SomeLemmyUser

Nah man, im protesting against Israelis ocupation on the streets, I’m demanding of my government that they stop supplying them weapons and start sanctioning them, I condemn my my government for not carrying out the orders by the international court… I am certainly not ignoring the violence of the oppressive system.

But there are red lines, and murdering civilians is one of them, no matter what others did to you.

Arguing that okt 7 didn’t target civilians?

Making up another strawman by arguing against the German government which I alread y said I criticize as if it were my position?

I retract my point that you seem to argue for something you believe in…

Have a nice day sir

P.S: the holocaust was about a deeply rooted antisemitism and an ideology making Jews the scapegoat for all problems in facist Germany, taking their property to give it to loyal Nazis while proclaiming the terrorising and killing of said scapegoats, the internal enemy, would benefit society. It was neither about invading a Jewish country to make territorial gains nor about ending a Jewish liberation movement.

There is a difference in supporting the fight for freedom and supporting everything an organization stands for.

I think its good the USA fought the Nazis in WW2 - doesn’t mean I can’t criticize their capitalist imperialistic view of the world.

I think its good Palestinians fight oppressive Israel, doesn’t mean I can’t criticize hamas fundamentalist religious view of the world.

I think its good USA fought facist Japan in ww2, doesn’t mean I can’t criticize them for the means by which they did it, like dropping nuclear bombs mainly killing civilians

I think its good Palestinians fight against facist Israel, doesn’t mean I can’t criticize them for the means by which they do it, like shooting down a music festival, mainly killing civilians.

Having the luxus/privilege of not being involved directly in the matter means you have the duty to criticize warcrimes not because of who commits them, but because they are warcrimes.

Having ethics means you make arguments based on actions, not by who does the actions (argumentum at hominem)

This does not amount to “wishy washy both sides” (false balance). One side is clearly worse, one side is clearly the systematic oppressor, one side is clearly more to blame. This just doesn’t mean the other side can’t be criticized at all, and clearly not “anyone measuring both by the same standards is a Nazi”

If I’ve been protesting against keeping someone locked up in an unlit pantry for years and arguing humans should be treated humanly and neither tortured nor killed, and then they break out and start killing civilians regardless if they were part of the oppressors or not, it is only logical I say this is, while understandable, still not the right thing to do.

C’mon, you seem like someone arguing for something you really believe in.

I literally said I am supporting the protests by going there.

You use quotation marks as if you were quoting something I said, which I clearly didn’t.

Why this strawman?

Just realise I’m arguing against someone who honestly asks “should vegans who raise their kids vegan get their kids taken away?”

And makes fun of women who are afraid of going out at night in fear of violence from men…

Guess we don’t have any common ground for a good faith discussion

Both can be true lol. Being oppressed AND being fundamentalist religious.

There are also oppressed parts of that party who are not as religiously fundamentalist, like the fatah. But being on the oppressed side doesn’t make the hamas less religiously fundamentalist. Like fighting against the Nazis in ww2 didn’t make USA less a capitalist party

Don’t get your point here.

You are fighting a strawman, no one is arguing “Israel = good”

The point is that killing civilians is bad, even if done by people fighting facist Israel

That religious fundamentalism is bad, even if done by people fighting facist Israel

You are wrongfully argumenting that criticizing warcrimes on one side amounts to supporting warcrimes of the other side.

You can be against starving of civilians, against genocide, against shooting civilians, against holding civilians hostage, against religious fundamentalism because those things are bad tools from an ethical point of view, no matter who uses those tools.

You are saying those tools are only bad, if israel use them, not when Hama’s uses them.

You are saying everyone who is against killing civilians IN GENERAL is a nazi

You are exactly proving my point.

deleted by creator

See thats exactly the flamebait.

There is a war between two religious fundamentalist parties.

One of them is clearly worse than the other, opressing them and doing horrible warcrimes.

One can be against the horrifying killing, bombing and starving of civilians by a right wing religious fundamentalist government while STILL be against the kidnappig and shooting of civilians by a religious fundamentalist organization.

You making up a false dilemma by throwing everyone who has a more complex view on things than “this one religious fundamentalist group is in the right with everything and the other one needs to be completely annihilated” Into the the Nazi bin.

This is clearly not argumentation in good faith.

Sure one side is clearly worse, but that doesn’t make the other one untouchable or not to be criticized.

criticizing the scewed media in Germany, actively going on anti-israel demonstrations, demanding from your government to stop sending weapons and instead initiate tariffs on this far right warcrime nation BUT STILL not defending the shooting of civilians on a music festival or kidnapping of them, is a valid position, it may not be your position, but calling those position “pro-genocide” or “clearly Nazis/fascists” is just plainly wrong.

You can be activly fighting against genocide WHILE STILL not fighting for a radical fundamentalist religious group.

You can fight for the people, their rights, their lives while not supporting their ideology.

You making a “either you are 100% with us, or you are a facist” argument is either plain stupid or ragebait and surley neither dialectic nor materialistic.

Trying to get teamspeak hotkeys to work in arch wayland - tinker with system for 2 hours - give up and try to revert the changes for 2 hours - give up and load btrfs snapshot - still got bugs you didn’t have before - give up and install Debian.

Also interesting because in German progressive/queer feminist groups use the term

“Weiblich gelesen” (literal: read female, meaning: assumed to be female)

If we want to refer to someone who looks like a women by conservative standards but about whom we don’t know if they actually identify as a women.

“Weib” (degrading term for “women/wife” derived from the word “weiblich” (female)) on the other hand is considered very rude and only used by conservative/sexist people.

Just find it interesting which words are differently connotated in which language.

You’re funny, .ml bans everyone, even communists, if they don’t support their Stalinist authoritarian version of it. You can be as friendly and toned down as you want, they’ll still ban you.

You picked the wrong comparison my guy.

You actually not complied to the rules oft the community. Just because on .ml everyone who doesn’t fully support hamas gets labeled as Nazi and then banned for rule 1 (racism) doesn’t mean you can expect to call obvious abusive bullshit on other instances and get away with it.

And just to be clear: Israel doing horrific warcrimes and need to be stopped. German weapons supplies are a disgraces 21% for the AfD are fucking bad.

We “german lemmings” are with you on that, we just don’t accept your lie talk about being “pro-genocide” if we don’t fully support kidnappings of civilians from the other religious group in the conflict. We are sick of idiots accusing us of being Nazis while some of us live in fear that actual Nazis beat us up when we walk out of the door because we are on the spectrum, Jews, Muslims, have long hair, got outed as communists, or even being a supporter of the fkin green party.

Where is the meme?

Racist much?

Instantnudel größter von allen schätzen

Okay I understand.

So “books with female protagonists” would be okay (because large group referenced) “Bus with female passengers” would be considered rude, because small group referenced, you would rather say “Bus with women and girls as passengers” ?

Honest question from a non native: what is wrong with the term female?

And what word could you use for the sex girls and women are part of where people wouldn’t imagine you look like a space neolib?

Mgw er einfach wirklich an die Hufeisen Theorie glaubt =-O