4 ms·

It's all fine to say that we should first and foremost look at what someone does, not what they say, but the idea that the latter has absolutely no bearing on t

It's all fine to say that we should first and foremost look at what someone does, not what they say, but the idea that the latter has absolutely no bearing on the former and that propaganda and rhetoric is universally and completely independent of the actions someone will undertake and that words have no consequences, well, that seems like exactly the kind of cutesy salon talk you criticize.

nickff 10y ago
Obama is the first president in history to spend every day of his presidency at war, and he was given the Nobel Peace Prize. We don't even know how many countries either Obama or Bush bombed (as the DoD refuses to disclose all their 'kinetic actions'), yet we should believe the new guy's words make him the worst?
drinkjuice 10y ago
> the idea that the latter has absolutely no bearing on the former and that propaganda and rhetoric is universally and completely independent of the actions someone will undertake and that words have no consequences I said it's circus to be upset about the words of someone when you're not equally or more upset about the equal or worse actions of people you're chummy with. Let's say you're married to a murderer you never criticize, and then get upset when the neighbor is talking about killing a bunch of people, because that is immoral -- then you have double standards and I can't share your antics. I might condemn that neighbor when you're not around, but not in agreement with you. That's what I'm saying, and I'm not also saying "he's not going to kill anyone, and even if he did, that's fine because your husband started it", and I never would. Which is exactly why that kindergarten stuff gets projected on me. Even IF you were right, and I was displaying "exactly" what I criticize -- so? Is anyone deluded enough to think they can hide behind me?

4 ms·

It's all fine to say that we should first and foremost look at what someone does, not what they say, but the idea that the latter has absolutely no bearing on t

by stdbrouw 10y ago

nickff 10y ago
Obama is the first president in history to spend every day of his presidency at war, and he was given the Nobel Peace Prize. We don't even know how many countries either Obama or Bush bombed (as the DoD refuses to disclose all their 'kinetic actions'), yet we should believe the new guy's words make him the worst?
drinkjuice 10y ago
> the idea that the latter has absolutely no bearing on the former and that propaganda and rhetoric is universally and completely independent of the actions someone will undertake and that words have no consequences I said it's circus to be upset about the words of someone when you're not equally or more upset about the equal or worse actions of people you're chummy with. Let's say you're married to a murderer you never criticize, and then get upset when the neighbor is talking about killing a bunch of people, because that is immoral -- then you have double standards and I can't share your antics. I might condemn that neighbor when you're not around, but not in agreement with you. That's what I'm saying, and I'm not also saying "he's not going to kill anyone, and even if he did, that's fine because your husband started it", and I never would. Which is exactly why that kindergarten stuff gets projected on me. Even IF you were right, and I was displaying "exactly" what I criticize -- so? Is anyone deluded enough to think they can hide behind me?