Well it’s a good thing you did the work and spoke with every Jewish person in north America to be able to paint with such a broad brush. I guess all the people I’ve spoken with we’re lying about their ethnicity.
In seriousness though, simply adding “many” or “a plurality of” is enough to add nuance to the discussion. Starting with the blanket “the Jews” isn’t a good look.
To add to this: if the opposition party consistently shows up to vote, the dominant party gets nervous, and has to focus on the chance of losing. Not showing up means they’ve truly won.
It also shows the opposition party that they can and should invest the time in supporting that area, because there’s people who haven’t given up yet.
Also, the president isn’t the only person on the ballot, and small races are where more radical third parties actually have a shot!
I had read your initial comment as insinuating the previous commenter was supporting hamas, and when someone directly challenged you on it, you didn’t reject that accusation.
So if you just wanted to point out the irony, consider my comment as much a non sequitor as your comment on its irony, which is - I suppose - at least irony-adjacent in itself.
Do you get mad at geologists for explaining why volcanoes erupt and kill people?
There’s a difference in understanding and supporting, or considering something morally correct.
As another example: I understand why some folks get sucked into gangs. If someone grows up in a crumbling school system, falls through the holes in whatever is left of a social safety net, has no proper familial support, and sees nothing but violence and economic despair day-to-day, joining a gang suddenly becomes a viable path to prosperity. Exceedingly dangerous, but this hypothetical teen can look around and see they’re likely to have a shit future regardless, so why not take that chance, right?
So this isn’t me saying that I support gang violence, but I can understand why it happens. Which is why my politics are what they are: we don’t need to just beat the shit out of gang members in the streets, but give folks support so they don’t feel like joining a gang is the only way to survive.
The other poster is (I think) making a similar kind of argument. What the fuck else is some kid in that situation going to grow up to be? Some folks will make it out alright, sure: but on the whole it’s a recipe for despair, which often leads to horrific acts. It doesn’t make the acts right, but we can understand a little more about the why.
You’re entitled to feel the way you do too, but it doesn’t change what I’ve seen in my years, either.
I think I’m being perfectly level headed, I’m just being a little snarky. At least equally snarky to your comment.
I just wanted to point out that nuance is possible with just a few additional words, but only if we choose to use nuance.