Not to be a prick, but how is this better than saying “AMURRIKUH: LURVE IT OR LEAVE ITTT!!!!11ONE!!11!!1”
logically they are structured the same
I’m interested in a serious, genuine answer FYI
By not contesting a power doing other people harm, one allows that power to continue doing harm, therefore supporting it.
That seems quite different from the “If you don’t love it, leave it” sayings.
Well the thing about logic is it does not care about the specific contents of the statements, it cares only about general form. And if you ask me, both this quote and the quote I brought up are instances of the false dichotomy fallacy. However, i could be missing something more nuanced that can’t be summarized in a cute one-sentence quote, so I’m trying to see if maybe I did miss something.
But the thing is that neutrality doesn’t actually exist here because, technically, there are only two outcomes. You can fight against the oppression, actively side with the oppressors, or do nothing. If you choose to do nothing, then technically one side benefits (in this case, the oppressors). Being neutral ultimately results in one side benefiting.
I see what logicallypositive is saying here but I think you’re looking at this in the wrong sense. Yes, it is much the same as saying “hey if you dont like it then go away”, but that is not a legitimate part of this argument. What you’re doing is questioning the morality of questioning someone’s ethics. If anything, that seems to be a waste of intelligence. But to answer your question, I think that it is better because we know who is doing the oppressing. There is a clear violation of human rights in this photograph and the superimposed quote is offering an argument to support those that are being attacked. Is it “logically” the same as “love it or leave it”? Yes. Is it better? That’s for you to decide because there is no absolute right or wrong, there is only right and wrong in one’s own opinion (see Kantianism and Utilitarianism).
(via abokononist)
<