Clearly if it was “all” (and that’s just if that “all” is only for Americans) the Democrats’ poll numbers would not have gone up when Joe Biden was replaced by Kamala Harris.
If you go more broadly than just America, in most of Europe for example people do have more voting options than Fascists and ethno-Fascist supporters, so that “all” would be even more distant from reality than just counting Lemmy users from the US.
Further, this is Lemmy, which is much more to the Left than pretty much all general (i.e. not specific to a certain political ideology) social media.
Also and more as a general coment, when people use “all”, “always”, “never”, “everybody”, “nobody” and other statements about 100% or 0% of people doing something, it’s almost always a prejudiced false statement. I’m pretty sure we can find plenty of people even in countries with fake-Democracies with no real choices that would rather refrain from participating altogether rather than vote for somebody who supports Genocidal ethno-Fascists.
Don’t get me wrong: I did plenty of arguing against people here defending that Americans should vote for the ethno-Fascism lover to defeat the wannabe-Fascist, but presuming they’re “all” like those American defending that most Max Grouchian take on Principles (“These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others”) is a very prejudiced take, IMHO.
The venn diagram of “people who think China is committing genocide” and “people who refuse to vote for genocide” has almost zero overlap. I would be surprised if even one such person existed, but I suppose it’s technically possible.
So, congratulations, you’re a special exception to a general rule. I’d be shocked to hell and back if there were more of you.
Including you? I assumed you were opposed to voting for genocide, but still believed it made sense to accuse China of genocide. Could you please explain where I was wrong?
My position on the Uyghurs in China is “I don’t know for sure because the information space about this in the West is too poluted by propaganda”. That is neither a “Yes”, nor a “No”, it’s a “I’m not well informed enough to judge”.
(It’s funny because I’m a member of a small Leftwing party in my own country and during voting in the National Conference was one of the few people who would actually Abstrain on some votes - rather than always Approve or Deny - because I avoid taking a stand if I feel I don’t know enough to have an informed opinion).
Mind you, I would like a proper and impartial Human Rights Court investigation on this to clear all the bullshit flying around and IF it is a Genocide, for it to be stopped and the guilty parts punished.
Okay, so then you aren’t an exception to the rule and the venn diagram I described before continues to have no overlap.
If you’d allow me to clarify my point, I’m saying anyone who thinks China is committing genocide and is of voting age in the US and is commenting on political comments sections on the internet is going to vote for Israel to commit genocide. I don’t think this is a controversial assumption.
I’m pretty sure there will be some who will refuse to vote or vote for an independent, hence not voting for Israel to commit Genocide. It’s likely that some of those have come to believe that China too is commiting a Genocide.
I doubt it be a majority or even a significant minority, but there really is no physical or psychological reason that out of 240 million or so Americans of voting age there aren’t some who fullfil all of those criteria you claim to be impossible to find together.
I think you’re seeing some louder individuals commenting on political comments sections on the internet who talk about the “Chinese Genocide” and who talk about people having a duty to “vote Democrat to stop Trump” (hence de facto voting for Israel to commit genocide) and you think “they’re all like data” whilst not noticing that lots of people make one kind of comment or the other kind of comment but not both.
(This is actual quite a common perceptual flaw for humans and why Science has such strict rules when conducting experiments: people tend to notice that which confirms what they already believe also tend to notice when something happens but NOT notice when something does not happen).
Mind you, if you had said “most people” I would tend to agree with you, but you instead used a word which means 100% of people (“anyone”) and claims about people are almost never true for 100% or 0% of individuals in a large enough group.
Clearly if it was “all” (and that’s just if that “all” is only for Americans) the Democrats’ poll numbers would not have gone up when Joe Biden was replaced by Kamala Harris.
If you go more broadly than just America, in most of Europe for example people do have more voting options than Fascists and ethno-Fascist supporters, so that “all” would be even more distant from reality than just counting Lemmy users from the US.
Further, this is Lemmy, which is much more to the Left than pretty much all general (i.e. not specific to a certain political ideology) social media.
Also and more as a general coment, when people use “all”, “always”, “never”, “everybody”, “nobody” and other statements about 100% or 0% of people doing something, it’s almost always a prejudiced false statement. I’m pretty sure we can find plenty of people even in countries with fake-Democracies with no real choices that would rather refrain from participating altogether rather than vote for somebody who supports Genocidal ethno-Fascists.
Don’t get me wrong: I did plenty of arguing against people here defending that Americans should vote for the ethno-Fascism lover to defeat the wannabe-Fascist, but presuming they’re “all” like those American defending that most Max Grouchian take on Principles (“These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others”) is a very prejudiced take, IMHO.
The venn diagram of “people who think China is committing genocide” and “people who refuse to vote for genocide” has almost zero overlap. I would be surprised if even one such person existed, but I suppose it’s technically possible.
So, congratulations, you’re a special exception to a general rule. I’d be shocked to hell and back if there were more of you.
You’re assuming way too much about everybody, including me.
Including you? I assumed you were opposed to voting for genocide, but still believed it made sense to accuse China of genocide. Could you please explain where I was wrong?
You assumed wrong.
My position on the Uyghurs in China is “I don’t know for sure because the information space about this in the West is too poluted by propaganda”. That is neither a “Yes”, nor a “No”, it’s a “I’m not well informed enough to judge”.
(It’s funny because I’m a member of a small Leftwing party in my own country and during voting in the National Conference was one of the few people who would actually Abstrain on some votes - rather than always Approve or Deny - because I avoid taking a stand if I feel I don’t know enough to have an informed opinion).
Mind you, I would like a proper and impartial Human Rights Court investigation on this to clear all the bullshit flying around and IF it is a Genocide, for it to be stopped and the guilty parts punished.
Okay, so then you aren’t an exception to the rule and the venn diagram I described before continues to have no overlap.
If you’d allow me to clarify my point, I’m saying anyone who thinks China is committing genocide and is of voting age in the US and is commenting on political comments sections on the internet is going to vote for Israel to commit genocide. I don’t think this is a controversial assumption.
I’m pretty sure there will be some who will refuse to vote or vote for an independent, hence not voting for Israel to commit Genocide. It’s likely that some of those have come to believe that China too is commiting a Genocide.
I doubt it be a majority or even a significant minority, but there really is no physical or psychological reason that out of 240 million or so Americans of voting age there aren’t some who fullfil all of those criteria you claim to be impossible to find together.
I think you’re seeing some louder individuals commenting on political comments sections on the internet who talk about the “Chinese Genocide” and who talk about people having a duty to “vote Democrat to stop Trump” (hence de facto voting for Israel to commit genocide) and you think “they’re all like data” whilst not noticing that lots of people make one kind of comment or the other kind of comment but not both.
(This is actual quite a common perceptual flaw for humans and why Science has such strict rules when conducting experiments: people tend to notice that which confirms what they already believe also tend to notice when something happens but NOT notice when something does not happen).
Mind you, if you had said “most people” I would tend to agree with you, but you instead used a word which means 100% of people (“anyone”) and claims about people are almost never true for 100% or 0% of individuals in a large enough group.