I’m choosing to believe they were being sarcastic but yeah. Don’t forget that the tankies would rather have everyone die than not have every one of their demands met under their terms.
Yeah and I would wager that tankies are actually even doing it intentionally some decent percentage of the time because it’s a movement based in ego and supremacy, and that usually follows that they tend to have a lot of sacrificable out groups…
The problem with “All lives matter” is that it dismisses the fact that there is racial discrimination alive and well in our law enforcement system.
This is an argument against ideological purists kneecapping ONE movement trying to make change in order to maintain their purity. The effectiveness of that change is very much up for debate, but the sacrifice people who choose to vote are making is negligible compared to the potential impact their vote CAN make (see Zhoran Mamdani or Donald Trump for the extremes of that change).
The goal of this argument is not to discount the concerns of the people who refuse to vote, but to advocate for them to use their privilege, in spite of their disagreements, to increase the likelihood that this ONE method will have the CHANCE to try to affect positive (or at least less negative) change.
So if I’m in plane that’s lost pressure with an oxygen mask on, I shouldn’t help anyone get their’s on because I couldn’t help everyone get their masks on in the like 1.5 minutes you get before brain damage?
Like I know this is a slippery slope example, and I do a agree with you that you should aim to save as many lives as possible…
But FFS this is literally the same wording right-wing politicians use to break down laws and decay public infrastructure because if it can’t work perfectly its not worth having, and then they let companies in to canabalize what’s left.
My point was that the “if you won’t save everyone, why save anyone” argument is dumb. I would rather vote the bastards running things right now out and replace them with boring and ineffective Democrats.
Sure, it would be better to put someone with a spine who will repudiate and fix everything the Trump administration has done. But the “don’t vote, the Democrats aren’t good enough” crowd would rather let even worse people run things.
Ok i think there may have been several misunderstandings. I took the commemt ypu replied to as a facecious statement lampooning those who refuse to vote for someone unless they check every box. Spiting progress for perfection. I took your comment to be in support of that voting strategy
If you don’t save everyone, what’s the point in saving anyone?
To virtue signal, naturally
Don’t save a drowning child because there could be other drowning children who didn’t get saved. /s
Don’t turn off the orphan crushing machine because sometimes it spares the white ones
Except your solutions don’t turn it off, they turn it up.
Big “all lives matter” vibes
I’m choosing to believe they were being sarcastic but yeah. Don’t forget that the tankies would rather have everyone die than not have every one of their demands met under their terms.
Literally. Tankies would gladly sacrifice every trans person if they thought it would usher in their nonsense global revolution.
Yeah and I would wager that tankies are actually even doing it intentionally some decent percentage of the time because it’s a movement based in ego and supremacy, and that usually follows that they tend to have a lot of sacrificable out groups…
Not really.
The problem with “All lives matter” is that it dismisses the fact that there is racial discrimination alive and well in our law enforcement system.
This is an argument against ideological purists kneecapping ONE movement trying to make change in order to maintain their purity. The effectiveness of that change is very much up for debate, but the sacrifice people who choose to vote are making is negligible compared to the potential impact their vote CAN make (see Zhoran Mamdani or Donald Trump for the extremes of that change).
The goal of this argument is not to discount the concerns of the people who refuse to vote, but to advocate for them to use their privilege, in spite of their disagreements, to increase the likelihood that this ONE method will have the CHANCE to try to affect positive (or at least less negative) change.
Sometimes, ya gotta punish people loudly as a deterrent. Nazis, I mean. Let’s not save the Nazis.
So if I’m in plane that’s lost pressure with an oxygen mask on, I shouldn’t help anyone get their’s on because I couldn’t help everyone get their masks on in the like 1.5 minutes you get before brain damage?
Like I know this is a slippery slope example, and I do a agree with you that you should aim to save as many lives as possible…
But FFS this is literally the same wording right-wing politicians use to break down laws and decay public infrastructure because if it can’t work perfectly its not worth having, and then they let companies in to canabalize what’s left.
I think that’s the point, the person forgot to put the /s so people who don’t get it was sarcasm can see it was sarcasm.
WAS it sarcasm?
Yeah I mean, pretty easy to tell related to the situation.
With the range of political opinions on lemmy, Poe’s law is definitely in effect.
The argument of the 2024 Presidebtial election.
If you won’t save anyone, what’s the point in pretending you want to save everyone?
What was the death count on the cancellation of us aid again
https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/07/01/nx-s1-5452513/trump-usaid-foreign-aid-deaths
But i guess you dont care about them
I think you might be misunderstanding me?
My point was that the “if you won’t save everyone, why save anyone” argument is dumb. I would rather vote the bastards running things right now out and replace them with boring and ineffective Democrats.
Sure, it would be better to put someone with a spine who will repudiate and fix everything the Trump administration has done. But the “don’t vote, the Democrats aren’t good enough” crowd would rather let even worse people run things.
Ok i think there may have been several misunderstandings. I took the commemt ypu replied to as a facecious statement lampooning those who refuse to vote for someone unless they check every box. Spiting progress for perfection. I took your comment to be in support of that voting strategy