• alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    The way you (and others in this sub) approach it is very all-or-nothing and very ineffective.

    We should say, “thanks Lizzy for speaking up, we appreciate you and we would ask you to support an arms embargo so that our tax money doesn’t go towards killing innocent children”.

    This is exactly what the more effective anti-genocide activists are doing.

    • the_post_of_tom_joad [any, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Me: brings verifiable information to the subject at hand

      You: pivots to personal attacks

      If you were an objective observer of this discussion, which of these two parties would you say failed to avoid logical fallacies/engage in effective activism of their cause?

    • Cowbee [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The way you’re approaching genocide is very “nothing is all.” Look at her voting record. Expressing vocally and actually voting are different subjects.

      We should say, “thanks Lizzy for speaking up, we appreciate you and we would ask you to support an arms embargo so that our tax money doesn’t go towards killing innocent children”.

      Why? It’s not bad to speak up, but if nothing is materially changing, it’s nothing but vibes.

      This is exactly what the more effective anti-genocide activists are doing.

      Wrong. The more effective anti-genocide activists are Palestine Action, and they are directly sabotaging the tools used to facilitate genocide, not standing and clapping for someone who has voted for genocide for decades.