you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    "I'm troubled by having someone who's already demonstrated that lack of judgement and awareness"

    It would be one thing if he did something criminal or malicious but having had shitty beliefs and then changing them just shows growth.

    Judging someone who's an ostensible ally and who is exactly the kind of change we want to see for having needed the change in the first place is circular logic and ultimately self-alienating.

    You say you're fine with people changing but your logic doesn't allow for anyone who's changed their views to be a representative.

    At this point it's not even about ideology anymore but just straight up identity politics.

    You're basically treating him like he's an ideological felon where he's allowed to continue existing but can't participate in politics.

    Sorry but I severely don't buy this original sin level of being forever unworthy just for having had different political beliefs in the past.

    We need to normalize growing up instead of relentlessly punishing people for having been misled naive at some point in their life.

    You say there's better people to run but I'd argue that a convert is absolutely the best person to run because it opens the door for more converts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Many people enter the military because of poor economic prospects, being crushed by capitalism is literally their best recruiting tool.

    Without knowing why he joined, holding his service history against him is effectively victim blaming.

    Not to mention that even if he was ideologically motivated he's now turned against something he literally fought for, showing massive positive growth.

    So either way his service history isn't a valid refute for the points I've previously brought up about change/growth.

    Sorry but this all seems like justification for indulging in identity politics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Now I know you're not an ideologically serious person. You refused to engage with anything I said and instead doubled down on missing every single point I brought up.

    Anything you say from here out is obviously informed solely by identity and not ideology.

    If actual ideology was the basis of your reasoning you would have brought up a single ideological point but you didn't and instead kept going back to identity.

    If you can name one critique that isn't just about his previous identity and your inability to let people grow and I'll recant about you not being serious but I severely doubt you can.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)