Is forcefully displacing a million people less worse than murdering a million people? Yes. Objectively it is.
It should be obvious that being alive is better than being dead. Again this is not to defend Trump. Ethnic cleansing is a tremendous and outrageous crime.
But genocide is a worse crime, and claiming that voting the genociders over the ethnic cleansers is in any way ethically defensible is absurd.
The only acceptable ethical position is to oppose both and to remove anyone who commits or lets these crimes happen from power. It is a moral imperative to do so, even if other people did not. Anyone who voted for a D or R is ultimately complicit in these crimes too. If the US wasn’t morally bankrupt, people would have voted a third party to power. Any form of compromise with genocide is complicity. Fucking WW2 and Holocaust should have taught as much.
Where did i defend Trump? Also do you think it is an acceptable way to discuss to make such insincere personal attacks?
Why do you think, there is distinct categories? Why do you think genocide is singled out and is not equated with ethnic cleansing, like for instance “racial segregation and apartheid” are put together as one crime?
I understand that people are very emotional about Trump right now, but it is dangerous to use this as an excuse to defend the indefensible positions and crimes committed by the Biden administration. Gaslighting people into defending and supporting the “lesser evil” has been used successfully by the Democratic party to prevent sustained progressive and ethical politics.
Where did you defend Trump? You defended him by suggesting that this “ethnic cleansing” plan of his is not a big deal like genocide is and suggested that it might even be a good thing because it will get Democrats to go against Zionism. Which is really fucking sick.
Again this is not to defend Trump. Ethnic cleansing is a tremendous and outrageous crime.
You know it is possible for two (supposedly) opposed politicians to be bad?
If you don’t accept that two opposed politicians can be bad at the same time, you would in turn defend the genocide as good, as Biden and Harris must be the good guys then. I know you don’t, so it would be nice if you give the same respect to me.
I do think so. What I don’t think is that the one you think is worse is actually worse because your argument for their being worse is built upon the idea that ethnic cleansing isn’t fucking horrific and might be a good thing.
When you talk about the good aspects of ethnic cleansing, you’ve already lost the argument.
I never said there to be good aspects of ethnic cleansing and that should be clear with me calling it a tremendous and horrific crime. But i think it cannot be used to defend genocide, as is the consequence of people claiming that things would be better if the same people remained in power that enabled the genocide.
The main problem seems to be that people think i am wrong with acknowledging that genocide is worse than ethnic cleansing. So please give me some actual arguments why i am wrong in considering genocide worse than ethnic cleansing, which does not mean either to be acceptable.
I have pointed this out repeatedly, but people seem to struggle with the concept that two things can be bad at the same time, with one being worse. But maybe i am wrong in think, that. Maybe there is arguments as to why one thing being bad must mean the other thing to be good. I would love to hear the arguments for that.
Ethnic cleansing is a synonym for genocide. You may be under the impression that genocide by modern definitions does not include forced relocation, or that ethnic cleansing necessarily can not include killing. You are wrong. What you probably meant was that forced relocation is a less severe form of genocide than extermination. You didn’t say that though.
Genocide does not necessarily have to be annihilation. Per definition it is the destruction of a people. This does not have to be accomplished through murder.
It is the same proposal that was negotiated in Spring already. It only now came moments before Trump took office. What changed between Spring and now? How could Biden exert pressure on Israel as he was leaving office that he couldn’t in Spring already?
The reality is that Biden was unwilling to put any pressure on Israel to agree to any sort of deal and instead kept sending them more and more weapons, no matter how atrocious their crimes. Also Bidens team was eager to emphasize how they worked together with Trumps team in making it happen now.
This was not something Biden achieved or wanted to achieve.
Voting for either is wrong. Vote for a party that wants to commit neither.
If you hate brussel sprouts more than cale, but you hate both of them, the logical choice is to eat neither. Doesnt mean that the one cant be worse than the other.
Or to put it in mathematic terms:
-2 is a negative number. -3 is a smaller negative number. Both are negative numbers. You can acknowledge that -2 is larger than -3 without having to claim either to be a positive number.
And if you are getting either kale or brussel sprouts put in your mouth whether you want either of them or not, it makes sense to choose the one you dislike less.
