Understood. I will now refer to this group as Hamas and allies. Although Hamas enjoys support in something north of 70% of the population, with it close to 90% in December. https://apnews.com/article/israel-h...artime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514
General CE Chat
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Their recent increased support is likely down to the public perception that they're the only viable fighting force between them and an invading Army.
Don't speak latin you don't understand.
Why were you using suicide attacks as evidence for your claim, if suicide attacks are irrelevant?
Regardless of the reasons why, if 90% of a given group supports X, it's not racist to claim that that group supports X (although technically 10% do not support it). Maybe rounding up is lazy, so I will make the distinction clear moving forward.
It's not off topic. You're taking with some fanatics think or encourage and saying an entire population behaves like that.
There is no need to allow that typical retreat from "Palestinians are born evil" to "Hamas, supported by a majority of Palestinians, is evil." They mean exactly the same thing. To paraphrase Trump, "looters, rapists, suicide bombers, some might be good people."
Support for armed violence is pretty common among those at the receiving end of ethnic cleansing and statelessness. Quoting Jabotinsky for the 1000th time,
For a liberal Zionist in the 21st century (note the Howard Zinn reference within that same post), it's not possible to then assert, like Jabotinsky, that: "We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done ". Basically, my beliefs trump yours, hence, I can kill you. Back in the early 20th century, this expression of colonial dominance was perfectly fine and was trumpeted by Zionists in various ways. But for the liberals today, it's incongruent with everything else.
So we need the fictions. The good in-group and the evil out-group that fights against the good guys because of external manipulation and internal/inherent deviousness and evil. The Arabs started the war and are fake refugees and Palestine and the Nakba is made up and so on and so on.
Support for armed violence is pretty common among those at the receiving end of ethnic cleansing and statelessness. Quoting Jabotinsky for the 1000th time,
For a liberal Zionist in the 21st century (note the Howard Zinn reference within that same post), it's not possible to then assert, like Jabotinsky, that: "We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done ". Basically, my beliefs trump yours, hence, I can kill you. Back in the early 20th century, this expression of colonial dominance was perfectly fine and was trumpeted by Zionists in various ways. But for the liberals today, it's incongruent with everything else.
So we need the fictions. The good in-group and the evil out-group that fights against the good guys because of external manipulation and internal/inherent deviousness and evil. The Arabs started the war and are fake refugees and Palestine and the Nakba is made up and so on and so on.
Last edited:
I’m not sure we’re in agreement. At least, I don’t discern that from your posts on this subject, which suggest to me that you see Palestinian society as an inherently violent and fanatical collective, rather than a beleaguered yet steadfast nation responding in various recognizably human ways to the pressures exerted on them in their modern history.
I don't think this is actually the case he's trying to argue but I do think the plight of the Palestinians is very unique compared to all the other similar circumstances:
There have been many cases of ethnic cleansing in the past century, many of which are somewhat known, some of which are vaguely referenced to and some of which are completely forgotten or ignored. The ethnic cleansing of Germans from their homelands of historical Hinterpommern, Pomerania and Konisgberg draws a lot of parallels to Palestine. Murky history going back centuries (if not milennia) of whether the land belongs to the Slavs or the Germanic peoples. Palestinians are the only group who have actually managed to gather genuine support and sympathy and visibility in the global world.
Take for example, the Kurds. There are some very fanatical, violent groups of Kurds undergoing acts of terrorism and nobody knows or cares because their plight is not well known.
What this means is whilst the plight of the Palestinians is well known, their more violent factions and acts also become far more visible and seen. Therefore this could lead to a belief that they are more aggressive and violent in their motivations than say, Armenians, Georgians, Cechnyans or Uighurs.
He literally said that the Palestinians are a inherently violent and irrational people. He was asked this, verbatim, and said yes.
Just on this page we have a comment marked for quality control that, while I don't agree with it, is not horrific, and multiple posts that rightfully point out the evilness of the house bill that essentially criminalizes criticism.
