TheDankHold

Don’t infantilize Netanyahu and the IDF. They’re doing the genocide. Bernie is opposing a person that wants total immunity from the law and is advocating for what he believes even still.

There are more things to consider than Israel Hamas. Don’t be the left wing equivalent to pro lifers. Hyped up on a wedge issue to the extent you let yourself get taken advantage of by the rhetoric of the worst actors.

Interesting that the chart starts in 1948. It seems to miss that immediately prior 80% of Palestinians were forcibly removed from their lands and/or massacres by Zionist settler militias.

Next you’ll tell me that the population swap between Greece and Turkey was a genocide too, considering how you count the migrations of Jews that occurred after Zionists murdered and purged as many Arabs as they could from Palestine.

The conflict has existed longer than the Israeli state and ignoring that time period only obfuscates the reality of the situation.

Reductive purity testing won’t end the genocide you know. Do you know the position of the Republican candidate on Gaza? (hint: it’s an example of actually advocating for genocide)

Refusing to take steps to reduce harm enables the worst outcome and there are also other issues besides Gaza that exist beyond this wedge issue.

You should actually watch the video because you might be surprised that he directly talks about Gaza and states his position (no more money for Israel if they can’t control their violent impulses). You know, instead of spouting off like a blind partisan.

If it does then that means political accountability is impossible.

All you’re saying here is you have no interest in actually critically thinking and analyzing people’s actions, instead just taking them explicitly at their word. Which is just gullibility. Do you think you’d feel threatened if someone was posting pictures of you being hung? What if the poster had a history of making statements that they thought you were evil or a threat to the country?

The sheer irony of that last paragraph is funny. You’re the one talking past me and ignoring things I say that are inconvenient. Until I force you to face it.

Since you missed it I’ll repeat myself.

“What is so hard to understand, they advertised their desire for political murder to their constituents. It wasn’t “just an ornament” in private. They made a public statement advocating murder by displaying it.”

Words are wind, your actions show you bending over backwards to excuse this. Also the narrative that all politicians deserve a noose is what authoritarians push to keep their citizens from trying to fix things. There’s tons of money in reinforcing political apathy, because any person they convince to abandon the process is one less voice they have to care about come election season.

It’s a very terminally online take hyper focused on federal government. You think your local comptroller should be strung up? The irony of you calling me a political hack when your political philosophy is devoid of any nuance.

What is so hard to understand, they advertised their desire for political murder to their constituents. It wasn’t “just an ornament” in private. They made a public statement by displaying it.

Why do republican sycophants insist on removing all context from this stuff? Bending over backwards to present it in a favorable way is so slimy and manipulative.

I’m definitely on the synergistic side of this conversation. The intimidating beauty of nature and the inspiring beauty of human determination to build this complex regardless work together really well for me.

Thanks for sharing! This is an amazing photo :)

There’s plenty of sense in calling out a genocidal corrupt religious extremist. We don’t need to bring up Hitler liking dogs when talking about them.

Lovely photo! I think this is Corniglia right?

Love that this is a thing! Need to get down to NZ at some point

Like you said, language evolves. People are deciding that the definition you follow is very limited and constrains dialogue by being needlessly exclusionary. So they’re seeking to expand the definition to its logical conclusion.

You can throw a fit about other Semitic people being recognized or you can accept that language changes to fit our current understanding of the world.

Antisemitism still refers to prejudice against Jewish people. It’s also being extended to all Semitic people as to disallow them the ability to categorize prejudice against them is to obfuscate and to an extent even deny their own reality.

That’s not an answer to the question.

Interesting that you use the idea that English is a living language to push back against people using a term in a way you’ve decided is incorrect. Seems like you don’t think English is that alive after all if you refuse to incorporate all Semitic people into the concept of antisemitism.

You can’t cite descriptivist arguments to defend your prescriptivist attitude towards the term antisemitism. It betrays your own bias and deflates your argument.

Language evolves, just like you said. Which is why people are realizing the double speak nature of this idea that antisemitism is only when you’re prejudiced against a specific Semitic people group and the others don’t get a term to describe prejudice against them. Your position is an Orwellian attempt to deny a group of people the ability to specifically identify their oppression and it’s sad.

I mistook you for the original commenter, I apologize.

With that out of the way. You’re right that people who murder innocents don’t deserve support, which is why I condemn Hamas and the Israeli government. Good attempt at conflating my criticism with Israel as a whole but that’s manipulative framing. The Israeli government has taken plenty of actions that directly prop up Hamas and even share responsibility for its initial rise.

As an American, the Israeli government caused this in a similar way that the American government caused 9/11. Much like Israel and Hamas, American government invested in Al Qaeda in the 80s to accomplish a selfish geopolitical goal and it ended up with a massive terrorist attack on their home soil.

It’s awful and reprehensible that innocent people are being killed, no caveat. I’m just not so easily blinded by shock and emotion that I can’t identify the underlying causes that drive this inhumane clusterfuck forward.

I’m willing to keep talking if you’re willing to not assume the worst of my position instead of seeking clarification. What Hamas did was disgusting.

So if the Israeli military hadn’t funneled resources to Hamas in the 80s and 90s it’d be pretty different, good point. Maybe the moderate coalition would’ve been comparatively powerful enough to gain leadership instead of literal terrorists.

And that’s how Palestinians feel about the decades of reprisals Israel has inflicted upon them because of Hamas.

It doesn’t give them the right to bomb hospitals and apartment buildings. It doesn’t give them the right to gun down journalists and children. It doesn’t give them the right to evict Palestinians from their homes to send in colonists for replacement. It doesn’t give them the right to turn what should be a separate country like Gaza into a literal open air prison where they can cut their power and water and they need to have Israel approve an exit pass to leave their homes and go anywhere else in the world.

Neither average citizen wants this bullshit to happen. But it’s not up to them, it’s up to a terrorist organization and a government that literally funded Hamas in the 80s and 90s so that the moderate coalition didn’t win. The one going into mosques to rough up and arrest random practitioners. I feel for every citizen in both territories, just know that war mongers in your government have contributed massively to these tragedies.

The extremists in your government had a large hand in creating the group that’s now slaughtering innocents and giving them an excuse to glass the people they look down on.

The people at the top. The religion in question is patriarchal but the mechanism it works on doesn’t require a certain gender identity to work.

Ok so no government has ever governed through consent in that respect so I’m not sure why that’s an important issue to bring up. No one consents to be ruled by a government, you’re just born into it in most cases and in others the one you initially didn’t consent to got replaced by yet another that wasn’t consented to.

You really are glossing over the fact that referring to a 2000 year empire as blanket conservative is ignorant and ahistorical. They were multicultural and, with glaring exceptions, tolerated alternative religions far more than most geopolitical entities through history. It’s a vast history with varying governments, both with progressive ideas for the time and regressive backslides.

Watering it down to boilerplate 21st century political terminology shows a lack of intellectual rigor in understanding this issue so I don’t think this conversation needs to continue. I wish you well.

My point is that they were also the in group. It’s very much a flawed perspective, referring to the whole empire as conservative makes it clear.