|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On December 01 2023 07:29 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2023 06:25 Magic Powers wrote:
@JimmiC
The links you provided regarding Israeli laws on citizenship are concerned with the State of Israel, but not the settlements. Israel has extended protection to the settlers by sanctioning the settlements over and over again, but that is its own process separate from Israeli citizenship. The settlements simply "happened" while the State of Israel watched, in part didn't intervene, and in part actively supported them through law. There was no official "intention" by the state, but the state offers protection regardless.
Scholars have justified these movements as "returning to Jewish homeland", and also by arguing that an Arab Palestine never existed. These two points were and still are the justifications being used to counter accusations of it being a war crime. The accusation is that the settlers are occupants and thus committing a war crime against Palestinians.
As the settlements grew, they eventually occupied much more space than the whole Palestinian population in the West bank does today. These spaces became more and more fortified, and movement of Palestinians became controlled very tightly and under heavy surveillance as well as force and unlawful violence. The settlements have thus become safe havens for Jewish settlers who now go there to benefit from disproportionate funding from the State of Israel to the whole area. All of these settlements receive a lot more funding per capita than any other area within the State of Israel itself. This is why there is an incredibly high economic incentive for the settlers to stay, and for new settlers to arrive. That is good information on the settlements, and partly why I'm against them. Not sure it counters anything I posted but good additional information.
The last part is the main point, everything before is just for better context. Israel funds the settlements directly and very disproportionately. The economic incentive to be a settler is very high, whereas the religious incentive is minimal in comparison. So indeed Palestinians are being exploited economically, it's just a very messed up system that causes the exploitation. On the one hand Jews only benefit economically because of the disproportionate funding by the state, on the other hand Palestinians are being economically disadvantaged as a result of the fortification of the settlements which causes Apartheid. You were asking about why Apartheid is the term being used, and this is why. It is economic separation and exploitation based on both ethnicity and religion. Religion is not the main motivation anymore. And yes, Jews are in fact ethnically distinct.
|
Northern Ireland24392 Posts
On December 01 2023 00:24 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2023 14:00 WombaT wrote:On November 30 2023 12:25 JimmiC wrote:I really do not understand why Israel is treated as the bad guy in the region by leftists. Everything leftists care about (women’s rights, lgbtq2+rights, child rights, abortion rights, environmentalism, multiculturalism, democracy so on) Israel is MILES and MILES ahead on. I get the bar is super low in that part of the world but what is with the extreme hate? Is it as simple as America supported them and therefore they must be bad, end critical thinking? Like do people realize that it is not extreme beliefs in that area to want to kill all Jews, all homosexuals, anyone who has an abortion, any women who has an affair (or in some cases is raped), are in favour of having young women circumcised, forced marriage for girls, and many many other awful things. These are not good guys forced into evil by a bad situation. They believe the opposite of what we believe is right, hell their evil would make the Nazis blush. Their main strategy is to maximize civilian causalities for BOTH sides. They do not deserve the benefit or trust. I get the people all the way down the rabbit hole who are some how anti Ukraine as well. But for those people who are not guzzling down the Russian propaganda, Iran is supporting Russia, AND Hamas is their proxy army. Do you really believe they are fighting Israel for the freedom of Palestinians? They hate freedom! + Show Spoiler +Before I get yelled at, this does not mean you can criticize Israel just do it about the things they are actually doing and without always assuming the worst intentions without facts to back it up It’s overwhelmingly a case of ‘we don’t like these things and wish Israel would stop doing them’. The things you point to in many people’s eyes are precisely why Israel gets more criticism more frequently than other places. If you can be relatively egalitarian to your own, then subjugating another people is, in some eyes that much worse. As the wider left may be more vocally critical about police abuse of power, it doesn’t naturally follow that they don’t condemn criminals. The bar should be set higher for the arm of the state that can enact violence. In a similar fashion people can hold a liberal state to a higher standard than a populace penned into a borderline prison with zero prospects. Add to that power, and the wielding of power being a pretty big lens in the left wing toolkit. The history of the region and the classic hallmarks of colonialism and imperialism have distorted it into the state it is in now. Take your pick of a veritable smorgasbord of examples of Western powers interfering for their own benefit, frequently against any kind of secular liberalisation movements. This is