Oh, and people having a pissing contest about whose supporters are the worst.
This place....
Oh, and people having a pissing contest about whose supporters are the worst.
This place....
+1
Oh please, you know that is not what I am doing. Pointing out hypocrisy is not the same as arguing that the 2 sides are on equal footing.
Then where is the hypocrisy?
A while back I threw someone out from a social gathering because of something they said. It was a very easy decision, even the individual in question didn't argue too much.
If those same statements had led to sanctions from the state, then that would have been horrible and I would have done what little I could to stop it.
amazingOk, but were you loudly proclaiming 5 minutes earlier that suppression of dissenting views is bad?
Take a look at the original post again and ask yourself is it something that should be flagged because it was an actual shitpost or one which you just vehemently disagree with.
By the state? If someone had asked, yes, but it wasn't the topic at the time. If I had, and then done what I did, it would not be hypocritical in the slightest.
The post in question is calling every single protester an antisemite who doesn't actually care about the conflict or about lives. It's lazy, it's baseless, it's dumb, it's probably wumming. If the moderators want the CE forum to be somewhat serious, then yes, that is exactly the sort of comment that should be discouraged. Me saying that you're only typing now because you hate Palestinians or Arabs would be on the same level (I don't believe that, if that's unclear).
I, and others, have been told we support genocide, that love babies being killed, etc. because we are going to vote for the least worse option in November. Were those posts flagged for quality control? No. Shold they have been? No. I'm not arguing that the post was good, nor that I come close to even remotely holding the same views, but I find it exasperating that it was that post that somehow crossed a line considering the previous discussion that on that very page and all the other shit flung about on previous ones. To be clear, I don't think any of that should be flagged. How the hell can we have discussions on a topic so emotional that that/this one if opposing views are targeted by mods because they are, to most people in here, disgusting.
Unless all we want on here is an actual echo chamber we are going to see views expressed that we think are reprehensible, but unless the standard of "must be serious" is applied to all points of view then I what we will get is exactly that.
Yes, people tend to not respond well to being told that they support Trump if they don't want to vote for Biden, and then you get this shit slinging. Or it started the other way around, with the same result. If that is below the quality the staff wants, then they should probably consider controlling it. They'd need people to actually report comments, though.
It was flagged for quality control, not for opposing views. If the guy wasn't a troll, then he'd probably be able to actually present cogent reasoning for why he believes all protesters are antisemites with no care for actual lives, instead of shitposting. There are very few limits on the views you can present in the CE forum. Way more extreme things have been said on all sides than this particular comment, but they weren't shitty oneliners that added nothing. Here is what actually happened:
- Someone posts a video of pro-Israel supporters racially abusing black pro-Palestinian protesters.
- gfactor defends the racial abuse, by saying that it's better than being Hamas supporters.
- Someone else asks who these supposed Hamas sympathizers are.
- gfactor says that campus protesters are just people who hate Israel and jumping on a trend.
What is this adding to the discussion? Absolutely nothing. It's bottom of the barrel stuff. You're not creating an echo chamber by having at least some standards. If the pro-Israel side is hurt by not being allowed to write something as dumb as this, then there is no pro-Israel side. The only goal gfactor had was to try to divert attention away from something bad from his "side". No argument, no reasoning, no engaging, no nothing. It's worthless waste of space.
Would you have flagged it and/or do you think it should have been flagged?
Do you think it should have been flagged if the post had read:
"My point is, these campus protestors don't really care. They hate Palestinians more than they love Israelis. It's the trendy thing to do. Buy an Israeli flag, instagram it and get likes."
If you are not answer "yes" to both or "no" to both I would ask what the difference is.
Yes, especially if this low-quality comment was a follow-up from a low-quality attempt to divert attention away from someone being racist.
