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.

He’d be proud considering his family’s implied participation in the business plot, an attempt to overthrow the government by corpos in the 30s.

Because in a flawed system you can’t get to your ideal outcome without actively trying to minimize harm. There’s more to politics than Israel-Palestine and one party advocates replacing as many non politically appointed federal employees with as many partisans as they can and the other has members pushing for legislation to make third parties more viable.

Maybe if there was any meaningful attempt to grow local support we wouldn’t have to pick between a terrible or a horrific option but you don’t get there by not voting.

Same callous disregard for life.

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.

Now it’s hilarious

According to an IDF report the baby was a Hamas base unfortunately.

Lovely photo! I think this is Corniglia right?

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

What even is the first part of this? Where were people? They were using the service while it hemorrhaged money. Now they’ve moved past that to increasing revenue. That period was never going to last. Where’s the hypocrisy? What’s the uniform position these people have according to you?

It’s also rich how you assume everyone has enough to make meaningful contributions to every creator they watch on their own.

I would go a different direction and say that if, beyond the excessive amount, you just can’t stand that ads exist on the platform then you are entitled and think free content is your right.

Why should they be free though? Outside a capitalist economy sure, but the way things are people need to make money. Premium gives a much larger cut to the channels you watch than regular ad watching anyway.

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.

The first 5 came from Jerry

If you reread they never said those nations didn’t engage in conquest.

They already acknowledged that conquest isn’t exclusive to euro-American history so I’m not sure what point you think you’re making right now.

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.