entirely consistent with still being against Hamas, or Iran’s actions or whatever. There are some people who are doing what you say, and there are others who are doing what I'm saying. I'm not saying everyone who criticizes Israel is X, just that some are. If you are not, (and I do not think you are) than that is fine. But there are a lot of people who give the hand wave that Hamas is bad and then 100% of their posts are about Israels oppression and if you talk about anything else they get mad and insult you. When someone here says a hospital was bombed by Israel it is pages of how evil Israel is, when it turns out it was a Hamas rocket then its crickets. Same with a huge numbers of events, there is complete trust of the Hamas released information even though most of it has turned out false and zero trust of the Israeli information which is probably above 50%. You would think people who take both with a grain of salt but that is not close to happening. Heck the people, who at this point should really be warned or banned if it was all even for their conduct or their complete lack of sourcing, won't even engage unless it is about how evil Israel is. It is actually insanity, it is as if some of you won't believe people who similar views than you could also hold hateful views even though they keep screaming them over and over. (or barely hide them in disingenuous questions and other shitty posting).
Who in this thread is actually doing these things?
|
On November 30 2023 16:05 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2023 14:34 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 29 2023 15:33 Acrofales wrote:
In addition to what kwark said, Arafat was a pretty decent leader. Maybe not a once-in-a-generation figure who captures the global imagination of what a leader should be, as Ghandi and Mandela did, but someone the Palestinians and Israeli both listened to, and who had left armed insurgency behind in the hope of forging lasting peace. In hindsight, that did not work out. I mean, he was a terrorist for most of his life, so I'm not sure that's "what a leader should be," but he did pivot towards negotiations towards the end, which was a revolutionary turn towards peaceful solutions for the PLO, so I give him credit where credit is due there. The "in hindsight that did not work out" line is a weird way of saying that he effectively scuttled the best chance his people had of having a state. Clinton really wanted a two state solution to happen and blamed Arafat for the talks falling apart, saying: "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." and Clinton wrote that Arafat once complimented Clinton by telling him, "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one." Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you say there. But I don't really put much stock in the Great Person view of history. Sure, we can point to some points in history where the drive of a single person in the right place at the right time appears to have moved worlds. But counterfactually, I think in South Africa, which I know quite well, we just don't know who would have lead the resistance if Mandela had died in jail. I don't think South Africa would be significantly different right now if Desmond Tutu had been the sole leader of the anti-Apartheid movement, or if Steve Biko hadn't been murdered in jail and was the leader of the ANC. The ANC would still have existed in the absence of Mandela, and somebody would have been its leader when economic conditions forced the Apartheid government's hand. That is not to detract anything from Mandela's leadership. He no doubt filled that role with aplomb and was a visionary leader who was instrumental in the peaceful transition away from Apartheid. But South Africa would have been forced to transition away from Apartheid regardless. It may have looked more like Kenya or Zimbabwe's violent regime changes, and thus been a tragic mess, with lots of dead, but ultimately a similar outcome. I know less about India, but think it would have gotten its independence from the Brits post-WW2 regardless. Ghandi may have been the leader, but there were hundreds of thousands of protesters in the non-cooperation movement. Even if nobody else had organised that movement successfully in Ghandi's absence, the time was clearly ripe for mass protests and the Brits were clearly weary of strife. It's quite amazing that India got its independence through relatively peaceful methods, but let's not act as if European nations were not pulling away from colonies in general, and not generally peacefully: the independence of Indonesia from the Dutch was contemporary and I note, Sukarno, the violent leader of the Indonesian resistance, is not in your list of examples of great leaders the Palestinians needed as a precondition for their independence. I also think the only way forward for Israel is by ensuring independence of the Palestinians in a two-nation solution, regardless of whether they have a great leader or not. Regrettably the best they had was Arafat. Right now they're stuck with Abbas, at best. That doesn't excuse Israel's behaviour. Because I don't think the world will stand idly by if Israel instead opts for the other famous historic solution to violent insurgency by anti-colonial forces: genocide. Whether in the US, Australia, Argentina or Crimea, ethnic cleansing and genocide was the preferred tool of colonizers to deal with locals who violently didn't want them there. And that seems to be the route Netanyahu wants to follow right now. Mandela needed a de Klerk. Where is Israel's version of him?
