this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
1734 points (89.6% liked)

Political Memes

5492 readers
1915 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Any relevant links? I tried to google it, but it seems to me that the debate is about funding them - not about killing them.

[–] funkless_eck 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't speak to Germany, but in the UK the government had to be forced to use the lifeguard to save drowning people because they wanted to let refugees die, and had to be forced to stop sending people to Rwanda (even if they're not from Rwanda) just to get rid of them.

Both stories are easily googlable.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's not a genocide. There is a big difference between refusing to expend resources to save peoples life and actively expending resources to destroy lives.

[–] funkless_eck 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I dont particularly care about defining what is and isn't a genocide, I care about not killing people.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And the Nobel Peace Prize you get for that will be mailed to you. Until it arrives, let's do discuss about definitions, nuances, and all these other annoying details that set a principled debate apart from blind virtue signalling.

I, for one, really care about the distinction between initiating something evil and merely not doing enough(tm) to stop it. The UK did not made them refugees. Sure, the old British empire caused trouble all around the globe, but modern refugees are mostly escaping from regional wars and totalitarian governments. One could say that it's still their fault because that's the aftermath of them leaving, but that would imply that the UK should have kept occupying these countries, so you probably don't want to go there.

So they did not cause them to be refugees. Both the refusal to save them from drowning and the deportation are an expression not of a deliberate attempt to kill them, but of a refusal to help them. The UK government does not want these refugees to be in the UK.

If we take this issue and place in the OP template, it'd look something like this:

Right: Let's not let refugees in.
Left: Let's let all the refugees in.
Center: Guys, you're gonna have to compromise, let's just let /some/ of the refugees in.
...

One should notice that:

  1. Unlike the original post, this is not a strawman. You don't have to go very far to the right to find plenty of people who want to let no refugee in, and you don't have to go very far to the left to find plenty of people who want to let them all in.
  2. Once the strawman is removed - the centrist position does not seem that absurd anymore.
  3. If you keep insisting that "not accepting refugees" equals "genocide" - people will stop taking your claims about genocide so seriously. Because you don't care about definitions, so it could mean anything.