You're viewing part of a thread.
Your entire mindset here is “If they don’t agree with me they must be genocide deniers”.
I explained how you were doing genocide denial. You said that complaining about Biden is only "sowing division". So that means that we shouldn't criticise him for his genocide. Denying that a genocide should be criticised on its own merits is a form of genocide denial. Not all genocide denial is "this genocide didn't happen". In fact most of it isn't. Most of it is politically motivated muddying of the waters, like what you did.
And yet you’re convinced it’s Biden you should be complaining about.
Because he is the president and the person in the greatest position of power to do something about it, and yet he refuses.
Why aren’t you complaining about Trump? Why aren’t you complaining about [whatabout whatabout whatabout]
Because none of those people is currently the US president.
Also, the original comment I replied to was about how people are just complaining that Biden is "old". I was pointing out that this person was clearly deliberately avoiding the main criticism, which is of course the genocide.
It’s not about getting Biden elected, it’s about making sure Trump does not get elected.
That's just the same thing said two ways. Most people who vote for Trump don't like him much either, they just think they have to get Biden out. This is how the two-party system captures your political imagination and makes you police other people to tell them not to criticise your candidate. You've fallen for its trap.
And the idea that nothing can be changed without system change is actually false. Popular opposition has won basically all the victories worth noting in liberal democracies. They weren't handed down from the legislature, they were fought for from the bottom up. But if people won't stand up and full-throated condemn the one person most responsible for the current iteration of this genocide, then he won't feel any pressure to do anything about it.
And if he doesn't stop his genocide support - for real, not just a token "hey now jack stop that" - then I won't be surprised when he loses to Trump, because he chose to support fascism overseas and thus willingly lost to fascism at home.
You can sit on your high horse and talk about how people are cutting off pieces of their soul “for strategy”, but don’t be surprised when genocide continues and you get fascism shoved down your throat.
And if he doesn’t stop his genocide support - for real, not just a token “hey now jack stop that” - then I won’t be surprised when he loses to Trump, because he chose to support fascism overseas and thus willingly lost to fascism at home.
It's fascinating how you'll continually blame the people calling out genocide support from the white house for them losing, but you won't blame their genocide support for them losing.
Almost like you're not that interested in opposing the genocide.
Almost like you're doing... genocide denial.
How many times do I have to repeat myself?
I’m going to start from here because this is how you show how disingenuous you are. I straight up said I don’t agree with the genocide deniers and what do you do? You still lump me in with them. Your entire mindset here is “If they don’t agree with me they must be genocide deniers”. Fuck off with that shit.
You don't even try to understand what I'm saying, all you see is that I don't agree with you and so you mental gymnastic yourself into believing I'm doing genocide denial. Once again, fuck off with that shit.
Go on man, shut me up. Retell my point back to me.
I told you multiple times how it was genocide denial. I explained the how of it. You have failed to even acknowledge that let alone respond to it.
I guess it's hard to face the fact that you're doing genocide denial, so the only thing you can do is pretend I'm being disingenuous. Funny thing is, even if I'm being disingenuous that doesn't make you not a genocide denier.
If you want to explain how that's wrong you need to respond to the argument, but you're not doing that.
As if to prove my point... All you had to do was tell me the argument I made and all you did was "This is how it's genocide denial". It's exactly what I said you do.
I honestly have no idea what you're saying here. Is this what 'retell my point back to me" was about? You want me to explain how you're doing genocide denial, again? A fourth time? I'll copy-paste the three different ways I've tried to explain it and which you have ignored, and then we're done here if you keep ignoring it.
I explained how you were doing genocide denial. You said that complaining about Biden is only “sowing division”. So that means that we shouldn’t criticise him for his genocide. Denying that a genocide should be criticised on its own merits is a form of genocide denial. Not all genocide denial is “this genocide didn’t happen”. In fact most of it isn’t. Most of it is politically motivated muddying of the waters, like what you did.
Pretending that the entire value in discussing genocide starts and ends with who will be elected president is pretty minimising to the importance of the, you know, genocide. Seems like a kind of genocide denial to me.
Edit 3: The other person arguing is also doing genocide denial, but the oblique kind where you pretend that the only reason to criticise a sitting US president engaging in genocide is because you want him to lose an election. Almost like they’re denying that we should hold people accountable for genocide on its own merits. That is, and I cannot stress this enough, genocide denial.