I agree with you that great leaders are not always the things that create movements. Quite often, popular movements simply thrust someone into the lead of what the people were already were headed towards. The issue with Palestine is that there is neither a great peaceful leader nor any popular movement of peace. There are dozens of different ways to start a non-violent movement and none of those is happening or has ever happened to any real degree in Palestine.
As for your Indonesia example, I'm not denying that in some world situations, violence was successful (or even the appropriate course of action sometimes). My point is that non-violent protest can also be effective, and in some situations, more effective.
And regarding our actual case study, Palestinians have chosen violent methods 6 ways from Sunday and dug themselves deeper into the hole every time. Meanwhile, they've barely given the non-violent options a second glance (the best they have is the relatively less militaristic PA who celebrated Oct 7, encourages antisemitism in school books, called on their people to become martyrs now, and say they "have never put down the rifle.") I'm just saying it might be worth trying something new for a strategic change of pace.
|
On November 30 2023 19:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2023 14:15 Cerebrate1 wrote:On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:On November 29 2023 13:21 Cerebrate1 wrote:
And seriously. If the Palestinians had a leader like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, or Mandela, world opinion wouldn't be split on this topic right now. And Israel would sit him down at the negotiating table and give him a nice plot of land, because Israel would love to have a peaceful neighbor and less problems to worry about more than anyone.
I'm not saying that such a leader coming forth is realistic, but if it did, it absolutely would be good for the Palestinian cause. Immeasurably more so than any violent option.
This is pure fantasy. Firstly, I think you’ve got a very mistaken idea of how radical the people you listed were. They didn’t simply ask nicely and win the men with guns over with the raw power of pacifism. Hell, MLK was murdered by the men with guns and his message was buried with him. I didn't explain precisely what those leaders did, so I'm not sure what mistake you saw that needed correcting here. They promoted non-violent methods of protest. Those methods worked. I'm suggesting that similar methods (feel free to speak out the historical specifics if you like) would work here too. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:Secondly, it solves nothing. I don't personally consider self determination and a state nothing. That would solve most of the major issues Pro-Palestinians are concerned with by itself. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:Will Israelis give up their lands simply because Palestinian Ghandi asked for it? Israel is pretty desperate for nearby friends, they usually settle for countries who will even be willing to just not attack them. They gave Egypt the oil rich Sinai Peninsula (more land than the rest of Israel combined) for an agreement than Egypt would just stop attacking them. The West Bank and Gaza are a major pain in the butt for them financially, militarily, and politically. If they had reasonable assurances that those places would be friendly (or even just neutral) towards them, the vast majority of the war weary Israeli electorate would happily hand over the keys. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:And how much land will they give up? Probably to around the 1967 borders with some adjustments, as multiple offers have indicated. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:They’re not fighting because they’re too stupid to try asking nicely... They’re fighting because they feel that is all that remains. The Palestinian may feel this way, sure. I wasn't posting to tell them what they should feel. I was posting to explain what would be strategically advantageous for their cause. I did say that them following my suggestion was unlikely. That feeling may be part of the reason why it's unlikely. It doesn't make it a bad idea, if they were able to overcome their feelings and do it. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:This revelation you’ve had is nonsense. This is not some novel revelation of mine. Golda Meir said it decades ago “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel." Not to mention, the nonviolent protest idea was implemented successfully by leaders (Ghandi, MLK, and Mandela) in locations around the world. The fact that you are surprised by the suggestion of non-violent Palestinian protest is actually a really sad commentary on the situation in general. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm separating these other parts of your post because they have less to do with the point of my post and more to do with other points that we happen to also disagree on. