whatever - Grant said, “…I don’t give a fuck what happens to the unvaxxed, if they die, it’s their own fucking look out. Black, white….”
- In response, you referenced his previous support for BLM and in particular what happened to George Floyd.
2.5 - Your proposition following that was:
“Why is it that a black person who has robbed a pregnant woman at gunpoint is worthy of being cared about, but a black person who hasn’t taken a vaccine isn’t worthy of being cared about?”
“It’s entreily possible that you care about those who suffer racist abuse whilst simultaneously thinking those same people would be daft for not taking the vaccine. Those two points of view aren’t mutually exclusive, are they?”
Grant told you (1) that it didn’t matter what ethnic origin/race the person is, if they are unvaccinated he was less bothered what happened to them and their race didn’t enter into it.
Your proposition (2.5) ignored (1) and you instead framed it as evidence of a contradictory attitude i.e. why treat an unvaxxed black person differently to George Floyd if you say that you are committed to equality (in the vein of what BLM said in response to the killing of GF).
My reading of what Mono said (3) is that it is possible to remain concerned about racism and yet still be able to criticise behaviour, irrespective of skin colour. Hence why they are not mutually exclusive.
If Grant had said that his treatment of the unvaxxed/George Floyd is contingent on race, you would have a point. He didn’t, as far as I can see, so what you said was in error.
No goal posts were moved. You didn’t understood what Grant said, you incorrectly reformulated what he said (creating a false dilemma) and that was pointed out to you but you now say that people (me included) haven’t been reading what you said.
