Thread by @JuliusGoat

Rand Paul is outraged by the distribution of $600 he considers unearned, and the death of 300,000 people he considers unworthy is to him an acceptable price to pay to avoid distribution. No death rate could be too steep, any relief would be too high. He’d like to talk about soul.

https://twitter.com/randpaul/status/1341091582150389760

We've seen conservative morality unmasked. Its prime principle is the belief that some people matter, the rest do not, and to spend a single dollar on someone who doesn't matter is a mortal sin, whereas using those deaths as pretext to further enrich people who matter is virtue.

Ask yourself: what would such people do in a larger emergency? What contingencies have they already devised for such an event?

What will they do as the earth warms and oceans rise? As water becomes scarce?

Yes, and what are they already doing?

https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/1161234475247964162?s=20

Q. What's the difference between people who conspire to commit genocide, and people who, for some reason other than genocide, conspire to enact a series of principles that make genocide inevitable?

A. Who cares?

If you still admit to being conservative, what people are going to increasingly perceive is someone willing to let 300,000 people die to protect a material advantage; ready to allow far more to die to protect an ever dwindling material advantage.

Feel how you want to about that.

This is conservativism. A genocide mentality.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1341231991937646592?s=20

If it was 5% she'd say "it's only 5%."

If it was 10%, "it's only 10%."

At some point the percentage would hit a tipping point, and the rationale would become "it's too late to do anything anyway."

We've seen this play out already.

Genocide mentality.

https://twitter.com/LukeLeverett/status/1341357043442212865?s=20