you know how often the literal Nazi leaders publicly said they were doing a genocide, and were in support of genocide? while they were doing it? this is some flawed logic bud.
Support isn’t exclusively stating you explicitly support genocide and nothing else. The majority of support is going to look like people who refuse to mention anything at all about the genocide but show up to tell people AGAINST the genocide that their actions, methods, wording, and choices are wrong. that’s about the strongest public support you’ll see. if your argument is no one can call it support because she isn’t saying out loud ‘I support the genocide in Palestine’ you’re making a very bad argument. Historically, a supporter of atrocities is going to tell others to sit down and shut up, it’s going to claim nothing is actually happening, it’s going to argue that the law allows the abuse or forbids aid and that’s just because it’s the law, or something else along those lines, it’s never going to be someone saying they support the genocide directly.
can you look up which logical fallacy is the one where you ignore the argument and argue about the building the argument takes place in, I forget what it’s called…
you know how often the literal Nazi leaders publicly said they were doing a genocide, and were in support of genocide? while they were doing it? this is some flawed logic bud.
Is pink now doing the holocaust?
Support isn’t exclusively stating you explicitly support genocide and nothing else. The majority of support is going to look like people who refuse to mention anything at all about the genocide but show up to tell people AGAINST the genocide that their actions, methods, wording, and choices are wrong. that’s about the strongest public support you’ll see. if your argument is no one can call it support because she isn’t saying out loud ‘I support the genocide in Palestine’ you’re making a very bad argument. Historically, a supporter of atrocities is going to tell others to sit down and shut up, it’s going to claim nothing is actually happening, it’s going to argue that the law allows the abuse or forbids aid and that’s just because it’s the law, or something else along those lines, it’s never going to be someone saying they support the genocide directly.
That’s not support, that’s tolerance. Just like murder, there’s degrees of wrong.
you’re not making a comment your making a statement. this isn’t an argument is a disagreement. these aren’t words they’re collections of letters.
There’s no shades of gray on lemmy, I know. Any attempt at nuance bounces off.
can you look up which logical fallacy is the one where you ignore the argument and argue about the building the argument takes place in, I forget what it’s called…
I’m not surprised
you will be when you figure out reading comprehention. let me know when you get there.