107
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] archomrade@midwest.social -5 points 4 weeks ago

Oh, so now you’re changing what kind of theoretical sanctions you want.

I've not changed anything, except put a finer point on what i've been saying from the outset - that Isreal, the US, and the other genocide collaborators should face justice for the terror and suffering they've caused in Palestine. Whatever sanctions already in place have not changed Israel's ability or motivation to continue their genocide, so more and stronger punitive action is needed. One "official" route - a minimum standard of justice - would be UN sanctions supported and adhered to by western UN member states. The UN's refusal/reluctance to do so is kind of the broader analytical point that I don't feel you're ready to discuss.

The UN has never stood for peace. It has stood for legal means of warfare and applying a coat of paint on bloodshed, so it’s official bloodshed instead of your standard bloodshed.

Finally a point of agreement. The UN and NATO were both created to legitimize the violence and statecraft of western-allied nations against a shared 'enemy'. Perhaps i've been too tongue-in-cheek for you - the sanctions and punitive actions taken by the western world through the UN have always been against the US's preferred enemies, and have always selectively ignored actions taken by the US and others, even when the evidence of war crimes and genocide are overwhelming. And yet it would be foolish to deny that the UN is the only collective body with any real weight, and there are certainly none that stand meaningfully opposed to western hegemony.

It's important context for someone on the left, because to those who stand opposed to western crimes then have no "official" path to justice. You can take from that whatever conclusion you like.

All it requires is for Hamas to declare itself government and surrender.

Look at how selective you're being with your condemnation.

I don’t care about it. Nothing justifies violence. Why do you struggle to comprehend this?

Clearly not "nothing", if you stand in support of Israel's war and occupation of Gaza. There are some forms of violence that you clearly recognize as legitimate. I don't struggle to understand what you've said, I struggle only to show you the contradiction in your omissions.

Oh god forbid I highlight Islamic Terrorism about a conflict between Israel and Islamic Terrorists

A true "neutral" liberal would say that it is a war between jewish terrorists and islamic terrorists. I don't even care that your sympathies lie on one side of the conflict or the other, but I do take issue with your cowardice to acknowledge it. There are no good guys in this conflict, and there's a choice you've made here that is consistent with all of your other comments on the topic that shares a striking resemblance with the sentiment expressed in the cartoon you refuse to acknowledge.

As the moderator of a community nominally dedicated to opposing hate speech, you sure do seem to have a blind spot when it comes to Muslims.

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago

Look at how selective you’re being with your condemnation.

I've condemned both. What are you talking about?

Clearly not “nothing”, if you stand in support of Israel’s war and occupation of Gaza.

I do not.

A true “neutral” liberal would say that it is a war between jewish terrorists and islamic terrorists.

I'm not a liberal. What do you want me to acknowledge? That the conflict could've been avoided? I've ranted about the conflict before. If you're apparently an expert on my opinions or how I'm biased, you should already know my opinions.

You still don't understand. No context justifies violence against innocent people. You demand a lot from me, so now I will demand something from you. Say, "No context justifies violence against innocent people."

As the moderator of a community nominally dedicated to opposing hate speech, you sure do seem to have a blind spot when it comes to Muslims.

Where is the hate speech towards Muslims? You have to supply some now if you're going to make these accusations and explain as to how they are hate speech.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I’ve condemned both. What are you talking about?

Where the fuck did you do that? Must've missed it in all the obfuscation and deflection, help me out and point me to it. I'm not an avid follower of yours, so if it happened in some other thread just assume I didn't see it.

You've conditioned the end to Israel's genocide against Palestine on Hamas's surrender, but apparently have no conditions for Israel ending their own hostilities. You've deflected accountability away from Israel by saying 'whatabout' Iran/China/Russia, even as they are already being held to higher standard and face far more severe consequences for their once removed involvement (by an order of magnitude. It is not close.), and have made no indication that Israel deserves accountability of the same -if not more severe- magnitude. You've decontextualized the violence conducted by Israel and the US and western powers that define the current conflict, and gone out of your way to remove displays of bigotry and hate against Muslims.

Clearly not “nothing”, if you stand in support of Israel’s war and occupation of Gaza.

I do not.

You repeatedly placing the blame on resistance groups and selectively using the term 'terrorist' against them -while avoiding using the same term to describe Israel and their slaughter of innocent civilians - certainly says otherwise. I'll accept any application of the term 'terrorist' or 'terror' to the current Israeli occupation force as evidence of your opposition to their war. Even any clear indication that Israel is ultimately responsible for their own acts of genocide as evidence of your opposition. If you can clear that up then maybe we can part ways.

You still don’t understand. No context justifies violence against innocent people. You demand a lot from me, so now I will demand something from you. Say, “No context justifies violence against innocent people.”