But the winner in the general was going to be either the D or the R regardless. Seriously, fewer than 1% of state and federal legislators are 3rd party. It’s been 1 presidential election shy of 60 years that a third party candidate has received a single electoral vote, even including Perot with almost 19% of the popular vote. Third party isn’t happening without election reform. So I’m always going to vote for least harm in the general. I’ll vote for progressives in the primary.
So Biden gets no credit for negotiating a ceasefire. For… reasons. But Trump suggesting ethnic cleansing is better because it doesn’t meet your definition of genocide.
To be fair most political analysts are giving Trump much of the credit. Biden didn’t bring anything new to the table except for allowing Trump and his envoy to participate.
The envoy set the tone early with Netanyahu, making him break Sabbath to attend their meeting. Netanyahu was not in Trump’s good graces to begin with so some feel that he went forward with the cease-fire as a ‘down payment’
A down payment for what you ask? Well I guess we just found out.
Yes, both parties doing bad thing makes bad thing okay. Make sense. If my neighbors all decided we can blow up the next block over for reasons, it definitely makes it very cool and very legal for me to help.
This is the dumbest take I’ve ever seen in my life.
If my neighbors all decided we can blow up the next block over for reasons, it definitely makes it very cool and very legal for me to help.
My entire point is that it is not. In your example the Democrats want to blow up the next block over and the Republicans want to beat everyone out of their houses. Both are wrong. The murder is still worse.
Saying that voting for the ones who want to blow things up is somehow justifiable is exactly what you are joking about. You cannot legitimize helping your neighbors who want to blow up the next block over by voting them onto the neighborhood council. But you cannot do the same either for the one who want to beat people up instead of blowing them up.
The only ethical choice was a third party vote and if the majority of people in the US had ethics, they would have done so. As you said yourself, other people voting for genocide or ethnical cleansing does not justify you doing it yousrelf.
Removed by mod
Are you seriously calling what Trump wants here “less severe” than genocide?
Also, quibbling about the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing is fucking sick.
Is forcefully displacing a million people less worse than murdering a million people? Yes. Objectively it is.
It should be obvious that being alive is better than being dead. Again this is not to defend Trump. Ethnic cleansing is a tremendous and outrageous crime.
But genocide is a worse crime, and claiming that voting the genociders over the ethnic cleansers is in any way ethically defensible is absurd.
The only acceptable ethical position is to oppose both and to remove anyone who commits or lets these crimes happen from power. It is a moral imperative to do so, even if other people did not. Anyone who voted for a D or R is ultimately complicit in these crimes too. If the US wasn’t morally bankrupt, people would have voted a third party to power. Any form of compromise with genocide is complicity. Fucking WW2 and Holocaust should have taught as much.
I think you need to do some reading if you think this is somehow some sort of low-death event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Walk_of_the_Navajo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_march
But sure, keep defending your hero. His hero Andrew Jackson is on your side too.
Where did i defend Trump? Also do you think it is an acceptable way to discuss to make such insincere personal attacks?
Why do you think, there is distinct categories? Why do you think genocide is singled out and is not equated with ethnic cleansing, like for instance “racial segregation and apartheid” are put together as one crime?
I understand that people are very emotional about Trump right now, but it is dangerous to use this as an excuse to defend the indefensible positions and crimes committed by the Biden administration. Gaslighting people into defending and supporting the “lesser evil” has been used successfully by the Democratic party to prevent sustained progressive and ethical politics.
Where did you defend Trump? You defended him by suggesting that this “ethnic cleansing” plan of his is not a big deal like genocide is and suggested that it might even be a good thing because it will get Democrats to go against Zionism. Which is really fucking sick.
You know it is possible for two (supposedly) opposed politicians to be bad?
If you don’t accept that two opposed politicians can be bad at the same time, you would in turn defend the genocide as good, as Biden and Harris must be the good guys then. I know you don’t, so it would be nice if you give the same respect to me.
I do think so. What I don’t think is that the one you think is worse is actually worse because your argument for their being worse is built upon the idea that ethnic cleansing isn’t fucking horrific and might be a good thing.
When you talk about the good aspects of ethnic cleansing, you’ve already lost the argument.
I never said there to be good aspects of ethnic cleansing and that should be clear with me calling it a tremendous and horrific crime. But i think it cannot be used to defend genocide, as is the consequence of people claiming that things would be better if the same people remained in power that enabled the genocide.
Removed by mod
Christ, you people will justify anything to avoid saying you were wrong.
So explain to me please, where am i wrong?
