It’s no secret I’m on the misanthropy spectrum, but as such a person you could say that about, I wanted to ask this ever since hearing this conveyed in response to recent events which sees three spheres of influence now arguably possessing the potential to deliver on such promises. Like… what’s the deal?
To reframe it, could you say why you think it would be okay to discriminate against a person you don’t know because they share a cultural (and not necessarily political) association with a country they may or may not be a member of? And more specifically, what positive outcome there would be from that discrimination as opposed to protesting the actions and decision makers involved?
I’ve clarified a few times here, it’s not a stance I have, just one I’ve seen and saw as tempting enough to ask about. Their logic goes, if A) nuclear assault is a step above normal warfare, and B) normally all countries/ethnicities/cultures are equal and not below one another on the basis that that we all have equal potential both good and bad, and C) we live in a world that found a way to justify witch hunts, the red scare, and cancel culture, then D) a country that does engage in nuclear strikes would (according to the logic) mark a civilization as being humanly lower than other peoples and thus it wouldn’t be unfair to have a cancellation-or-red-scare-style approach to it and use it as a force of consequentialism against the nation in question having engaged in nuclear assault in order to bring a downpour of shame upon the nation that carried it out.
My problem with it is exactly what yours is, though I don’t disagree with doing something about those directly connected to the act.