policies make no sense when exceptionalism drives both fp and domestic but they don't match
you can't be pro life and also pro war. you can't be pro hold japan accountable but NOT korean men for rape/molka/martial law
if after defending it w/ your life, you hurt what you saved,
you can't be pro life and also pro war. you can't be pro hold japan accountable but NOT korean men for rape/molka/martial law
if after defending it w/ your life, you hurt what you saved,
you've saved nothing. you've groomed it.
if you want to leverage human rights rhetoric to control women domestically, erasing their rights, but give yourself hypocritical leeway internationally, where's the integrity?
the misbehavior of others doesn't justify violent bigotry.
if you want to leverage human rights rhetoric to control women domestically, erasing their rights, but give yourself hypocritical leeway internationally, where's the integrity?
the misbehavior of others doesn't justify violent bigotry.
the temptation's strong to fold to stories of what worked, and how much love and friendship existed within chosen structures, but when you steamroll other humans whose lives are crushed by optional logics that leave no room for them to breathe you're no better than the opposition
what i'm not hearing about the endgame of reasoned debate from either side is that it isn't about WINNING. it's often a game you play with good sportsmanship while you really spend time and energy diagnosing what the issues are for others and finding viable compromises. peace.
the ultimate value of civil discourse is that it humanizes everyone, such that your worst enemies sometimes end up as your most reliable friends bc you now know one another backwards and forwards on all issues that matter. detailed disagreement is a potent form of human intimacy.
many tune into debates for the same reason they tune into pro wrestling matches, but the more fruitful reason to tune in is to gauge with accuracy and precision all parameters of potential peace or reconciliation. you fight hard to map differences, and as hard find common ground.
the reason it's important to be sharp in debate is not to dominate your opponents after it is over 🙄, but so that as you construct hope and peace together afterwards, you can each say honorably that you've done *everything* you can to represent your pains, values, and concerns.
you don't need to "prove" people wrong. sometimes it's enough that they afterwards are left with crystal clarity about what you were fighting for and why, and you do it w/ enough honor and integrity that they consider that as they make choices even if they never see you again.
people often confuse debate with legal fights, but win/loss isn't the whole human story.
laws don't change people's minds. people's minds change, then sometimes those people change the laws.
progress isn't won or lost in courtrooms/wars but in hearts and minds long beforehand.
laws don't change people's minds. people's minds change, then sometimes those people change the laws.
progress isn't won or lost in courtrooms/wars but in hearts and minds long beforehand.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
