What would you yourself deem “not being safe” to mean in context of people in general? Now what would you take it to mean when the commenter you quoted there said that the opposition is dangerous and deranged, hoping AOC stay safe, and you responding hoping AOC not to stay safe. In the same context where the clear danger and derangement is stated? In fact, quoting the very comment doing just that?
What it means is that I hope AOC stays bold in her opposition instead of letting the threats dissuade her from defending democracy against fascism. C’mon, was it really that unclear?!
Well initially it was. Later down this thread in my second reply I was just trying to point out why it got the reception it got. As I said initially, I agree with the sentiment, it was just not well put at first, even I misread it. I get you now.
You should’ve probably responded with something like this from the start, but I’m glad it was my misunderstanding your message, not you advocating for what I, along with some others apparently, interpreted from it.
Sorry about the tone in my first reply. I hope you see it came from a well meaning place in defense of safety in terms of staying alive and unharmed, not in opposition to being bold, as the inverse of “safe”.
We lose a lot in the translation when our only medium is text, and we are all from across the globe, trying to communicate in a language that is foreign to me and many others, I bet. But c’est la vie.
There seems to be a real lack of basic comprehension in people’s responses. I agree with you. Staying safe, under fascism, means playing it safe, and the USA needs leaders like AOC who won’t do this but will speak out even if it puts them in danger.
What it means is that I hope AOC stays bold in her opposition instead of letting the threats dissuade her from defending democracy against fascism. C’mon, was it really that unclear?!
Well initially it was. Later down this thread in my second reply I was just trying to point out why it got the reception it got. As I said initially, I agree with the sentiment, it was just not well put at first, even I misread it. I get you now.
You should’ve probably responded with something like this from the start, but I’m glad it was my misunderstanding your message, not you advocating for what I, along with some others apparently, interpreted from it.
Sorry about the tone in my first reply. I hope you see it came from a well meaning place in defense of safety in terms of staying alive and unharmed, not in opposition to being bold, as the inverse of “safe”.
We lose a lot in the translation when our only medium is text, and we are all from across the globe, trying to communicate in a language that is foreign to me and many others, I bet. But c’est la vie.
There seems to be a real lack of basic comprehension in people’s responses. I agree with you. Staying safe, under fascism, means playing it safe, and the USA needs leaders like AOC who won’t do this but will speak out even if it puts them in danger.