I'll be as clear as I can be: unprovoked violence is always wrong, but I do consider hate speech to be a provocation. If a Nazi is standing on a corner spouting antisemitic slurs at passers-by, I think that Nazi is liable to have his lights put out. I wouldn't tell someone to go do it, but I certainly wouldn't direct my condemnation towards the person who threw the punch and then intentionally obfuscate the hate speech that immediately preceded it in my recounting

Where is the hate speech towards Muslims? You have to supply some now if you’re going to make these accusations and explain as to how they are hate speech.

The cartoon you've repeatedly dismissed as unimportant is hate speech. It's Islamophobic propaganda, and it borders on genocide denial. It renders passive and absent the genocide and famine that Israel is committing and holds up a racist and inaccurate religious practice as abstractly culpable for a horror Israel has chosen to commit themselves. I won't say it justifies calls to violence, but it absolutely does matter. It is important context to someone who would otherwise believe the call to violence was unprovoked. That cartoon was a provocation.

A part of understanding liberation movements is acknowledging that the oppressed minority is always held to a higher standard than the oppressor group, and in no thread has that been made more apparent than this one.

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago

Where the fuck did you do that? Must’ve missed it in all the obfuscation and deflection, help me out and point me to it. I’m not an avid follower of yours, so if it happened in some other thread just assume I didn’t see it.

You can go digging in my comment history to find my views on it. i ain't gonna repeat myself for you. I'm also not going to humour you by writing up entire paragraphs. Focus on a single thing, and I'll respond to it.

If a Nazi is standing on a corner spouting antisemitic slurs at passers-by, I think that Nazi is liable to have his lights put out.

Are you sure, absolutely sure you wanna use this particular example? Cuz you're gonna be dunked dude :v

[-] archomrade@midwest.social -3 points 3 weeks ago

Careful not to betray your commitment to nonviolence, bud.

(still no acknowledgement of the Islamophobia of the cartoon)

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Careful not to betray your commitment to nonviolence, bud.

This is yours, not mine.

(still no acknowledgement of the Islamophobia of the cartoon)

yes, I saw your report, I appreciate it. Do more reports

[-] archomrade@midwest.social -3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yup, and I'm fine with allowing any soviets spewing antisemitic or Islamophobic slurs have their lights put out, too.

Same with this guy, whoever he is.

yes, I saw your report, I appreciate it. Do more reports

I'll be sure to do that, and I'll look forward to seeing you give yourself a stern warning for it, too.

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago

I figured you'd post back with Hitler shaking the hand of someone, afterall he was a politician.

that's why i also posted the picture of the SS lol

I’ll be sure to do that, and I’ll look forward to seeing you give yourself a stern warning for it, too.

But I did. You reported me for being off-topic, and I agreed with you and asked if you wanted to drop the topic.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social -3 points 3 weeks ago

Lucky for all of us that none of those friendships lasted, then, huh?

You reported me for being off-topic, and I agreed with you and asked if you wanted to drop the topic.

Lol I reported you for breaking the rule, not me. To your credit you didn't bring those countries up again, though.

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Lucky for all of us that none of those friendships lasted, then, huh?

hatred is beyond death

[-] PolydoreSmith@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago

Damn, OP is a psycho. Thanks for fighting the good fight; you’re a far more patient person than I.

These “anti-tankie” folks seem completely incapable of nuance. Either you support everything the west does, or you must be a tankie who doesn’t believe in Tiananmen Square. There’s no third option it seems.

[-] goat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

How is defending calls to massacre innocents 'fighting the good fight'

What's wrong with you? Clearly you haven't spent much time in the community. Many users are very much opposed to Israel's actions -- I know I am.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social -2 points 3 weeks ago

I'm not defending the massacre of innocents any more than you are.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social -3 points 3 weeks ago

The dominant ideological position of any system never requires a rational, coherent, or consistent analysis. All they need is a post-hoc rationalization of their ideology by nature of their dominance at the top, and a rejection of all violence outside their hegemony.

It's the rhetorical equivalent of scoring just enough points to win and then taking the ball home with you. They deny everyone else the means of establishing a competing worldview by prohibiting the exact same violence they used to establish themselves as the dominant system.

None of these liberals really see the inconsistencies or contradictions of the ideology they're defending, assuming they try to see them at all. Most of them simply resign themselves to an unjust world because 'that's just the way it is'. There's no other way to break through to them other than slowly and patiently challenging them, and even then, most will never really see it. I don't know if goat will ever see reason but maybe a few in his community will, assuming he doesn't ban me for the constant pestering.

We'll see.

this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
107 points (92.1% liked)

MeanwhileOnGrad

1346 readers
1 users here now

"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"

Welcome to MoG!


Meanwhile On Grad


Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!


What is a Tankie?


Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.

(caution of biased source)


Basic Rules:

Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.

Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.

Apologia(Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.

Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.

Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.

Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.

You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS