You must log in or register to comment.
Someone literally made this argument to me yesterday. I asked how continuing to arm Israel helped stop the genocide of Palestinians and they started talking about American national interests and how if we don’t arm Israel someone else will. No mention of Palestine in their answer whatsoever. Shit was just gross.
I’ve definitely run into that argument before.
It assumes an inherent strategic value to Israel that applies universally and misses how Israel is uniquely beneficial to US interests.
It’s not like China needs Israel, with the belt-and-road it is opening relations with literally the entire middle east and not just the white settler colony. Russia already has close allies in the region that would oppose allying with Israel. The EU could try to replace the US as the main backer, and it has a material interest in doing so, but they just don’t have the military capacity to pull it off.
Who will?
i hate those sorts of interactions because the other person quite literally said nothing yet they walk away feeling like they “won” or like they “had the correct take”, i can 100% guarantee it
This is that settler with a fucking Brooklyn accent right? Anybody have a link to that video?
we have emojis tooMy blood boils just recalling that video.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=KNqozQ8uaV8
Unrelated, but can we get a :woodchipper: emote?
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
This is a link to him explaining himself, admitting they’re trying to occupy as much territory as possible in the event of peace (not related to this genocide; he means peaceful coexistence with Palestinians)
“how are you?”
thank god, still alive
if god exists he fucking hates you and nobody is thankful you are alive.
and look, i’m not body shaming, but get a shirt that fits. what the fuck. i don’t care that he’s a bigger dude, but he needs a bigger shirt. maybe that’s the largest size he could steal from the malnourished palestinians he took that house from.
also, “how did you end up here?”
it’s a long story, i had to move from where i was
bro is a sex offender.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Coconuts are white on the inside.
Just an unrelated thing I was thinking about.
deleted by creator
This is good.
Am I the only one who feels kind of uneasy referring to a non-white person as a coconut?
I think you are falling for what I call the “calling Warren a snake is chauvinistic” discourse.
as a non-white person i’m giving you the pass and some advice to stop falling for liberal bullshit. basically- no, making a joke about some absolutely unhinged bullshit this freak said is not rooted in racism or sexism. you don’t need to twist yourself up trying to figure out how it is because some lib planted the idea in your head and as an empathetic person you actually considered their point of view.
Removed by mod
I saw this post, went away for a minute to formulate a reply, came back and it was gone
Liberalism is ILLEGAL on hexbear
I’m trying to get on as many shit lists as possible. Really get up against that wall, you know?
ah, the “I was being an obtuse shithead on PURPOSE” move, classic
No, more like badly executed self-deprecating humor. I stand by what was deleted. I think accelerationism is like throwing matches at your furniture and yelling “Shazam!” in hopes that it summons a genie instead of burning you to death.
Accelerationism is when people with no power refuse to condone genocide with you, got it
If you have a problem with accelerationism, why not take it up with the people-shaped things of the ruling class who actually have their collective foot on the accelerator?
Michael Richards changed his look
I swear, bro, it’s okay if we kill you, it’s different for us. We read these books that said it was okay for us, those other auths’ books are wrong and they need the bullet. If we just kill a few more people for the right reasons, it’ll totally be okay.
conditional_soup’s position on killing the guards, commanders and executioners of Nazi concentration camps: “No, you can’t do that, it makes you just as bad as them! You have to debate them in the marketplace of ideas while they exterminate millions of Jews, queers and other ‘undesirables.’”
It’s literally comic book logic. Also no one who holds this belief does so sincerely. Ask them about homeless people, addicts and tweakers, and terrorists and what the state is justified in doing.
Many of these people will absolutely defend Nazis but condemn a victim of addiction to brutality and death.
1,000%. Liberals will say they abhor all violence, but then turn blind eyes to the violence that is necessary to maintain our (relatively) safe and comfortable lives in the imperial core. But when the oppressed commit violence against their oppressors, or a powerful force commits violence in behalf of the oppressed, suddenly liberals are shocked and aghast at the brutality of it all!
TC_209’s position on killing Nazis accidentally didn’t align with the party’s. They are put against the wall by a young officer who didn’t pay attention when they read theory in school.
You walked yourself into the position of arguing against killing Nazis at concentration camps. Go home.
Has anyone ever been executed for not executing people? Iirc even the nazis didn’t do that. Their einzastzgroupen troops were developing ptsd from killing Jews which is why they invented the gas chambers. You are arguing about complete and utterly nonexistent things.
Bro it’s a vegeta meme. Stop taking it seriously.
Do you think states are justified in killing terrorists? Yes or no?
I think that arguing about justification is a moot point. Anyone can justify anything if they want to, and that goes twice for states. That’s without wading into the quagmire on the question of terrorism, largely for sanity’s sake. Generally, I think it is always correct to resist a state whose objectives include mass murder.
Is that a yes or a no? You either believe that states have the right to kill people they deem terrorists (whether that’s in good faith or bad is irrelevant) or they don’t have that right period.
There is no in-between; if you can’t answer the question or dance around it then what you’ve told everyone is that even you don’t believe in your own logic
We don’t support cops, peckerwood, it’s not happening
