Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
I'm not disagreeing with that. I just think it's pretty gross to suggest that people who care about this issue enough to protest it "aren't serious people."
|
Maybe they have very well-considered, thoughtful motivations for doing this and I just don't understand what they are. But I can't think of anything convincing and haven't heard anything convincing either.
Quote:
|
I think also think you can still reasonably say that some people are just upset about dead kids and want to hear the nominee acknowledge them. They may not have any pragmatic goals beyond that.
|
But see - and I don't know what Cliff meant by "not serious people" - this would fall into my concept of "unserious".
Why do you want to hear the nominee acknowledge that? Just her acknowledgment, without further action, accomplishes nothing and makes no one's life materially better - and I can see the argument that empty rhetoric in a political speech with no intention of acting on that rhetoric is worse than not saying anything at all. I mean, if Harris said "the oppression of Palestinians by the brutal Netanyahu regime must end immediately", maybe the people who agree with that feel good for a minute, but is that the "pragmatic goal" of a serious person? I would think you'd want her to actually DO something. And then the question becomes, what is that thing, and is this sort of behaviour more likely to make her do it?