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:How much of India did Ghandi allow Britain to keep? That's not really a reasonable comparison. England was an imperial power whose people lived half a world away and just had some companies and soldiers in India. Israel's population base is in Israel and nowhere else. They can't just pull out the troops and fly back to Israel. They are already in Israel and they have nowhere to retreat to. On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:Are Palestinians going to be allowed to move back onto their grandfather’s land? I'm not sure that that is a reasonable request at this point and it would upturn world society if we followed the logic to it's conclusion. Should some guy living in Wisconsin be able to take over the private house of some guy living in Tel Aviv because his grandfather lived nearby 70 years ago? I don't think Native Americans should be able to go up to anyone's house in America and take it because their grandparent lived there. Nor the Aboriginals in Australia. Nor the First Peoples in Canada. The people who live there now didn't do anything wrong and shouldn't be punished for something done by someone they probably didn't even know in ages gone by. And no modern government offers such things, even though many have displaced peoples in the past. The morally elevated nations who feel guilt for the past actions of their country do give reparations in other ways. Germany gives monetary payouts to holocaust survivors. America and Canada give tax and educational benefits to descendants of natives. But literally no one let's them take back their old house decades later, after it's changed hands multiple times. Certainly not for people who didn't even live there themselves. (Edit: I could hear the idea of Palestinians requesting monetary compensation from Israel btw. I personally feel that the surrounding Arab nations are more at fault for their plight and that they should be the ones paying, but at least that sort of request would be within the realm of things real countries actually do, rather than a unique standard applied to Israel and no one else.) On November 29 2023 14:45 KwarK wrote:Because if not they will remain in a perpetual state of intergenerational refugees. The intergenerational refugee status is a weird thing because it's an artificial creation unique to this conflict. In WW2, there were over 40 million displaced persons (according to Wikipedia). The whole of Europe was in upheaval and people had to flee as armies moved through and the borders of many countries were redrawn. Those people moved to new places, made a life for themselves, and stopped being refugees. Hundreds of thousands of Greeks displaced from Turkey didn't move back to Turkey to stop being refugees. Hundreds of thousands of Jews didn't have to move back to their various Arab states to stop being refugees. Don't even get me started about where everyone ended up in the Balkans. In modern times, the Syrian Civil War and the War in Ukraine are currently ongoing and already the refugee problems are diminishing as those people move to new countries and make new homes for themselves. I've met a number from both with jobs in my area. These situations are tragic for all of these peoples when they are displaced. But why are Palestinians unique that they keep their "refugee" status after they get a new home a job etc? There are Palestinian "refugee camps" that are basically just neighborhoods today. Not tents, but houses. People are dentists and stuff. They aren't on the run anymore. They are so stable they are able and willing to raise families there (not many families are formed when people are running for their lives.) They’re refugees because they want to go back home but they can’t.
You are re-defining refugee. The generally accepted definition of that word according to the UN Refugee Agency is Refugees are people fleeing conflict or persecution. (emphasis mine)
It then goes on to explain that legally a new host country is not permitted to expel them or return them to their home countries while the situation remains. This is yet another example of a term being redefined specifically in relation to the Israel-Arab conflict, while remaining the same in all other contexts.
Non violent resistance doesn’t work and MLK was unsuccessful.
I'm not sure how you define "success," but The Civil Rights Act of 1957, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Fair Housing Act of 1968, and many other civil rights advances during MLK's time seem like pretty significant leaps forward to me.
|
|
|
On November 30 2023 12:25 JimmiC wrote:
I really do not understand why Israel is treated as the bad guy in the region by leftists. Everything leftists care about (women’s rights, lgbtq2+rights, child rights, abortion rights, environmentalism, multiculturalism, democracy so on) Israel is MILES and MILES ahead on. I get the bar is super low in that part of the world but what is with the extreme hate? Is it as simple as America supported them and therefore they must be bad, end critical thinking?
