You’re both sidesing a geonicide even when it’s still actively in progress. Even recognizing it as such.
You don’t know the political circumstances that lead them to such desperate measures (the Abraham accords isolating Palestinians and making their genocide more inevitable as this is obviously the goal of Israel.)
Or, you can believe this is some irrational hatred that exists due to some genetic / deep cultural root… A belief that would be deeply dehumanizing and would justify the Israeli governments actions.
Your the kind of person who would of both sideded the French resistance and the Warsaw ghetto uprisings. Think about that. Reaaaaaally think about that. Consider that your position in a different time would be defending Nazis.
It’s a sensitive subject and saying “hamas is just as bad” is essentially a dog whistle. It’s a main talking point of the pro-genocide goofballs and, even though it wasn’t your intention, being a mouthpiece is still ban worthy.
I didn’t read the context of the commenter, nor am i trying to find bias in the argument. I was bored and surfing through all my shit on Lemmy.
But many people have a hard time identifying ideas that people have “locked” in as whatever mechanic that the acronym is known for (Not necessarily the acronym itself. Keep reading) It’s not going to change. I understand and respect how you criticize, but the most you’re going to do with someone is anger them, and not “in a thought out defensive” way, but in a “They had to do a CTRL+ALT+DEL” to understand what you were getting at. I respect your right to argue, but I’d like to recommend that you use like-minded phrasing and mentality that the rest of your known population uses (meaning human social interactions in this regard. Not interent social interactions). And I’m not saying this to offend anyone at all, but examples like:
“The ‘Israeli Defense
Force!?’ I prefer to call them the ‘Israeli Genocide Force!’” You’re acknowledging their belief and feelings disrespectfully, but you’re also expressing your beliefs and feelings in a respectful way. No one should have to feel bad, nor should anyone push the other to feel bad for their beliefs.
We’re now on a planet with 8 billion people. The fuck is treating people like shit for believing something we don’t truly believe going to impact?
I would have banned you for genocide apologism.
The fact they both sided this, and feel very strongly about people reacting to it, months later… raises questions about motive and belief.
I’m not here to judge or criticize, that much. But it was very uncomfortable for me to read that and see some comments concerning it.
Too much drama here
How the fuck is this genocide apologism.
The “IGF” isnt a typo, i called them israel genocide forces.
No, you called them IGF. It depends on everyone else to guess what you actually meant.
You’re both sidesing a geonicide even when it’s still actively in progress. Even recognizing it as such.
You don’t know the political circumstances that lead them to such desperate measures (the Abraham accords isolating Palestinians and making their genocide more inevitable as this is obviously the goal of Israel.)
Or, you can believe this is some irrational hatred that exists due to some genetic / deep cultural root… A belief that would be deeply dehumanizing and would justify the Israeli governments actions.
Your the kind of person who would of both sideded the French resistance and the Warsaw ghetto uprisings. Think about that. Reaaaaaally think about that. Consider that your position in a different time would be defending Nazis.
It’s a sensitive subject and saying “hamas is just as bad” is essentially a dog whistle. It’s a main talking point of the pro-genocide goofballs and, even though it wasn’t your intention, being a mouthpiece is still ban worthy.
I didn’t read the context of the commenter, nor am i trying to find bias in the argument. I was bored and surfing through all my shit on Lemmy.
But many people have a hard time identifying ideas that people have “locked” in as whatever mechanic that the acronym is known for (Not necessarily the acronym itself. Keep reading) It’s not going to change. I understand and respect how you criticize, but the most you’re going to do with someone is anger them, and not “in a thought out defensive” way, but in a “They had to do a CTRL+ALT+DEL” to understand what you were getting at. I respect your right to argue, but I’d like to recommend that you use like-minded phrasing and mentality that the rest of your known population uses (meaning human social interactions in this regard. Not interent social interactions). And I’m not saying this to offend anyone at all, but examples like:
“The ‘Israeli Defense Force!?’ I prefer to call them the ‘Israeli Genocide Force!’” You’re acknowledging their belief and feelings disrespectfully, but you’re also expressing your beliefs and feelings in a respectful way. No one should have to feel bad, nor should anyone push the other to feel bad for their beliefs.
We’re now on a planet with 8 billion people. The fuck is treating people like shit for believing something we don’t truly believe going to impact?