3 ms·
It's basically suggesting that 'if you don't like the status quo, you should leave the country'. Firstly it's ridiculous - you are entitled to live in the count
by ubercow13 6y ago
It's basically suggesting that 'if you don't like the status quo, you should leave the country'. Firstly it's ridiculous - you are entitled to live in the country of which you are a citizen and not love everything about it. It's still your home.
It's anti-democratic because it's suggesting dissenting or minority views should be pushed out and not have a voice.
It's nationalistic because it's sugsesting there is one political view which is associated with belonging to the country, and anyone who doesn't agree with it is not part of that national identity and doesn't belong there.
I admit my penchant for democracy might have coloured my language when I called it 'disgusting', though. I wasn't engaging in any way with the substance of their comment.
- tomp 6y agoI like this idea. Voting is just one way, and leaving should definitely not be taken off the table, nor does mentioning that it's always an option imply that you're encouraging people not to vote. You're making up way too much stuff about what the poster actually meant. In particular as they said "if that so upsets you" so obviously not just as a first step but if they literally can't stomach it - you definitely can live in the country if you don't love anything about it, but you also can leave if it's too much. "Voting with your feet." Or are you saying the Jews were absolutely wrong to leave pre-Nazi Germany (while it was still a democracy) because they should have stayed and voted their way out of the problems?