• nomous@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    It’s called a strawman to build an argument that was never made and then attack it.

    • Cleggory@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      You didn’t make this absurd claim?:

      If something affects both sides it’s effectively “a wash” and cancel each other out.

      If you are victimized, you believe you then have the right to also victimize “to cancel it out”?

      • nomous@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Context is important, that’s how we continue the conversation.

        If Candidate A is a genocidal maniac, and Candidate B is a genocidal maniac. It’s effectively a wash and pointless to say “well Candidate A supports genocide!”

        Hope this clarified my meaning.

        • Cleggory@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Criticizing genocide is pointless if both major candidates support it.

          Apathy has paved a basis for genocide throughout history, your view is not novel nor beneficial.