That is not what is happening here with Dotcom though.
Kim Dotcom spreads misinformation and in doing so provides justification for russia’s invasion and genocide in Ukraine. It’s no different from someone saying about WWII that the Jews had it coming.
It is an entirely accurate sentence. They did invade Ukraine (I would know; I was there), they have committed mass atrocities against the civilian population, and they have stolen thousands of children. These comprise the literal definition of the word genocide.
If I could prove that stance as morally incorrect? I’m sorry? Are you suggesting that genocide is morally righteous? Would you be comfortable sharing this position with your parents or your employer?
>Are you suggesting that genocide is morally righteous?
This is, unironically, why people got tired of the left in the US. I don't mean to start controversy on that particular topic (the US election), only remark that I never suggested something even remotely close to that and yet you somehow assumed the worst interpretation you could come up with, just so you could have an imaginary "win".
"Do you want to donate to the victims of hurricane X?" "Nope." "Oh, I see, so you want them to DIE!"
People. are. tired. of. that.
>Would you be comfortable sharing this position with your parents or your employer?
Absolutely! My parents love me for who I am and I don't have to pretend to be anyone else, but me, for them to accept me. They would be the last people on Earth I would hide something from. I'm also fortunate enough to be in a work environment where mature people can say what they think without fear of being discriminated, judged or profiled by it. Would recommend.
You’ve done the same thing you accuse them of doing. You also “somehow assumed the worst interpretation you could come up with, just so you could have an imaginary "win”.” They asked "Are you suggesting that genocide is morally righteous?" — it wasn’t a statement that I could read into. Unlike the combination of statements they replied too.
>There's people in the world who believe it's justified. (russia’s invasion and genocide in Ukraine)
>Even if somehow you could prove that stance as being morally incorrect …
Implies that proof is needed to call Ukrainian genocide morally incorrect. If that is not what you meant, then I would be curious to also know what was meant, not because Ukraine-Russia, my emotions don't have a dog in that fight and I won't be jumping into it--simply for better understanding of the phrasing/wording, not a big deal thou tbh.
I, personally, read their response as being confused to the implications and posing questions asking for clarification.
The ending part about being comfortable sharing that position, I would take as an emotional bit that should be discarded if following the rules of the site to participate in good faith (not assuming the worst) due to their stated closeness to the situation. (I also don’t agree with the wording of the sentence before the part you say is loaded, I think it was a poor choice of words; not to the point of using antagonism as a response though)
Maybe you have your own closeness to something that would make your sounding off on genocide more palpable (somehow)..but was not stated, so them asking for clarification was not at all assuming the worst. Maybe you also used a poor choice of words, but instead of saying so when someone questioned it you went into this “gotcha ‘win’” thing you accuse them of.
It. is. as. tiring. as. things. the. “left”. does. Both "sides" simply do it in their own ways.
"I'm not friends with Jacob because he likes celebrity A and I like celebrity B".