3 ms·

I think discussions about invasions and attacks, even if they are uncomfortable, is totally reasonable. I'll happily talk with you about why American Imperialis

I think discussions about invasions and attacks, even if they are uncomfortable, is totally reasonable. I'll happily talk with you about why American Imperialism is bad until I'm blue in the face. I will say, when someone says we should attack civilians because of their government's foreign policy, I will say that crosses a line. It's unacceptable in my view. There's a huge gap between, "We should have uncomfortable discussions" and "those civilians deserved to die". And on the internet, it's really challenging to say what is hyperbole. Even if it was intended to be hyperbole, which is plausible, maybe it's a charged enough topic that one should choose a different (or more obviously) hyperbolic take.

nitrogen 6y ago
It's unacceptable in my view. Mine too, but it's standard rhetoric among a very, very large part (possibly a near-majority) of the US population. Tech companies are fueling that fire by showing that (from that perspective), yes, they really are the paternalistic coastal elites that the other half of the country suspected they were. Leaving aside the many ways in which this weapon of platform banning can be abused by future shifts in power -- Google, Twitter, AWS, and now Twitch are not helping the causes they claim to be helping with prominent bans, they are just building taller walls around the various echo chambers.
wongarsu 6y ago
By that logic "the use of atomic bombs in WWII was justified" should also be an unacceptable statement. ... I mean, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be unacceptable. Attacking civilians is pretty horrible and uncivilized. But is also is a common thread throughout most notable wars in the last 100 years or so.