SmilingSolaris

Brother, I cannot express to you how weird it is that you so blatantly throw gazan lives in the "already dead pile, so not really apart of the conversation, except for those who want no dead people. Those are the real killers. Not the killers I want you to vote for. You practically voted for the killers I didn't want you to vote for!"

Look brother. At the end of the day, we both voted for a genocidal regime. I took it as an unfortunate lesser evil choice that failed due to the lesser evil not being lesser enough on the evil.

You sit here and argue some weird logical loop that somehow means you actually, the guy who voted for the genocidal regime, are somehow less culpable to that continued genocide than the person who couldn't condone that coming from their actions.

It's weird. It's self righteous and I don't get it. You got off the hook. You don't get to see the genocide you voted for, you got a different one you didn't. But that doesn't absolve you and it doesn't absolve me. Eat it and move on with more productive things.

And I get that. But I also get not wanting to vote for someone who is willing to save you but not willing to save someone you think is also worth saving. That's a pretty large ask of someone morally. At what point do you stop blaming the people who's morals held them to too high a standard and start blaming the people who couldn't meet the bar of "don't support a genocide".

Like, your really going to spend time,effort and soul into being mad at the guy unwilling to compromise on their morality for their own safety rather than the guys who can't stack up to what should be an easy ask?

Just weird priorities brother. I get the harm reduction argument. I voted and whatnot. But the moment that election was over, I was way more mad at the folks who couldn't help but declare how much they won't budge on genocide instead of my friends and ideological comrades. At the end of the day it was those running the election who lost it.

Brother told me he will keep attacking leftists who "didn't vote for harm reduction" until he gets an "olive branch" from those leftist ghosts living in his head.

Idk man. It sounds like your not really angry at a person or an organization but a straw man you built up in your head. What your asking for is for a vague group of leftists to apologize.

Idk man, if that's the case I think we could all use less leftist infighting that we are known for.

Man you keep just making a variation on the same "fuck the leftists" line over and over again.

Prime directive does not just apply to first contact. The easiest example would be the entire show DS9 but also just the first episode where Picard is giving orders to sisko.

PICARD: <........ >I've come to know the Bajorans. I'm a strong proponents for their entry into the Federation.

SISKO: Is it going to happen?

PICARD: Not easily. The ruling parties are at each others throats. Factions that were united against the Cardassians have resumed old conflicts.

SISKO: Sounds like they're not ready.

PICARD: Your job is to do everything short of violating the Prime Directive to make sure that they are. <.......>

Here we can clearly see the prime directive being referenced in regards to a space age civilization that already has contact and awareness of the galaxy at large and who funnily enough consists of a bunch of religious terrorists. Honestly bajor was a better example but the Klingons are more disagreeable from a moral standpoint. What with their racism and misogyny

Unfortunately not how you would want it to.

Good. Landlords should be scared.

Prime directive does not necessarily mean isolation, either imposed on the self or on the other (ignoring pre space civilizations, we ain't arguing about uncontacted tribal jungle folk are we?) you are making assumptions of my argument that I did not make and ran with that.

It's interesting that everyone who has replied to me about this wants to talk about the prime directive in relation to less advanced society when the subject at hand is Afghanistan. Despite me using Klingons, a peer to the federation, in my example.

Out of curiosity, why did you choose to ignore the framing I laid out and instead chose to focus on the concept of isolation and uncontacted peoples with relation to the prime directive?

Contact is not intervention. Why are you interpreting what I am saying as cutting complete contact and forcing isolation? You and the person I originally replied to jumped to conclusions on questions I offered and assumed arguments I didn't make, wouldn't make, and wasn't implying.

I ain't continuing a discussion like that. But hey, wanna restart and try again? I'm open to it. But you'll have to listen to me and I'll promise to listen to you. Not the vague shapes in our head about each other filled with assumptions and guesswork from the I'm sure billion other online interactions we have had with similar people, but to listen to each other in the vacuum of this thread. Not assuming anything. You think I have an implication I am making, you can ask.