by hackyhacky 5 hours ago
> That is not so bad, right? It is not like they are wiped off the face of the earth. They just lose free $$$.
I have no idea where you get the idea of "free money." The government invests in science, business, and developments that help the country; and decisions involving that investment should not be colored by adherence to the current administration's political agenda. I'm not concerned about the careers of the affected individuals, as unjust as that is; I'm concerned about the damage to the country, to our relationship with our allies, and to our standing in the world. Instead we get this: Businesses that flatter Trump get to have acquisitions, and those that don't get their contracts cancelled. The new "political correctness" is towing the line for Trumpian misinformation.
I'm also not just talking about investments, but employment. Think about the jobs of federal employees for daring to have an opinion that contradicts Dear Leader.
> If a government feels that they don't contribute positively to the society,
That's a disingenuous argument. No one believes that the Trump administration is making decisions about who to support based on what is good for the country. Paramount's acquisition of WBD will be allowed for no other reason than because it helps Trump. Universities are targeted not because they are doing bad work but because they are seen as popular among the opposition. The government is defunding research not because it isn't contributing positively, but because it contradicts the government's a priori talking points. The damage done to society as a result of the defunding is, for them, just collateral damage.
> That does not mean every voice that is enabled is a "Nazi"
I never said that every voice on the right is a Nazi, just that Nazis are among those voices. And that's enough for me: if the government is supporting any Nazis and racists, as they evidently are, that's too many. And if your argument is "Hey, not all of us are literal Nazis", then you are not doing anything to advance your position.
> And that's enough for me
So you ll start rejecting any argument that you supported before, as soon as a "Nazi" agrees with it?
> So you ll start rejecting any argument that you supported before, as soon as a "Nazi" agrees with it?
I'll fight against any position that supports dehumanizing people for their ethnicity, that sets political ideology on a pedestal and uses it as a tool to attack science, institutions, and justice. As should you.
It seems like you're upset by my use of the word Nazi. You should instead focus on the ideas that I'm arguing against.
>I'll fight against any position that supports dehumanizing people for their ethnicity,
Ok, but that is not what you said.
>I never said that every voice on the right is a Nazi, just that Nazis are among those voices. And that's enough for me
I don't know what your point is, and I don't think you do either. Are you really here to defend Nazis?
I feel like you're trying to deploy some clever rhetorical trick, but you aren't quite smart enough to pull it off.
>aren't quite smart enough to pull it off.
Yea, that is quite possible. Good day!