SevenOfWine

I mean, Biden absolutely is wishy washy.

But he also reversed Trump's policy of saying West Bank settlement is legal, and sanctioned violent Israeli settlers.

Obviously Gaza's really bad, but what's happened and happening in the West Bank is also arguably ethnic cleansing. Chasing Palestinians off their land. Trump's a fan.

You're may be right. I assume most of them are 'useful idiots'.

They realised western media were often biased, so they switched to 'critical' media, spent more and more time in internet bubbles, and ended up uncritically parroting Russian, Chinese or Iranian propaganda instead.

Same thing happened after 9/11 and Iraq. A lot of people were angry about how biased CNN was, so they switched to channels like Russia Today because it was critical of the US and did genuinely have a lot of good journalism. Of course, that doesn't mean Russia Today isn't propaganda. A lot of these people are forever lost, I don't think you can deprogram them.

Also if people use a lot of slogans like "cultural marxism", "Fuck Brandon" or "genocide Joe", without being able to articulate a nuanced position, it's likely they've succumb to newspeak. Newspeak uses an impoverished and simplified vocabulary, to prevent people from critical thinking.

It's at least in part Russian propaganda. They don't want people to vote for Trump, they do want democratic voters to not vote at all, which will help Trump get elected.

Look at the people pushing the 'genocide Joe' thing. Invariably they're anti-NATO and make excuses for Iran, Syria and Russia. Not that they're doing it deliberately, but plenty seem to have bought the propaganda and are acting like useful idiots by spreading it.

Fediverse bug. I see the correct thumbnail, but have seen the wrong thumbnail on other posts when using a kbin account.

Ok.

But in the quote you used above he explicitly says he is not including the Holocaust. Perhaps use another quote next time.

To be clear, and I've said it here before, but IMHO it's not helpful to make nazi/holocaust comparisons, when you can call them fascists or racial supremacists (because plenty of them verifiably are based on what they have provably said and done) and call what they're doing ethnic cleansing or genocide.

It's far harder to deny.

But I suppose the language you use depends on the goal you have in mind.

Anyone call this a Holocaust level genocide is an absolute moron.

You're not entirely wrong, and I'm not accusing anyone here, but sometimes they're not stupid. Sometimes they are doing it deliberately to disconcert and because they know it will be hurtful to survivors (most of whom weren't Jewish, but I digress). Sometimes they're being useful idiots and uncritically parroting that propaganda.

Unfortunately a lot of anti-Israel propaganda does have explicitly anti-semitic undertones. For example, the Russian/Soviet inspired stuff. Twitter is also full of actual Nazis using this conflict for their own ends. It's important for people who oppose what Israel is doing, to avoid adopting those anti-semitic undertones even if they're justifiably angry, because it allows the Israeli far-right to paint all criticism of Israel as anti-semitic. It also alienates the many Jewish people who are critical of the Israeli government and how the Palestinians are treated.

For example, saying "Zionists control all Western Media" plays into the trope of Jews controlling the media, and is easy to disprove. Obviously not all Jews are Zionists, but if you go on a website like StormFront, they'll openly admit using Zionist as a dogwhistle for Jew. Hence, you'll occasionally see an especially blatant comment which says something about '''Zionists''' being cunning or the like. Plenty of western coverage is critical, which those who defend what Israel is doing will happily use to claim that there is no Zionist bias in Western coverage. Meanwhile if you don't engage in hyperbole, and simply state that a lot of (but not all) western media are very often (but not always) biased(not fully controlled) in favour of Israel, that's very hard to disprove because IMHO it's largely true.

But you've been heavily downvoted, I've been heavily downvoted above, and this comment will inevitably also be heavily downvoted too. The fediverse is a bit of a circlejerk like that.

It's not as if what we say will actually influence anything anyway, and we're certainly not going to stop the killings. I participate in the fediverse to practice my English.

