Genocide is a term that is both over and under used. There are currently about six genocides ongoing. I don’t see the point in trying to call someone out on it because no one is actually doing anything for or against it outside of a very small number of people.
If someone asks me if I’m anti genocide I assume they mean something they specifically consider a genocide and they are trying to use this as bait to get me to out myself in some way. They don’t actually expect I’m personally participating or countering it in any way.
Trans rights also is a loaded term now because there are a LOT of individual rights Trans people are needing to fight for all in parallel. It’s better to be specific.
Sure someone who says they are against trans people is awful, but I find folks set the bar in different places and use that to start an argument. The easiest example is, what age should someone be allowed to transition which is an intensely challenging question to answer even on a medical level.
Yeah, the comment above is kind of a hilarious example of cognitive dissonance. “I’ve never seen purity tests, other than these tests for ensuring purity”. Blanket statements like that are rarely used in good faith.
There’s no assumption. They literally listed two purity tests that they themselves use, directly after saying that they never see anyone use purity tests
You’ve got a bunch of nutjobs that will turn that phrasing into a white genocide conversation is the problem.
The second part of that is that genocide is a subjective term due to classification of ethnic groups being subjective.
Honestly this well encapsulates the problem I tend to have aligning on goals with other progressives and some liberals. Every time folks try to simplify something as complex as genocide down to a yes or no question it means they are already invalidating the majority of positions and forcing a conversation of agree with me or call me wrong. That isn’t how it works, that isn’t how discussion and debate work. Forcing people into Yes/No thinking doesn’t lead to progress, asking for people to think critically does.
I think there’s every right to concern when we take that to the extent of “If you dont let the candidate who’s worse for the genocide win and thereby set back every other issue including the trans rights we also purity test over, then you’re pro genocide”. There’s a right way to do that shit and harm reduction is worthwhile
You should just be forward with which perceived genocide you don’t qualify as a genocide so that people can decide whether there’s an validity to what you’re saying. Which genocides are we purity testing over that aren’t really genocides?
There are thick, uncrossable lines, and there are a lot of people who don’t mind crossing them. You cannot compromise with a bigot. You cannot find common ground with a person who would subjugate you, or someone who sees you as less than human.
We can have disagreements about many political issues, but when you are standing next to pedophiles, rapists, fascists, and bigots, you shouldn’t be surprised to be called a Nazi.
So the question becomes, what is the test of “purity”?
To reiterate the comment you’re responding to, you’re reducing a complex world to a binary choice. Everyone that has ever existed is bigoted to some degree, therefore no compromise is possible ever?
Bull, and I cannot emphasize this enough, shit. Everyone is not a little bit bigoted. That’s something bigots tell themselves when rationalizing their own prejudices. You should probably take a hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if you’re the problem.
Their example of bigots was racists and nazis plus pedos (which isn’t bigotry but universally frowned upon). They did NOT say, “any and all bigots, even of minor things”.
Why are you trying to make them say something they did not say?
You are part of the problem. When someone says, “I like pancakes”, what they SPECIFICALLY DID NOT SAY is, “I hate waffles”.
Similarly, when someone says, “you cannot compromize with nazis and bigots”, what they DID NOT say was, “any concervative deserves the death penalty”. Why do you read it as such?
English must be so hard for you when you utterly fail to understand how assumptions work. Good job being a piece of shit contributing to the problem you’re attempting to be above.
Constantly. Usually it takes the form of reducing topics to binary choices and/or purity tests.
as bad asa nazi”i really have never encountered someone like this.
unless the ‘purity test’ is being anti genocide or pro trans rights. you know, basic fundamental shit.
Genocide is a term that is both over and under used. There are currently about six genocides ongoing. I don’t see the point in trying to call someone out on it because no one is actually doing anything for or against it outside of a very small number of people.
If someone asks me if I’m anti genocide I assume they mean something they specifically consider a genocide and they are trying to use this as bait to get me to out myself in some way. They don’t actually expect I’m personally participating or countering it in any way.
Trans rights also is a loaded term now because there are a LOT of individual rights Trans people are needing to fight for all in parallel. It’s better to be specific.
