3 ms·

You're offended. Now, refute the characterization with cogent, rational arguments. Leaving off your own arguments and simply stating that you're affronted doesn

• bitshiftfaced 3y ago
  The point it serves is to communicate an opposing perspective, one that says there's something wrong with stereotyping a whole nation of people by basically saying they lack the ability to empathize and are sadistic and cruel. > 91 Percent of Americans Support Criminal Justice Reform, ACLU Polling Finds https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/91-percent-americans-support-criminal-justice-reform-aclu-polling-finds https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/91-percent-americans-sup...
  • atmavatar 3y ago
    I think it's perfectly fair for an outside party to claim that the actions of a democratically-elected government represent the will of its citizens -- at least as an opening comment, surely. Though, it's true that there are a lot of reasons why the US government fails to accurately represent a majority of its citizens on many (perhaps even most!) issues. I might even argue that our political party and electoral systems are currently structured such that our "representatives" largely don't even have to care about the will of the US citizenry. But, I'd hardly expect everyone outside the US to understand that, particularly if they lived in one of the many first-world countries with better-functioning systems. Starting with that link as a rebuttal rather than a conversation-terminating "I am offended" response would have been more productive.