3 ms·

This is a false equivalence. There is such a thing as evil. There are such a thing as evil men. There are dictators that rise, and there are would-be dictators

This is a false equivalence. There is such a thing as evil. There are such a thing as evil men. There are dictators that rise, and there are would-be dictators that were resisted strongly enough before hand to stop their rise in the first place. Hillary Clinton is not a dictator. Thiel is not an employee. I do treat people differently based on their actions and who they support and you should to. Putin didn't just walk up to the Kremlin and tell them he was going to seize power, he was able to do it because people let him, then he seized the press to complete his control over the information Russians have access to.

wutbrodo 10y ago
> This is a false equivalence. There is such a thing as evil. There are such a thing as evil men. There is no universal agreement on how to categorize every action into "evil" or "not evil". Those of us who are capable of understanding society as being larger than our tiny little bubble are aware that there are people on the other side of each issue that feel just as strongly about their points. For every person who claims Trump is "clearly evil", you can find a person who claims Hillary is. These claims per se are worth approximately nothing, particularly when you expect other people to act based on your interpretation of what evil is. 60 years ago you'd find people openly stating that interracial marriage was evil; 100 years ago being insufficiently religious was evil. I find it extraordinarily childish when people take the position that they can fight dirty because they claim they have the moral high ground. News flash: _everyone thinks they're on the moral high ground_. Look, I don't even like the guy, and from the beginning of the election season Clinton has had my vote, but this existential total-war approach to politics is disgusting. > Hillary Clinton is not a dictator When exactly were you imbued with the divine right to decide that 1) being "a dictator" is the only relevant factor for demanding that people divest from supporting a candidate and 2) Trump is a dictator (using a definition of "dictator" that literally nobody else in the universe uses)? If someone claimed that Hillary Clinton was pro-rape and pro-rape-culture for attacking victims of sexual assault[1] and that justified demands that someone else cut ties with a Clinton-supporting "part-time partner" of their firm, I'd find it just as abhorrent. Your bar for cutting ties with someone is that they support a political candidate that _you_ find evil (or more evil than the alternative). Given that your voice isn't worth anything more than anyone else in the country, this ends up reducing to "people are obligated to cut ties with any figure for whom at least one random dude thinks they're evil". I hope it's clear how nonsensical that is.

wutbrodo 10y ago

> This is a false equivalence. There is such a thing as evil. There are such a thing as evil men. There is no universal agreement on how to categorize every action into "evil" or "not evil". Those of us who are capable of understanding society as being larger than our tiny little bubble are aware that there are people on the other side of each issue that feel just as strongly about their points. For every person who claims Trump is "clearly evil", you can find a person who claims Hillary is. These claims per se are worth approximately nothing, particularly when you expect other people to act based on your interpretation of what evil is. 60 years ago you'd find people openly stating that interracial marriage was evil; 100 years ago being insufficiently religious was evil. I find it extraordinarily childish when people take the position that they can fight dirty because they claim they have the moral high ground. News flash: _everyone thinks they're on the moral high ground_. Look, I don't even like the guy, and from the beginning of the election season Clinton has had my vote, but this existential total-war approach to politics is disgusting. > Hillary Clinton is not a dictator When exactly were you imbued with the divine right to decide that 1) being "a dictator" is the only relevant factor for demanding that people divest from supporting a candidate and 2) Trump is a dictator (using a definition of "dictator" that literally nobody else in the universe uses)? If someone claimed that Hillary Clinton was pro-rape and pro-rape-culture for attacking victims of sexual assault[1] and that justified demands that someone else cut ties with a Clinton-supporting "part-time partner" of their firm, I'd find it just as abhorrent. Your bar for cutting ties with someone is that they support a political candidate that _you_ find evil (or more evil than the alternative). Given that your voice isn't worth anything more than anyone else in the country, this ends up reducing to "people are obligated to cut ties with any figure for whom at least one random dude thinks they're evil". I hope it's clear how nonsensical that is.