I’m sorry but if your two choices are 1 genocide or 2 genocides and you are not actively involving yourself in organisations aimed at the overthrow of the system that only gives you those two options you are supportively taking part in and legitimising a system that is designed to output genocide.
perfection
I’m sorry if you have a choice in an election between zero genocides and more than zero genocides and you decide to vote for a mainstream genocidal candidate instead of a non-genocidal third party candidate you either have a child’s view of politics or have ulterior motives and are evil
No you see the problem is everyone else buys into the false dichotomy so you also have to pick between the two officially approved candidates or else your vote doesn’t count. Also if you do decide to vote 3rd party and President One Genocide loses, it’s completely your own personal fault.
Hate the idea of a one party state. Hate the idea of voting for a 3rd party.
Mandatory two party state state
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
The people accusing you of supporting genocide get incredibly mad when you don’t support genocide.
A few years ago I never would’ve thought that libs would take the “what about just some genocide?” enlightened centrist position completely unironically, yet here we are.
This is so dumb like why are you so eager to allow a genocide? Why is genocide so acceptable in your imagination?
When we think of a better world, we don’t have to make concessions for genocide.
What a pathetic worldview. To excrete something like this on the Internet and then call me a child.
If never endorsing a single genocide makes me a child, then the adults in the room are the problem.
Also it doesn’t even make sense in a self-interest standpoint. Just because you accept one genocide doesn’t mean a second one won’t come later. Like why would you try this hard to make genocide acceptable when you could easily be targeted by genocide using the same language?
I know it’s because they think they’ll never be subject to genocide, but they really don’t seem to understand that fascism means nobody is ever immune to genocide. I don’t like describing it as a death cult because that seems to diminish the seriousness of fascism, but that’s what it is.
They’ll eliminate every outgroup they can until there is one family left on top of the ruins, and that will die out too.
If never endorsing a single genocide makes me a child, then the adults in the room are the problem.
Libs: Am I wrong for supporting genocide?
“we have Harm Reduction at home.”
The Harm Reduction at home
if your choices are 1 genocide or 2 genocides, the correct choice is [REDACTED] the people offering you the choices
Actually since I like in California my vote for President literally doesn’t matter. I’m voting Green or PSL and my vote will be counted for Joe Biden due to the electoral college. Popular vote is just a vanity thing.
Sorry, opposing both Hitler and Strasser is unrealistic, we gotta support Strasser. Think of it like riding a train, it gets you closer to where you want to get even if it’s not exactly your destination.
“genocide is bad, and therefore I won’t support a genocide-doer” is indeed so simple a child can understand it, yet it is somehow still utterly incomprehensible to libs
Also here’s the twitter link
If you think you’re voting for one genocide over two (and that it’s good) then you have a child’s view of politics.
ok now hear me out, i will always vote for the guy that only tramples 80% of the world’s population instead of the guy that would trample 90% of the world’s population
This is what Godzilla vs Kong was abouf
Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos
deleted by creator
Libs try to frame it as like, since both candidates will genocide Gaza then that means we have to focus on the other harms, but any reasonable person should see it as such a hideous amount of harm being done that harm reduction in this framework is like reducing a desert by removing grains of sand from it.
The reason libs treat genocide in Palestine as just another uncomfortable foreign policy issue is because that’s exactly what it is for them. They don’t see Palestinians as people, they don’t view a life as inherently valuable, and so it’s a PR problem for their team, nothing more. That’s why the arguments are always treated in PR terms.
I just vote with the basic standard of not committing genocide or being likely to. There isn’t blood on my hands regardless of who the liberal demons or the conservative demons vote for in their quest for the righteous genocide.
