In fact, it’s you, as I’ve pointed out countless times.
By helping trump win to preserve the purity of your vote/voice, you are sacrificing every person harmed by Trump who wouldn’t have been harmed by Kamala. And that is a lot of people.
oh, the stress upon the marginalisation is not in some naive all-or-nothing belief in grabbing the first one you see and running with that. it's because the way you personally talk about them always sounds like you can't even tell when they're in the group and/or are speaking from experience.
unfortunately, now that you've misread that stress upon marginalisation that way, and tacked on a complaint against general leftwing minority oppression discourse, you rightfully risk being seen as also trying to inject 2014-era anti-"sjw" internet-conservatism into your pragmatic-liberalism stance.
Some of them have been marginalized, some have not.
But news flash: Marginalized people can be wrong, and only a small minority of marginalized people subscribe to the whacky far-left beliefs you lot do.
I’m advocating for them as a whole by arguing against a select few with dumb ideologies.
Comments
Arguing with members of the various, "fewer losses" groups.
To their faces.
Often as if you, Ron, couldn't tell/believe, they were from those groups.
To argue about saving the many vs the few, you have to look the few in the eye, Ron.
This kind of shit has people fleeing from the left in droves, and it’s totally pathetic.
And it’s hypocritical, because the moment another marginalized person disagrees, suddenly the idea goes out the window.
By helping trump win to preserve the purity of your vote/voice, you are sacrificing every person harmed by Trump who wouldn’t have been harmed by Kamala. And that is a lot of people.
But news flash: Marginalized people can be wrong, and only a small minority of marginalized people subscribe to the whacky far-left beliefs you lot do.
I’m advocating for them as a whole by arguing against a select few with dumb ideologies.