The main problem seems to be that people think i am wrong with acknowledging that genocide is worse than ethnic cleansing. So please give me some actual arguments why i am wrong in considering genocide worse than ethnic cleansing, which does not mean either to be acceptable.
I have pointed this out repeatedly, but people seem to struggle with the concept that two things can be bad at the same time, with one being worse. But maybe i am wrong in think, that. Maybe there is arguments as to why one thing being bad must mean the other thing to be good. I would love to hear the arguments for that.
ETHNIC CLEANING IS GENOCIDE
The UN considers them related but distinguishes them.
https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
Claiming they are always equated contradicts the UN and other experts categorization.
It’s just splitting hairs. What do you think happens to Palestinians who refuse to leave their homes?
Removed by mod
Ethnic cleansing is a synonym for genocide. You may be under the impression that genocide by modern definitions does not include forced relocation, or that ethnic cleansing necessarily can not include killing. You are wrong. What you probably meant was that forced relocation is a less severe form of genocide than extermination. You didn’t say that though.
Removed by mod
Genocide does not necessarily have to be annihilation. Per definition it is the destruction of a people. This does not have to be accomplished through murder.
The cease fire was literally agreed upon while Biden was still president. It was Biden’s diplomats working to make it happen.
It is the same proposal that was negotiated in Spring already. It only now came moments before Trump took office. What changed between Spring and now? How could Biden exert pressure on Israel as he was leaving office that he couldn’t in Spring already?
The reality is that Biden was unwilling to put any pressure on Israel to agree to any sort of deal and instead kept sending them more and more weapons, no matter how atrocious their crimes. Also Bidens team was eager to emphasize how they worked together with Trumps team in making it happen now.
This was not something Biden achieved or wanted to achieve.
Watching the switch from “I can’t possibly vote for the lesser of two evils” to “ethnic cleansing isn’t as bad as genocide” is morbidly hilarious.
Voting for either is wrong. Vote for a party that wants to commit neither.
If you hate brussel sprouts more than cale, but you hate both of them, the logical choice is to eat neither. Doesnt mean that the one cant be worse than the other.
Or to put it in mathematic terms:
-2 is a negative number. -3 is a smaller negative number. Both are negative numbers. You can acknowledge that -2 is larger than -3 without having to claim either to be a positive number.
Starve?
And if you are getting either kale or brussel sprouts put in your mouth whether you want either of them or not, it makes sense to choose the one you dislike less.
Nobody forced you to vote D or R
But the winner in the general was going to be either the D or the R regardless. Seriously, fewer than 1% of state and federal legislators are 3rd party. It’s been 1 presidential election shy of 60 years that a third party candidate has received a single electoral vote, even including Perot with almost 19% of the popular vote. Third party isn’t happening without election reform. So I’m always going to vote for least harm in the general. I’ll vote for progressives in the primary.
So Biden gets no credit for negotiating a ceasefire. For… reasons. But Trump suggesting ethnic cleansing is better because it doesn’t meet your definition of genocide.
What a bunch of disingenuous bullshit.
To be fair most political analysts are giving Trump much of the credit. Biden didn’t bring anything new to the table except for allowing Trump and his envoy to participate.
The envoy set the tone early with Netanyahu, making him break Sabbath to attend their meeting. Netanyahu was not in Trump’s good graces to begin with so some feel that he went forward with the cease-fire as a ‘down payment’
A down payment for what you ask? Well I guess we just found out.
Ah yes, synonym is less severe than synonym.
Very good argument. Very good point.
Yes, both parties doing bad thing makes bad thing okay. Make sense. If my neighbors all decided we can blow up the next block over for reasons, it definitely makes it very cool and very legal for me to help.
This is the dumbest take I’ve ever seen in my life.
My entire point is that it is not. In your example the Democrats want to blow up the next block over and the Republicans want to beat everyone out of their houses. Both are wrong. The murder is still worse.
Saying that voting for the ones who want to blow things up is somehow justifiable is exactly what you are joking about. You cannot legitimize helping your neighbors who want to blow up the next block over by voting them onto the neighborhood council. But you cannot do the same either for the one who want to beat people up instead of blowing them up.
The only ethical choice was a third party vote and if the majority of people in the US had ethics, they would have done so. As you said yourself, other people voting for genocide or ethnical cleansing does not justify you doing it yousrelf.
This is genocide. Jesus Christ…