Sure someone who says they are against trans people is awful, but I find folks set the bar in different places and use that to start an argument. The easiest example is, what age should someone be allowed to transition which is an intensely challenging question to answer even on a medical level.
yeah i agree about both issues.
in both cases people do not care about the issue. they care about using it as soapbox to bully other people and feel morally superior.
they do not care about the actual people either.
Yeah, the comment above is kind of a hilarious example of cognitive dissonance. “I’ve never seen purity tests, other than these tests for ensuring purity”. Blanket statements like that are rarely used in good faith.
You’re all making generalities out of assumptions here…
There’s no assumption. They literally listed two purity tests that they themselves use, directly after saying that they never see anyone use purity tests
Their purity test: You must not deny genocide.
What you heard their purity test was: They must accept that any and all genocides that I think exist are real and a big problem.
Again, you fucking morons are inferring things that aren’t there just to try and be witty, while utterly missing the point…
Congratulations on failing your reading comprehension test.
You’ve got a bunch of nutjobs that will turn that phrasing into a white genocide conversation is the problem.
The second part of that is that genocide is a subjective term due to classification of ethnic groups being subjective.
Honestly this well encapsulates the problem I tend to have aligning on goals with other progressives and some liberals. Every time folks try to simplify something as complex as genocide down to a yes or no question it means they are already invalidating the majority of positions and forcing a conversation of agree with me or call me wrong. That isn’t how it works, that isn’t how discussion and debate work. Forcing people into Yes/No thinking doesn’t lead to progress, asking for people to think critically does.
If they turn it in to a white genocide problem, then you already have your answer: They don’t care about minorities.
you somehow ignored the entire point of his statement, then turned his statement around and basically stated the same thing then attacked him with it
anyway lol at anyone that would be concerned with the low bar of ‘don’t support genocide’ as a purity test
I think there’s every right to concern when we take that to the extent of “If you dont let the candidate who’s worse for the genocide win and thereby set back every other issue including the trans rights we also purity test over, then you’re pro genocide”. There’s a right way to do that shit and harm reduction is worthwhile
fair but that’s not supporting genocide
anyone conflating choosing for with getting along with is being mentally dishonest
You should just be forward with which perceived genocide you don’t qualify as a genocide so that people can decide whether there’s an validity to what you’re saying. Which genocides are we purity testing over that aren’t really genocides?
i encounter people like this on a daily basis.
but i went to a liberal arts school, graduate school, and work in the non-profit world where teh trust fund purity types are quite common.
rarely are they ever the type of person who has ever had to be responsible for themselves or anyone else.
There are thick, uncrossable lines, and there are a lot of people who don’t mind crossing them. You cannot compromise with a bigot. You cannot find common ground with a person who would subjugate you, or someone who sees you as less than human.
We can have disagreements about many political issues, but when you are standing next to pedophiles, rapists, fascists, and bigots, you shouldn’t be surprised to be called a Nazi.
So the question becomes, what is the test of “purity”?
To reiterate the comment you’re responding to, you’re reducing a complex world to a binary choice. Everyone that has ever existed is bigoted to some degree, therefore no compromise is possible ever?
Bull, and I cannot emphasize this enough, shit. Everyone is not a little bit bigoted. That’s something bigots tell themselves when rationalizing their own prejudices. You should probably take a hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if you’re the problem.
deleted by creator
Their example of bigots was racists and nazis plus pedos (which isn’t bigotry but universally frowned upon). They did NOT say, “any and all bigots, even of minor things”.
Why are you trying to make them say something they did not say?
You are part of the problem. When someone says, “I like pancakes”, what they SPECIFICALLY DID NOT SAY is, “I hate waffles”.
Similarly, when someone says, “you cannot compromize with nazis and bigots”, what they DID NOT say was, “any concervative deserves the death penalty”. Why do you read it as such?
I quoted an entire sentence exactly. They didn’t say “I like pancakes”, they said “You can’t compromise with waffle-eaters”
English must be so hard for you when you utterly fail to understand how assumptions work. Good job being a piece of shit contributing to the problem you’re attempting to be above.