Not at all. If you feed the oppressor, you support it. It’s a perverse stretch to claim the contrary – and it renders the word support meaningless. You cannot feed an oppressor (or promote someone else feeding an oppressor) and simultaneously claim to not support it. Vegans understand the concept well, and their movement reflects it.
Yet this is evident from his writing. He guides people to not boycott oppressors. It’s there in black and white. You seem to think the emporer wears no clothes.
I quoted him. Read my first comment. If he did not mean what he said, he should revise his statements and position.
(edit) Also, read Doctorow’s article. He repeats several times with different phrasing that an individual action is “problematic”. You’ve grossly missed his thesis. It’s one of his main conjecturing claims.
and then you made a leap of logic from what he said.
this phrase:
He’s essentially saying:
is a huge red flag. you’re not just quoting him. you’re telling everyone else how to interpret what he’s saying, removed from the context of his piece.
Exactly. “Support”, not “endorse”.
youre stretching the definition of “support” to meaninglessness, and playing a semantic game.
Not at all. If you feed the oppressor, you support it. It’s a perverse stretch to claim the contrary – and it renders the word support meaningless. You cannot feed an oppressor (or promote someone else feeding an oppressor) and simultaneously claim to not support it. Vegans understand the concept well, and their movement reflects it.
anyone who says “Cory doctorow supports oppressors and tells others to do the same” is lying.
Yet this is evident from his writing. He guides people to not boycott oppressors. It’s there in black and white. You seem to think the emporer wears no clothes.
you are making leaps of logic and accusing him of making statements he is not. this is bad faith.
I quoted him. Read my first comment. If he did not mean what he said, he should revise his statements and position.
(edit) Also, read Doctorow’s article. He repeats several times with different phrasing that an individual action is “problematic”. You’ve grossly missed his thesis. It’s one of his main conjecturing claims.
the fucking irony
and then you made a leap of logic from what he said.
this phrase:
is a huge red flag. you’re not just quoting him. you’re telling everyone else how to interpret what he’s saying, removed from the context of his piece.