Like do people realize that it is not extreme beliefs in that area to want to kill all Jews, all homosexuals, anyone who has an abortion, any women who has an affair (or in some cases is raped), are in favour of having young women circumcised, forced marriage for girls, and many many other awful things.
These are not good guys forced into evil by a bad situation. They believe the opposite of what we believe is right, hell their evil would make the Nazis blush. Their main strategy is to maximize civilian causalities for BOTH sides.
Because for many on the left, criticizing people for how they treat women or gays or minorities is only cool if the people you are criticizing are white and/or Christian. If they are brown and/or Muslim then you're either an Islamophobe or some other kind of intolerant racist. The double-standards and irrationality is built into the ideology. You're not supposed to understand it.
|
On December 01 2023 08:12 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2023 00:24 JimmiC wrote:
But there are a lot of people who give the hand wave that Hamas is bad and then 100% of their posts are about Israels oppression and if you talk about anything else they get mad and insult you. Who in this thread is actually doing these things?
The same people who only post in the Russo-Ukranian War Thread when Russia gets a win or they spot something pro-Ukranian that's easy to debunk. I won't name names, but it's been an interesting time lurking this thread and then checking how what people post here aligns with their post history in that thread.
|
Northern Ireland24392 Posts
On December 01 2023 09:15 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2023 12:25 JimmiC wrote:
I really do not understand why Israel is treated as the bad guy in the region by leftists. Everything leftists care about (women’s rights, lgbtq2+rights, child rights, abortion rights, environmentalism, multiculturalism, democracy so on) Israel is MILES and MILES ahead on. I get the bar is super low in that part of the world but what is with the extreme hate? Is it as simple as America supported them and therefore they must be bad, end critical thinking?
Like do people realize that it is not extreme beliefs in that area to want to kill all Jews, all homosexuals, anyone who has an abortion, any women who has an affair (or in some cases is raped), are in favour of having young women circumcised, forced marriage for girls, and many many other awful things.
These are not good guys forced into evil by a bad situation. They believe the opposite of what we believe is right, hell their evil would make the Nazis blush. Their main strategy is to maximize civilian causalities for BOTH sides.
Because for many on the left, criticizing people for how they treat women or gays or minorities is only cool if the people you are criticizing are white and/or Christian. If they are brown and/or Muslim then you're either an Islamophobe or some other kind of intolerant racist. The double-standards and irrationality is built into the ideology. You're not supposed to understand it.
How is any of that remotely accurate?
|
On December 01 2023 09:19 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2023 09:15 BlackJack wrote:
Because for many on the left, criticizing people for how they treat women or gays or minorities is only cool if the people you are criticizing are white and/or Christian. If they are brown and/or Muslim then you're either an Islamophobe or some other kind of intolerant racist. The double-standards and irrationality is built into the ideology. You're not supposed to understand it. How is any of that remotely accurate?
It may be phrased kinda hyperbolic, but this does speak to a real thing. Intersectionality is fraught with all kinds of tension, and furthermore these discussions (or at least the ones that take place in English) are very American-focused. A lot of what is said does not translate globally, and that might be fine when you think about potential for impact, but it does make a lot of things look hypocritical when viewed through a wider lens.
|
Northern Ireland24392 Posts
On December 01 2023 09:07 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2023 07:49 Magic Powers wrote:On December 01 2023 07:29 JimmiC wrote:On December 01 2023 06:25 Magic Powers wrote:
@JimmiC
The links you provided regarding Israeli laws on citizenship are concerned with the State of Israel, but not the settlements. Israel has extended protection to the settlers by sanctioning the settlements over and over again, but that is its own process separate from Israeli citizenship. The settlements simply "happened" while the State of Israel watched, in part didn't intervene, and in part actively supported them through law. There was no official "intention" by the state, but the state offers protection regardless.