Note that the Golda Meir quote about how Arabs hate Jews more than their love their own kids have been brought up several times in the CE forums without repercussions. Depending on how you phrase it, you can say pretty much anything. That is above the ability of the poster in question, though.
Well, I'm not going to argue that point.
Anyways, defending that post (it's right to exist, not its content) has been an exercise in distastefulness that I have lost the stomach for. I do appreciate the civil engagement though, it's what makes this place (occasionally) fulfilling.
Sure thing, take care.
What he says doesn't negate the fact that they have been planning to ban it for years because of the underlying problem of the Chinese government having access to the user data of 150m American TikTok users. There is obviously also the problem of social media promoting selective misinformation.
The point was that it wasn't a conspiracy theory. There is obviously the problem that they can't control the narrative as they used to and manufacture consent for their crimes.
No, it is a selective conspiracy theory among anti-Israel social media types. Even though random individuals like to moan about pro-Palestinian protests getting ginned up on social media, the underlying problem from the beginning has been the China problem.
It flies in the face of what you originally claimed and have been claiming. The move to rush through the bill now is absolutely because Israel (and the US) are unable to claim the narrative of the war. I mean you have Blinken admitting that for fecks sake yet you’re doubling down.
What misinformation has been promoted about this conflict on social media?
And secondly, don’t you think Israel and the US have been spreading misinformation?
Social media is full of unverifiable misinformation irrespective of who is spreading it, usually to advance their own political agendas. Even worse, most people tend to get their news on social media from accounts whose political narratives they already agree with, then proceed to happily repost it in threads like this to gain the upper hand in debates such as the one in this thread. Blinken or Romney muttering a couple of lines doesn't change the underlying issue with Tik Tok.
Apart from the fact that this is the 3rd attempt by the US government to ban Tik-tok, at federal, executive and various state levels.
It feels like you're being very partisan in this, from insinuating that Hamas do not lie (atleast that was the way the post was interpreted) to saying no misinformation have been present on social media.
How is that any different to the misinformation being pumped out of Israeli and US mouthpieces?
The irony is that the view that Tik Tok is going away because of Gaza is itself a paranoid manifestation of social media misinformation.
If something is not accurate, it doesn't matter who is saying it. Its still factually incorrect. This applies to both Israel/Palestine, or any number of other political issues on Twitter.
I purposefully deleted TikTok after feeling I was losing brain cells from every geopolitical topical video, from the Pro-Israel crowd shouting the typical extreme zionist "land belongs to us, kick out the Palestianians" crap, to some Arab Influencer saying "I don't know why the Jews do not like the Arabs, the Arabs have been nothing but hugely kind and have treated the Jews with the utmost respect in the past centuries, this shows they are insidious by nature" tripe.
So we should pass a bill to ban Israeli and US mouthpieces?
What are you even arguing? Nobody is saying to specifically ban Palestinian voices on Tiktok but ignore US/Israeli video makers.
The argument is to ban the platform itself which removes both sides of the same problem! I feel you are being purposefully obtuse here.
PS. This is actually not the main reason itself to ban TikTok but severe security concerns.
Likely not, since there isn't a bill to ban any mouthpieces. So that would be unfair.
His point is that the bill got serious momentum only after they thought there was too much anti-Israel content. In other words, without the war, they wouldn't be in a rush to pass the bill.
Also rarely mentioned is that litigation means Tik Tok isn't going anywhere for years. And if Byte Dance find a non-Chinese buyer to sell to, then Tik Tok is here to stay for good. And even if Tik Tok were to magically disappear, every other social media platform would still be here.
But this is not true because Trump tried twice, there was already a federal ban and the only reason Trump's plan never got through was because the administration ran out of time.
Biden continued the process but then, you know, Covid and all that shit and parked in. In 2023 the FBI director put out a report citing severe threat of tiktok and the ban was moved to the front of agendas again.
Congress grilled TikTok over a year ago when the bill was already within draft phase, and there were already pledges that were Bi-partisan to have a bill ready by 2024.