Conversation regarding topics aren’t binary, taking into account alternatives is not muddying the waters. I’m not sure why you think I was back tracking, and you’re the only person who " called me out". Funny you could have said something along the lines of at least we agree on bidens handling of this and that would have been that.
This isn’t an attempt to be binary. And I jumped in to the end of a conversation you were having with someone else.
And I’m not saying that we’re still disagreeing about Biden. I’m trying to get you to understand the nuance of this subject. Not the subject of who’s culpable here, but the conversation itself is the subject I’ve been trying to get you to see sense on.
Yes, it’s great you agree that what’s happening is terrible. But…assuming that’s the end of the conversation? That is trying to make this conversation binary.
The nuance here is that you dragging the election—not even the election, but the other candidate in a future election— into a conversation about what the current govt is doing (regardless of what other US presidents have done and will continue to do with Israel) is ignoring the basic fact that this is our recourse. And what your initial, like, five contributions to the conversation were, was to bring up someone else.
Whether you agree with the general idea or not, you were running cover by muddying the waters. Which kinda makes you complicit in complicity.
This isn’t just a “you agree with us or you’re against us” situation. This is a “the way you engage with this topic is subtly undermining the people you’re claiming to support and muddying the waters of the conversation while undercutting the efficacy and possible future support of ending the genocide.”
I’ll try to go back into my comment history to find where I’ve taken a similar position to yours. But that’s what I mean by nuance. It’s not as simple as “agree. Convo over.” It’s, yes, I technically do agree that trump would be far worse for Palestine and piling domestic controversy after domestic controversy on top of the current laser focus on this one situation would derail the movement and diffuse the pressure. But right now, under this administration, we have a chance to pressure this admin to save some lives. I know you agree. That isn’t my point. My point is that how we discuss the topic matters, and you bringing up technically unrelated things in the conversation about the issue is problematic.
Again, it’s nuanced. We’re both technically agreeing on the overarching issue. But the conversation is the topic and that’s what I’m trying to get you to see. The fact that you think agreeing on biden’s problematic behavior would be the end of the conversation is further proof you’re not getting my point.
Conversation regarding topics aren’t binary, taking into account alternatives is not muddying the waters. I’m not sure why you think I was back tracking, and you’re the only person who " called me out". Funny you could have said something along the lines of at least we agree on bidens handling of this and that would have been that.
This isn’t an attempt to be binary. And I jumped in to the end of a conversation you were having with someone else.
And I’m not saying that we’re still disagreeing about Biden. I’m trying to get you to understand the nuance of this subject. Not the subject of who’s culpable here, but the conversation itself is the subject I’ve been trying to get you to see sense on.
Yes, it’s great you agree that what’s happening is terrible. But…assuming that’s the end of the conversation? That is trying to make this conversation binary.
The nuance here is that you dragging the election—not even the election, but the other candidate in a future election— into a conversation about what the current govt is doing (regardless of what other US presidents have done and will continue to do with Israel) is ignoring the basic fact that this is our recourse. And what your initial, like, five contributions to the conversation were, was to bring up someone else.
Whether you agree with the general idea or not, you were running cover by muddying the waters. Which kinda makes you complicit in complicity.
This isn’t just a “you agree with us or you’re against us” situation. This is a “the way you engage with this topic is subtly undermining the people you’re claiming to support and muddying the waters of the conversation while undercutting the efficacy and possible future support of ending the genocide.”
I’ll try to go back into my comment history to find where I’ve taken a similar position to yours. But that’s what I mean by nuance. It’s not as simple as “agree. Convo over.” It’s, yes, I technically do agree that trump would be far worse for Palestine and piling domestic controversy after domestic controversy on top of the current laser focus on this one situation would derail the movement and diffuse the pressure. But right now, under this administration, we have a chance to pressure this admin to save some lives. I know you agree. That isn’t my point. My point is that how we discuss the topic matters, and you bringing up technically unrelated things in the conversation about the issue is problematic.
Again, it’s nuanced. We’re both technically agreeing on the overarching issue. But the conversation is the topic and that’s what I’m trying to get you to see. The fact that you think agreeing on biden’s problematic behavior would be the end of the conversation is further proof you’re not getting my point.
No, I understand your point.
You had a quote of something along the lines of “its not trump is a criminal” that’s what I was replying to.
okay, I guess we’re not gonna meet where I’d hoped in this convo. Take care
Seems so. You take care as well.