Scholars have justified these movements as "returning to Jewish homeland", and also by arguing that an Arab Palestine never existed. These two points were and still are the justifications being used to counter accusations of it being a war crime. The accusation is that the settlers are occupants and thus committing a war crime against Palestinians.
As the settlements grew, they eventually occupied much more space than the whole Palestinian population in the West bank does today. These spaces became more and more fortified, and movement of Palestinians became controlled very tightly and under heavy surveillance as well as force and unlawful violence. The settlements have thus become safe havens for Jewish settlers who now go there to benefit from disproportionate funding from the State of Israel to the whole area. All of these settlements receive a lot more funding per capita than any other area within the State of Israel itself. This is why there is an incredibly high economic incentive for the settlers to stay, and for new settlers to arrive. That is good information on the settlements, and partly why I'm against them. Not sure it counters anything I posted but good additional information. The last part is the main point, everything before is just for better context. Israel funds the settlements directly and very disproportionately. The economic incentive to be a settler is very high, whereas the religious incentive is minimal in comparison. So indeed Palestinians are being exploited economically, it's just a very messed up system that causes the exploitation. On the one hand Jews only benefit economically because of the disproportionate funding by the state, on the other hand Palestinians are being economically disadvantaged as a result of the fortification of the settlements which causes Apartheid. You were asking about why Apartheid is the term being used, and this is why. It is economic separation and exploitation based on both ethnicity and religion. Religion is not the main motivation anymore. And yes, Jews are in fact ethnically distinct. I did not ever say religion was, I said security is. Israel is more Muslim than orthodox or ultra orthodox and a bigger group than all of those is secular. @wombat quite a few are. I think you just give people a pass because you generally agree with them on lots of other things. Like the opposite of how you were reading my posts when angry. And this is not a you thing, we all do it with people in our groups. The right wing is the easiest to see as outsiders, but ask them how many members are racist or sexist and they will say a extremely low number.
There’s just as many avowedly pro-Israel posters that you seem to have no particular issues with in your constant calls for ‘both sides’ moderate positions.
While attempting to throw constant gotchas at those who share a similar position to me.
|
On December 01 2023 09:15 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2023 12:25 JimmiC wrote:
I really do not understand why Israel is treated as the bad guy in the region by leftists. Everything leftists care about (women’s rights, lgbtq2+rights, child rights, abortion rights, environmentalism, multiculturalism, democracy so on) Israel is MILES and MILES ahead on. I get the bar is super low in that part of the world but what is with the extreme hate? Is it as simple as America supported them and therefore they must be bad, end critical thinking?
Like do people realize that it is not extreme beliefs in that area to want to kill all Jews, all homosexuals, anyone who has an abortion, any women who has an affair (or in some cases is raped), are in favour of having young women circumcised, forced marriage for girls, and many many other awful things.
These are not good guys forced into evil by a bad situation. They believe the opposite of what we believe is right, hell their evil would make the Nazis blush. Their main strategy is to maximize civilian causalities for BOTH sides.
Because for many on the left, criticizing people for how they treat women or gays or minorities is only cool if the people you are criticizing are white and/or Christian. If they are brown and/or Muslim then you're either an Islamophobe or some other kind of intolerant racist. The double-standards and irrationality is built into the ideology. You're not supposed to understand it.
Or maybe it's just because literally everyone here agrees that Hamas are a vile bunch of murderous terrorists sponsored by fat cats hiding in cushy mansions and there really isn't much to discuss about that? Like, how many times do you need people to repeat that yeah, Hamas are bad and their most recent attack was bad?
|
On December 01 2023 09:37 Salazarz wrote:
Or maybe it's just because literally everyone here agrees that Hamas are a vile bunch of murderous terrorists sponsored by fat cats hiding in cushy mansions and there really isn't much to discuss about that? Like, how many times do you need people to repeat that yeah, Hamas are bad and their most recent attack was bad?
