yes. he did. hence: i disagree with his politics. but then he stopped it. and i think it's ok to give credit for him realizing his mistake and fixing it.
-
-
En réponse à @randileeharper
He stopped *one* thing, yet continued in the negative behavior in all other aspects. That's like giving a kid a cookie because they stopped hitting one kid, but continued hitting a bunch of others.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 3 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
there's a difference between stopping hitting one kid and doing this but also standing up against all of his friends that are hitting that kid to stop that kid from being hit and this metaphor just got confusing and it's irrelevant anyways. there's no cookies being rewarded.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @randileeharper @ChrisWarcraft
when did acknowledgement of someone unexpectedly doing a good thing become a cookie? if saying "this is a good thing" is some kind of reward, shouldn't we do that more often to encourage others to also do good things?
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @randileeharper
Yes, we should, but why so much focus on McCain? He's constantly made out to be this maverick and yet when you look at his voting record, with one notable exception, he's just as much an asshole as the rest of that racist party.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft
i'm not focusing on him. i'm focusing on the current news of him stopping treatment for brain cancer, and how i saw someone saying something similar but then watching them get dogpiled. why acknowledge anything good ever if that's what twitter looks like?
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @randileeharper @ChrisWarcraft
the point isn't even really him. it's that in the past 5 years, it became a radical act to say "this person that i don't like did one thing that i do like" and that is fucking terrifying.
1 réponse 1 Retweet 5 j'aime -
En réponse à @randileeharper
No, it hasn't. There are plenty of people I disagree with who I can praise when they do something good. You are, in this case, talking about someone who is *a bad person*, and who has consistently shown that through his actions.
3 réponses 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft @randileeharper
If we tolerate evil simply because it occasionally does something that benefits us, we are complicit in that evil.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 2 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft @randileeharper
this is basically taking the position that we shouldn't ever negotiate or attempt to find consensus with those we disagree with (because it makes us "complicit in evil"). this is where resistance ends and radicalism begins.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 1 j'aime
No, I'm saying that when someone has a sustained pattern of behavior, that they consistently engage in, then that's who they are. If they want to try to change? Good, I'm all for it, but a single act is not change. Change is a constant, ongoing commitment to be *better.*
-
-
We can disagree on tax policy and education and a whole host of other things, but when you back someone who views other people as subhuman, and WILLINGLY act for his benefit, you can go fuck yourself right the fuck off.
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @ChrisWarcraft @TheREALeataTREE
how is this backing him???? dude. no one is saying he's a good guy. no one is saying anything like that. no one is backing him.
2 réponses 0 Retweet 1 j'aime - Voir les réponses
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.