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.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.