Just 21 hours ago you were defending Hamas as not being like the nazis here.
|
Northern Ireland24392 Posts
On December 01 2023 09:27 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2023 09:19 WombaT wrote:On December 01 2023 09:15 BlackJack wrote:
Because for many on the left, criticizing people for how they treat women or gays or minorities is only cool if the people you are criticizing are white and/or Christian. If they are brown and/or Muslim then you're either an Islamophobe or some other kind of intolerant racist. The double-standards and irrationality is built into the ideology. You're not supposed to understand it. How is any of that remotely accurate? It may be phrased kinda hyperbolic, but this does speak to a real thing. Intersectionality is fraught with all kinds of tension, and furthermore these discussions (or at least the ones that take place in English) are very American-focused. A lot of what is said does not translate globally, and that might be fine when you think about potential for impact, but it does make a lot of things look hypocritical when viewed through a wider lens.
Well intersectionality is naturally fraught with those tensions. BJ’s post reeks of some ‘X person DESTROYS the left’ Youtube energy and is fucking nonsense and adds absolutely nothing of worth to any discussion.
Do you think his interjection was in any way accurate or useful here?
|
On December 01 2023 09:39 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2023 09:37 Salazarz wrote:
Or maybe it's just because literally everyone here agrees that Hamas are a vile bunch of murderous terrorists sponsored by fat cats hiding in cushy mansions and there really isn't much to discuss about that? Like, how many times do you need people to repeat that yeah, Hamas are bad and their most recent attack was bad? Just 21 hours ago you were defending Hamas as not being like the nazis here.
Do you think 'literally Nazis' is a catch-all term for anything bad, and saying that whatever group is not, in fact, the same as Nazis is somehow 'defending' the said group?
|
Northern Ireland24392 Posts
On December 01 2023 09:39 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2023 09:37 Salazarz wrote:
Or maybe it's just because literally everyone here agrees that Hamas are a vile bunch of murderous terrorists sponsored by fat cats hiding in cushy mansions and there really isn't much to discuss about that? Like, how many times do you need people to repeat that yeah, Hamas are bad and their most recent attack was bad? Just 21 hours ago you were defending Hamas as not being like the nazis here.
They can still be bad without being particularly comparable to the Nazis.
One was a regime that came to power in a powerful state with lots of influence, one has very little power whatsoever.
The Nazis enacted their will from a position of relative comfort, not something one can really say of Hamas. It doesn’t excuse their behaviour but equally the comparison doesn’t really track either.
|
On December 01 2023 09:42 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2023 09:39 Turbovolver wrote:On December 01 2023 09:37 Salazarz wrote:
Or maybe it's just because literally everyone here agrees that Hamas are a vile bunch of murderous terrorists sponsored by fat cats hiding in cushy mansions and there really isn't much to discuss about that? Like, how many times do you need people to repeat that yeah, Hamas are bad and their most recent attack was bad? Just 21 hours ago you were defending Hamas as not being like the nazis here. Do you think 'literally Nazis' is a catch-all term for anything bad, and saying that whatever group is not, in fact, the same as Nazis is somehow 'defending' the said group?
Hamas has vowed to stop at nothing in exterminating all the Jews in the region. To pretend like there's no conceptual link to Nazism here beyond "generally bad" is extremely bad-faith. I also see no reason to lecture JimmiC about who is and isn't a Nazi, unless it's to try to say "well Hamas is not as bad as the Nazis". Hence my characterisation as defending them.
@WombaT: It's very fair to say that Hamas is not like the Nazis in terms of their level of influence, but since when does influence matter? When virulently racist alt-right groups in Western countries are called Nazis, it's not because they are running a country.
