbert or Jimmy Kimmel does. The government should not be making any jokes a crime.
But you didn’t, you went with “over-the-top stupid”.
criminal, adjective: informal
(of an action or situation) deplorable and shocking.
Very offensive and racist. Monstrous and obscene. Over-the-top and stupid. I’m good with any of these. I just don’t see a need to see how many adjectives I can use.
Okay, so when you said it was criminal you didn’t mean it was a crime. You call things criminal when you think they’re deplorable and shocking. Me? I say those things are deplorable and shocking.
What word do you use when you’re saying something is a crime?
Yes, it’s called lexical diversity.
More words you’ll have to look up.
I’d say that that thing ‘was a crime’, or that a person had ‘committed a crime’.
I don’t think you understand that rhetoric, even ridiculous, obviously fictional rhetoric, can pave the way for real-world horrors. Things that are not true MATTER. See: Every religion ever, popular culture, celebrity, the futures market….
I’ve addressed this issue. I’ve pointed out that if we stop Trump and the Republicans from doing the things they are doing now, like the illegal arrests and deportations, we also stop them from doing any future plans which might exist and are based on these current crimes.
If we stop the arrests and deportations, we also stop any future genocide. But if we make our focus stopping the future genocide, we might still get the arrests and deportations.
If we make our focus the arrests and deportations, we are a lot more likely to get the genocide since so many people approve of the arrests and deportations. And downplaying how dangerous and extreme the Republicans are has done nothing but empower them and given them cover.
But doing yet more of what has failed to accomplish anything for decades is preferable to you, apparently.
I see it the opposite way. If you tell people that genocide is a problem, then you make the arrests and deportations seem like a lesser problem. And by making the arrests and deportations seem like a lesser problem, you make them more likely to continue.
Actually, if I was looking for an easy battle, I’d choose to fight against genocide. I could just stay home and do nothing except talk about how bad Trump is. Then four years later, I could look around and note the absence of any genocide and declare that I had won. Sure, people are getting grabbed off the streets and arrested. But I chose to fight a different battle.
But that’s not me. As I’ve said all along, I’d rather fight real battles.
You ignore that for a lot of people they are a positive and not a problem at all. And for many others it’s a problem but not one they care enough about to do anything. You are just encouraging people to keep their heads down and ignore the issue since it’s not affecting them, personally.
And by the time things ramp up to genocide it’ll be far too late.
…welcome comrade to the fight.
So what are you going to do to stop America’s support of the genocide in Gaza?
No, you wouldn’t, or you’d understand how the battle against genocide is fought.
What you would rather do is engage in the current and most obvious surface battle, while neither understanding nor preparing for how it fits into the bigger picture, because you fear discussions that aren’t literally and currently true for some weird reason.
Yes, this is part of the problem. Public ignorance and public apathy is one of the things we need to be fighting. We need to make people aware why the breakdown of the rule of law affects everyone.
I’m the one saying we should be fighting the real world problem of illegal arrest and deportations.
And you’re the one arguing we should be doing something else.
With the liberal equivalent of “thoughts and prayers”?
…so you don’t actually want to fight.