smell that? that’s the stench of “inauthentic behavior”

>me when i lie

he’s not uninformed. he’s lying deliberately

you certainly seem like one, given how loudly and insistently you insist you don’t really care or know who he is. your behavior & speech don’t align, which indicates malice rather than ignorance.

elsewhere he claims his kids only know him as the “guy who electrocuted his dog”—he’s hiding centrist vitriol under a thin layer of pretense

“hasan piker electrocuted his dog” remains an excellent filter for fools with nothing worthwhile to contribute.

both strong & weak, an enemy-perception dialectic that seems strangely familiar

you’re “not wild about” genocide? that’s it? do you think that all opposition to mass murder is affective and mutable? are you aware that some people don’t have a number of dead children that they can accept for the sake of The Big Win?

oh wait, you denied the plain fact of harris’ campaigning on providing unconditional military aid to israel in their programme of palestinian eradication. you aren’t, actually, a person with a principled stance on the horror of genocide. apologies for mistaking you for a decent human being

i believe in the better angels of his nature. i initially believe it of just about everyone i interact with on here, as implausible as that may seem from my posting history

ok so as a person with a principled stance on the horror of genocide, what issue do you have with truthfully naming harris as a genocide supporter?

“americans are too racist to elect a Black person”

>points out this is factually untrue

“this is the I Have A Black Friend theory, anyway americans are too racist to elect a Black person”

let’s not get hasty. we agree that israel is even now waging genocide upon the people of gaza. do you think that materially supporting a genocide is always unconscionably evil, or do you think it can be good sometimes to work to further its progress?

did she support a genocide? and should genocide be something that decent people of goodwill can legitimately compromise on?

is israel perpetrating a genocide in gaza?

i also don’t think you know how the electoral college works. my state sent all its electoral votes to harris. my choice and the choice of any given single harris voter here had the same result! by all rights you should be equally as steamed at them as you are at me!

i don’t see what’s so gobsmackingly crazy about holding a pol accountable for running a functional campaign that appeals to the clear, measurable desires of the electorate

do you think that genocide is always an unconscionable evil, or can it sometimes be good to support it?

“don’t call the hardline-antiimmigration pol funding the eradication of an entire people a nazi, it will empty the word of its meaning”

good advice from someone whose own strategy of appeasement lost the white house to a pedophile rapist twice

are there any ethical/political questions where compromise would be unconscionable to you? any issues where you would agree on holding a principled stance?

or, more bluntly: what’s the number of dead palestinian children that you would be comfortable compromising on?

depends on who’s human enough for you to include within that “we”

^example #4,2067 of a centrist hating the left more than nazis

i’m not sure how big the difference would have to be to outweigh the moral horror of her unqualified, unconditional material support of the world’s most visible genocide.

parker was critiquing the strategy of centrist votescolding on a results-based schema, just like you would ostensibly want. do you disagree that spray-n-pray contempt will not serve as an effective means to gain the result of persuading its targets to vote for your preferred candidates?

assuming this is true about the electorate, this would be a knowable, predictable factor that an effective campaign (i.e., one with a real interest in winning) would plan around & exploit.

seems like the problem is that harris didn’t have to alter her platform at all to get a fascist republican to support it

certainly democratic leadership has no interest in stopping it.

as you’re so invested in outcomes, it would be helpful to see your answer to my question.

by that very same token, hands eagerly raised to fund the world’s most visible genocide cannot be relied upon to be raised for human rights at all.

on the contrary, the mechanics of the federal presidential vote are directly relevant here. it does in fact matter that the result of this person’s choice in the ballot box is that his state sent its electoral votes to the candidate you wanted them to go to.