EDIT: Actually that's especially awkward choice of wording on my part because Hamas kinda is running the place, which only further speaks to my point.
|
Is it right or wrong to capitalise? It feels kind of like giving them more acknowledgment of status than I want to...
|
On December 01 2023 09:19 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2023 09:15 BlackJack wrote:On November 30 2023 12:25 JimmiC wrote:
I really do not understand why Israel is treated as the bad guy in the region by leftists. Everything leftists care about (women’s rights, lgbtq2+rights, child rights, abortion rights, environmentalism, multiculturalism, democracy so on) Israel is MILES and MILES ahead on. I get the bar is super low in that part of the world but what is with the extreme hate? Is it as simple as America supported them and therefore they must be bad, end critical thinking?
Like do people realize that it is not extreme beliefs in that area to want to kill all Jews, all homosexuals, anyone who has an abortion, any women who has an affair (or in some cases is raped), are in favour of having young women circumcised, forced marriage for girls, and many many other awful things.
These are not good guys forced into evil by a bad situation. They believe the opposite of what we believe is right, hell their evil would make the Nazis blush. Their main strategy is to maximize civilian causalities for BOTH sides.
Because for many on the left, criticizing people for how they treat women or gays or minorities is only cool if the people you are criticizing are white and/or Christian. If they are brown and/or Muslim then you're either an Islamophobe or some other kind of intolerant racist. The double-standards and irrationality is built into the ideology. You're not supposed to understand it. How is any of that remotely accurate?
Because it is. A notable example that comes to mind is the students at UC Berkeley attempting to ban comedian Bill Maher from giving a commencement address for supposed islamophobic comments. If you know anything about Bill Maher it should be that he's a critic of all religions. If you know anything about UC Berkeley it's that it's basically the ground zero for woke-leftist ideology. If you think they would have moved to ban him if his criticisms were of white Christians instead of brown Muslims then you are simply dreaming.
|
On December 01 2023 09:52 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2023 09:19 WombaT wrote:
How is any of that remotely accurate? Because it is. A notable example that comes to mind is the students at U C Berkeley attempting to ban comedian Bill Maher from giving a commencement address for supposed islamophobic comments. If you know anything about Bill Maher it should be that he's a critic of all religions. If you know anything about UC Berkeley it's that it's basically the ground zero for woke-leftist ideology. If you think they would have moved to ban him if his criticisms were of white Christians instead of brown Muslims then you are simply dreaming.
But for this to be evidence of the hypocrisy you're talking about, you also need to show evidence that UC Berkeley allowed other hateful comments to be delivered in a lecture/seminar/whatever because they came from one of the religions "allowed" to hate, as you put it.
|
On December 01 2023 09:15 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2023 12:25 JimmiC wrote:
I really do not understand why Israel is treated as the bad guy in the region by leftists. Everything leftists care about (women’s rights, lgbtq2+rights, child rights, abortion rights, environmentalism, multiculturalism, democracy so on) Israel is MILES and MILES ahead on. I get the bar is super low in that part of the world but what is with the extreme hate? Is it as simple as America supported them and therefore they must be bad, end critical thinking?
Like do people realize that it is not extreme beliefs in that area to want to kill all Jews, all homosexuals, anyone who has an abortion, any women who has an affair (or in some cases is raped), are in favour of having young women circumcised, forced marriage for girls, and many many other awful things.
These are not good guys forced into evil by a bad situation. They believe the opposite of what we believe is right, hell their evil would make the Nazis blush. Their main strategy is to maximize civilian causalities for BOTH sides.
Because for many on the left, criticizing people for how they treat women or gays or minorities is only cool if the people you are criticizing are white and/or Christian. If they are brown and/or Muslim then you're either an Islamophobe or some other kind of intolerant racist. The double-standards and irrationality is built into the ideology. You're not supposed to understand it.
One thing that I had not considered for the longest time but that now that it has been pointed out to me (by François Bégaudeau, credit where it's due) I can't stop seeing everywhere, is how much rightwingers are idealists. In the real world leftists will obviously oppose bad treatment of gays or minorities when it's done by anyone, but that's only the real world. It only matters if you care about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
