Also, the vast majority of people in the military aren’t in combat positions. And if we are equating all military members as mass murderers for aiding the war effort then every citizen who pays taxes in a NATO country is just as culpable.
You can’t just selectively apply nuance when it suits your opinion.
Also, the vast majority of people in the military aren’t in combat positions.
Wow they’re just desk job Nazi’s. Or logistics Nazi’s. This makes everything different!
Can you apply the same to ICE? Because it sure seems to me the crux of every single of your arguments is that white lives are superior and killing brown civilians is totally fine because they’re expendable.
Wow they’re just desk job Nazi’s. Or logistics Nazi’s. This makes everything different!
So just ignoring the rest of the argument? So you’re not paying for the Nazis in anyway? The citizens who paid for the resources the military used were still Nazis as well… Again you can’t just choose when and where to insert nuance.
This is why nuance is important. I’m not claiming that we should equate all levels of support as the same, that your argument. My example shows how doing so is illogical. There is a difference between a veteran who is still a chud and a veteran who is radicalized against his own service.
Can you apply the same to ICE?
If a person who was in ice became a leftist that helped fight ice that would be great. What is the alternative?
is that white lives are superior and killing brown civilians is totally fine because they’re expendable.
Lol, I’m not white and when did I say I support the military? I support people who are radicalized against the military, even if they formerly served it.
Paying taxes is the same as joining ICE everyone!
Again, that is an example I used to show you how ignoring nuance is bad…
Reading comprehension is something you may want to work on.
No they want better benefits for ICE agents. They don’t want to fight ICE.
Lol, that’s a strawman of your own making.
I didn’t say i would support an ice agent who only criticized ice because they want more benefits. I said I would support an ice agent if they were actually radicalized to fight against ice because their service illuminated them about class consciousness.
Oh can you find me the “leftist veteran” which advocates against more benefits for veterans? Sure seems like one of us is strawmanning here. What’s that in the comment above, are those… examples?
Can you find me the “leftist veteran” which advocates against more benefits for veterans?
How is that criteria necessary for being a leftist? Also… How does that logically make any sense?
Even if you aren’t a veteran and are just a leftist, wouldn’t you want more benefits to veterans even if it was to just drain more money from the empire and make war an even more expensive prospect?
On the other side, if you were a soldier who became a leftist and completely rejects any association with the military including your benefits. Is that something you would go around and telling to people or being quoted about? You’re basically asking me to prove a negative that doesn’t even make any sense to begin with.
Even if you aren’t a veteran and are just a leftist, wouldn’t you want more benefits to veterans even if it was to just drain more money from the empire and make war an even more expensive prospect?
“Wouldn’t you want to give mass murderers more money? That would be an epic win!”
And the citizens who funded the Nazi military were also Nazi…
My point is that without some level of nuance anyone who pays taxes to a NATO government is in some way culpable for the crimes against the Iraqi and Afghan people.
We need to have the nuance to say that a veteran who has been radicalized against American imperialism is infact better than a veteran who is still a right winged chud.
No one is currently running a revolution…?
Also, the vast majority of people in the military aren’t in combat positions. And if we are equating all military members as mass murderers for aiding the war effort then every citizen who pays taxes in a NATO country is just as culpable.
You can’t just selectively apply nuance when it suits your opinion.
Wow they’re just desk job Nazi’s. Or logistics Nazi’s. This makes everything different!
Can you apply the same to ICE? Because it sure seems to me the crux of every single of your arguments is that white lives are superior and killing brown civilians is totally fine because they’re expendable.
Paying taxes is the same as joining ICE everyone!
So just ignoring the rest of the argument? So you’re not paying for the Nazis in anyway? The citizens who paid for the resources the military used were still Nazis as well… Again you can’t just choose when and where to insert nuance.
This is why nuance is important. I’m not claiming that we should equate all levels of support as the same, that your argument. My example shows how doing so is illogical. There is a difference between a veteran who is still a chud and a veteran who is radicalized against his own service.
If a person who was in ice became a leftist that helped fight ice that would be great. What is the alternative?
Lol, I’m not white and when did I say I support the military? I support people who are radicalized against the military, even if they formerly served it.
Again, that is an example I used to show you how ignoring nuance is bad…
Reading comprehension is something you may want to work on.
No they want better benefits for ICE agents. They don’t want to fight ICE.
For context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zb6fZCqdrQ
Lol, that’s a strawman of your own making.
I didn’t say i would support an ice agent who only criticized ice because they want more benefits. I said I would support an ice agent if they were actually radicalized to fight against ice because their service illuminated them about class consciousness.
Again, you are just exercising a logical fallacy.
Oh can you find me the “leftist veteran” which advocates against more benefits for veterans? Sure seems like one of us is strawmanning here. What’s that in the comment above, are those… examples?
How is that criteria necessary for being a leftist? Also… How does that logically make any sense?
Even if you aren’t a veteran and are just a leftist, wouldn’t you want more benefits to veterans even if it was to just drain more money from the empire and make war an even more expensive prospect?
On the other side, if you were a soldier who became a leftist and completely rejects any association with the military including your benefits. Is that something you would go around and telling to people or being quoted about? You’re basically asking me to prove a negative that doesn’t even make any sense to begin with.
“Wouldn’t you want to give mass murderers more money? That would be an epic win!”
Alright blocked bye.
Yeah, Nazis also had secretaries…
And the citizens who funded the Nazi military were also Nazi…
My point is that without some level of nuance anyone who pays taxes to a NATO government is in some way culpable for the crimes against the Iraqi and Afghan people.
We need to have the nuance to say that a veteran who has been radicalized against American imperialism is infact better than a veteran who is still a right winged chud.