3 ms·

"trying to justify your strong feelings about Trump by fabricating these insane narratives" This is the first time we've ever interacted and you're projecting

"trying to justify your strong feelings about Trump by fabricating these insane narratives" This is the first time we've ever interacted and you're projecting my feelings? Great, we're off to a good start here. From there, I'm "fabricating a narrative" because I implied that casually threatening to kill millions of people on twitter might be what someone else was referring to as "genocidal"? You know what is WAY more disingenuous than calling killing millions of people "genocide"? Implying that a first strike which would kill millions of people has nothing to do with killing millions of people. Now THAT would be disingenuous. And, just to throw a cherry on the top of those other weird behaviors, you tell me I'm doing nothing but hurting my political causes, when you don't know what they are. Couldn't you at least have the self awareness to realize that just because you get cranky when someone calls threatening to kill millions of people "genocide" does not actually mean that all points that person makes somehow lose credibility with all other human beings on earth...because you said so...?

seabird 9y ago
I questioned the (incorrect) usage of the word "genocidal". There are no ifs, ands, or buts; not every mass killing/death is a genocide. A nuclear first strike against the DPRK in the current political climate would have nothing to do with a deliberate eradication of a certain ethnicity/nationality and everything to do with the DPRK being a nuclear threat in a nuclear world. You responded to my questioning by trying to qualify the argument with his Twitter antics. Since you're supporting the argument (or at least trying to justify the sentiment of labeling something that wouldn't be a genocide a genocide), I think we can reasonably assume that you're not a fan of Trump's idea of a first strike. The tone of your writing heavily implies that, so if you're actually in support of (or not directly opposed to) a first strike, but simultaneously argue that people could reasonably mistake a first strike for a deliberate, focused genocide, a small disclaimer that you're arguing in support of two dissonant ideas really helps people understand what you're trying to say. Similarly, unless your political alignment and actual viewpoints on the subject are highly dissonant, your politics are pretty easy to extrapolate. To my knowledge (and I could be wrong), there is no indication that Trump has any intention to eradicate the North Korean people. To argue that Trump's intention with a first strike would be to eradicate the North Korean people would require you to fabricate reasoning behind such an action. To argue that someone is justified in the genocide argument is to admit that they're fabricating that reasoning or narrative. Not even once did I try to minimize the casualties a first strike would have. I never said that the original argument was necessarily wrong. I did say that the general populace will make arguments to logic, and making individual points that are blatantly wrong except in the most liberal interpretation of the wording just enables the general populace to do so.
- ryguytilidie 9y ago
  Perhaps instead of writing proofs about how you came to believe what someone elses beliefs are, you could either: a) Not do that. b) Ask them what their views are if you're actually curious. Cheers.

seabird 9y ago

I questioned the (incorrect) usage of the word "genocidal". There are no ifs, ands, or buts; not every mass killing/death is a genocide. A nuclear first strike against the DPRK in the current political climate would have nothing to do with a deliberate eradication of a certain ethnicity/nationality and everything to do with the DPRK being a nuclear threat in a nuclear world. You responded to my questioning by trying to qualify the argument with his Twitter antics. Since you're supporting the argument (or at least trying to justify the sentiment of labeling something that wouldn't be a genocide a genocide), I think we can reasonably assume that you're not a fan of Trump's idea of a first strike. The tone of your writing heavily implies that, so if you're actually in support of (or not directly opposed to) a first strike, but simultaneously argue that people could reasonably mistake a first strike for a deliberate, focused genocide, a small disclaimer that you're arguing in support of two dissonant ideas really helps people understand what you're trying to say. Similarly, unless your political alignment and actual viewpoints on the subject are highly dissonant, your politics are pretty easy to extrapolate. To my knowledge (and I could be wrong), there is no indication that Trump has any intention to eradicate the North Korean people. To argue that Trump's intention with a first strike would be to eradicate the North Korean people would require you to fabricate reasoning behind such an action. To argue that someone is justified in the genocide argument is to admit that they're fabricating that reasoning or narrative. Not even once did I try to minimize the casualties a first strike would have. I never said that the original argument was necessarily wrong. I did say that the general populace will make arguments to logic, and making individual points that are blatantly wrong except in the most liberal interpretation of the wording just enables the general populace to do so.

ryguytilidie 9y ago
Perhaps instead of writing proofs about how you came to believe what someone elses beliefs are, you could either: a) Not do that. b) Ask them what their views are if you're actually curious. Cheers.