Your comment was written by AI. We have equivalent evidence.

Here’s your argument then. The very nature of the relationship between worker and boss under current capitalist economics is inherently exploitative. To further use that leveraged position as a cudgel when a worker does not use a gift you give them in the exact way you wanted is morally evil. The money is budgeted, the intent is irrelevant.

Defending this is a defense of a evil action in an inherently oppressive and exploitative situation already. Only someone who has done similar, or someone who feels the need to become the devils advocate would defend it. Neither of those people deserve to have their opinion respected, just as they, you, don’t respect the workers position or the scummyness of the action itself.

This argument will not convince you, because you have already sided with the boot and your tongue is glued to it.

Oh ho ho, looks like we got a haaaaard worker over here. Yeah dude, I’m a trust fund baby 10 million dollar loan from my father to open my professional esport beenie baby collection company that I hired someone else to run and yet still have an adversity to bootlicking bosses.

Or, I’m a regular guy who also still hates bootlicking abused of power.

Lick lick slurp slurp but it sounds to me like you moved on from the boot ifyouknowwhatimsayin.

It’s crazy to see people justify this. I wonder how they’d feel getting microscoped at work until fired. There’s always a cause if your scummy enough.

Lick lick lick slurp is all I see with this comment.

I love the paranoia of you nerds. It’s valid but idk how you spare the effort.

It’s the principle of it.

That’s evil bruh

Someone got onto me for “derailing the conversation”. The conversation in question was a quip. Super serious business only.

The bias bot is biased and mislabels sources in a way that legitimizes news sources that should not be given that, particularly it labels alt right news as factual and non Western sources (al Jazeera) as non factual due to being written by brown people.

It’s a propaganda bot trying to dictate legitimacy.

One of us has a morally defensible position backed with historical examples of similar events and the other doesn’t know how to even recognize a genocide is happening before his very eyes. That’s really the crux of the whole thing. You simply don’t see the wholesale slaughter of brown people as a genocide. My argument relies entirely on the moral backbone that opposing genocide is righteous. Your argument is to refuse your own eyes.

If that was your family, born behind a wall and then bombed to hell, I bet you would have a different tune. Sadly for people like you with no moral philosophy whatsoever, having no empathy for people experiencing things you don’t is pretty normal. It’s why Nazi Germany was able to do what it did. It’s why south Africa got away with what it did. It’s why the native Americans were genocided as they were. And it’s why right at this moment you fence sit a slaughter.

Of course it’s terrorism. But there is a difference between an all powerful state committing terrorism on people it doesn’t have to, and a people committing terrorism on their occupiers and genocides after having literally every other option of fighting back being removed.

You’ll nod your head to JFKs quote “those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable” and then sit on the fence when the inevitable happens. Acting like both sides are in the wrong when one side, the one with power in the situation committed to actions that everyone always knew would lead to this. I blame Israel for the death of its civilians due to palastinian terrorism.

Same as I do with the polish Warsaw ghetto uprising.

Same as I do with the IRA.

Same as I do with native American uprisings.

History is filled with noble causes resulting to terrorism due to the complete lack of any other options. It’s not great. It’s not cool. It fuckin sucks. But at the end of the day, it is ALWAYS the fault of the oppressor. Every time. Always.

While a funny quip, states are capable of terrorism. See Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden, the blitz. Ya know I was hoping I would off the top of my head remember more than just WW2 examples, but here we are. I mean, besides Israel at the moment but that’s the topic so doesn’t really fit to the list.

Pretty normal to call a state that commits genocide a Nazi state as that’s the thing the Nazis did. That and the race mixing laws. Don’t forget it’s illegal to race mix in Israel. Ethno state, famously also a Nazi thing. This isn’t hyperbole, it’s a pretty direct comparison.

And the Nazis had a point or two as well didn’t they? Let’s break down the pros and cons of genocide, let’s not be so hasty to judge.

Unlike you, I don’t need to wait for historians to reach a consensus on the evils of my time.

Eem

Oh no, let me understand the perspective of people bombing civilians to cause them to lose faith in the local militia group for the sake of colonization and conquest. I’m sure they have a good reason.

Gottem

What else do you call the bombing of civilians.

Ramificate Deez nuts