What about these guys? ... Meyer repeatedly argued that there are parallels between the Nazi treatment of Jews leading to (but not including) the Holocaust, and Israel’s dehumanization of Palestinians.

???

Ie. Meyer is explicitly NOT arguing that it is comparable to the holocaust, but only to the treatment of Jews leading up to the Holocaust.

I argue that the act of ethnically cleansing the Palestinian people is comparable to the Holocaust.

Your comment above:

if you don’t care about the fact that a Holocaust level genocide

Maybe you misunderstood my criticism, but I wasn't disputing that what was happening was genocide or ethnic cleansing. I was disputing the level or scale of what was happening. Clearly what is happening in Gaza (and the West Bank) is on a smaller scale. 17 million vs. 30,000 in Gaza.

This doesn't make what is happening ok. It just means that it is on a smaller scale than the holocaust.

Please don’t create another straw man to argue over, the number of casualties was never the point

This is not another argument. The number of casualties was my argument from the beginning. The number of casualties may not have been your point, but it was mine when you said that what was happening was on the same level or scale as the holocaust.

This is also not a strawman argument. I am literally adressing something you said in your comment.

On a more general note, this is why comparisons to the Nazis or the Holocaust are rarely helpful, and partly why Godwin's law is a thing.

For example, just because someone isn't Adolf Hitler or a Nazi, doesn't mean they're not a fascist. Calling someone like Ben Gvir or Smotrich a Nazi might feel good, but it allows them to say "Aha! But I don't believe x, y, z. Also, the Nazis hated Jews. I'm a Jew. So you're wrong." It undermines your argument, even if they are quite similar to Nazis. Call them a fascist or racial supremacist, based on things that they actually said and did, and it's far harder to deny.

The comment I replied to said:

a Holocaust level genocide is taking place

30,000 people have died. 17 million people died in the holocaust. That is not on the same level and it is not on the same scale. 30,000 is a significantly smaller number than 17 million.

If you support the Palestinian cause, pretending otherwise is a home goal.

I get that it feels right, because people are understandably angry about all this, but it's not a winning argument. Quite the opposite. If you're provably exaggerating the scale of what's happening, it allows supporters of Israel's far right government to sow doubt and claim you might also be exaggerating about the very very real war crimes and ethnic cleansing they are engaged in.

He's not arguing in good faith.

Here he's arguing that Hamas hasn't rejected anything, ie. they haven't rejected a deal.

Further down in the comments, he says that the Israeli deal is stupid, thereby admitting that there is an Israeli deal which Hamas is rejecting.

Check out his comment history.

Sorry, but nope.

Attempting to discredit an argument, because of who said it and why they supposedly said it, is a text book ad hominem.

It's especially painful, because you're defending a corporation (run by a white male) with an abysmal record on women's rights, who sell a product that has a track record of damaging young girls' self image, from accusations of purplewashing. Purplewashing being a term, that as far as I know, was originally termed by female feminists. It's a bit like if I quoted Emmeline Pankhurst, and you said the quote was nonsense because I don't know what's it's like to be a woman.

But more generally, I suppose that's the danger of a superficial understanding of identity politics. In practice it is often used to divide groups with a common cause, like how the far right have used TERF ideology in an attempt to divide the LGBTQ+ movement and pit feminists against the trans community, claiming trans women aren't real women, because of (and I quote) "lived experiences". (Luckily actual lesbians don't often fall into this trap, because they know that this is nonsense because they know actual trans people and know they face similar struggles and live through similar experiences.)

And from a feminist perspective it perpetuates gender binaries and essentialism. The whole men are form Mars, women are from Venus nonsense. In the case of the Barbie movie, purplewashing is very similar to pinkwashing, greenwashing, bluewashing, etc. So you don't need to actually be a woman to understand why purplewashing is problematic, just like you don't need to be gay to understand why pinkwashing is problematic.

But hey, what do I know. I'm just Ken.

Anyway, agree to disagree.