An argument for agency can be made either for or against, but for most it boils down to the reality of the society you're trying to exist in. It's just a huge distraction that you've created along with others for anecdotal conversations. This is a US sitting democratic president calling insults to allies during a time-period where conflict is on the rise, while completely negating any resolutions that could impede the death being caused.

We could talk about Biden's own xenophobia with the immigration and border response. His past with the crime bill and other negative legislation. The fact that the entire Democratic Party is xenophobic to anyone outside of their party including the "poor" or progressive strangers they fear so much, like we saw with the recent condemnation of the protests against Palestinian genocide.

Instead you've made 10+ comments bringing up other countries to blame, links back to other comments in this thread, boasting about taking a basic Econ class and proclaiming you've won because a couple of people upvoted you. I understand your argument, it's just not valid at this time or during this discussion and you're trying to force it with hostility till people "get it".

[–] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I am not forcing it with hostility. I made a broader point about treating people like pawns on a board and I got lectured about econ 101. Yeah I got a little snippy with them, sure I could've not been that way. But these responses are so absurd, they leave no nuance or middleground and keep telling me I am either saying things I didn't say or put up a lazy strawman as if it responds to what I said.

Also notice not one person wants to acknowledge that there is this implication people have some obligation to not leave their country as it means they are participating in "brain drain."

I get what you're saying, I really do. But the fact is people got all prickly when I tried to introduce nuance. Of course economic factors heavily drive our decisions. I'm not sure where I said anything remotely to the contrary, so I'm getting irritated.

[–] chayleaf@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

There's an issue without you saying not because you don't know econ 101, but because you do know it. Because you shift the focus from the systems (global imperialism) to the individuals ("so you shouldn't be allowed to migrate?"). What causes migration is, objectively, unequal development of different countries caused by imperialism and inherent to the market system, and not "personal decisions". That means shifting the talk to "personal decisions" is pointless and harmful.

It's like going "oh but you voluntarily choose to buy/sell" and blaming all your economic problems on yourself.

[–] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I didn’t shift it. I introduced nuance. Nothing I said denied the impact of imperialism/economic realities. Show me where I said anything like that. I have written several responses that clearly indicate I know those are major factors. At this point responses like yours just mean you are choosing to deliberately misinterpret what I wrote/put words in my mouth and that you are ignoring anything else I wrote that could possibly clarify the situation.

Feels like I’m back on Reddit with this nonsense.