Count042 @ Count042 @lemmy.ml

Posts

2

Comments

1,047

Joined

4 yr. ago

No CIA member is a good representative of their state.

That is one of the more honest examples of what they do.

You want dishonest?

They count the difference between expected birthrate and actual birthrate.

War causes people to have less babies? Each baby not born = 1 death caused by communism.

Worse then dead, they never were.

Healthy, normal, sane, and regular are words people who want to control other people without feeling like they are trying to control other people tend to use.

They should always send up red flags that any statement using them may be an ingenuous attempt to control others.

Your comment is a bright shining example of someone doing this.

Go fuck off and learn to control yourself first.

Why did that ship just sail? Did I miss something?

Just like Apartheid south Africa was multi-cultural, right?

All those ethnicities have equal legal rights, right? Including in the areas Israel is colonizing?

If I'm gay, can I get married in Israel?

Did the multiculturalism extend to the Gazan Jewish or Christian populations (you know, the Jewish ancestors of the people that DIDN'T leave in the diaspora)?

Did it extend to their places of worship?

Again, you're falling back to the literal last argument of literally every apartheid government everywhere: if we stop oppressing them, they'll kill us.

Do you think the ANC was a terrorist group?

Do you think they killed of all the British and Dutch ancestry people that were there?

Come on. At least try to be original in defense of the slaughter of mostly children.

EDIT: forgot to add that you need to stop anti-semitically equating the actions of a genocidal child murdering state, and a ethnicity/religion. Why do you keep doing that. It's antisemitic.

Stop being antisemitic.

We've had the capacity for feeding the entire population without animal products since before iron.

We've had the capacity to do so with an overabundance of calories that the population keeps growing larger since the Haber process was discovered.

Arguing that we should distinguish between animals and livestock until we can live without animal products is incredibly disingenuous.

Until A, no B doesn't work as an argument when you already have A.

Edit: I'm not the same person you were talking with before.

Your usage of the word tactical is appropriate.

Liberals always try to justify voting for literal genocidaires, over the left demanding something for their ever increasingly important vote, by couching their arguments in the vestments of logic and game theory.

You know, without a mathematical background.

And then they fucking butcher it because the argument they put fourth is from week one of a 101 entry level game theory class.

To put it another way:

You're tactically voting and losing the war when you need to be voting strategically.

That involves the left demanding things for their view, and the right that has stayed in power in the DNC, through cheating, giving some up.

Meanwhile, dumb people that like to feel smart justify demanding the left give up power for free while holding those in power to absolutely no accountability.

Always punching down.

Okay anti-semite.

I'm just going to explicitly call it the anti-Semitic trash as being such whenever that person equates Israel and Judaism.

Cuad does not wasn't to kill 7 million Jews. They wasn't institutions such as Columbia to stop investing in an apartheid genocidal state.

The freak out from the defenders of that genocidal state get more and more shrill as people recognize apartheid and genocide for what is.

Go peddle your genocide justification elsewhere. No one wants your anti-semitism here.

Found the Nazi!

You're going to continue to be infuriated and further isolated if you continue to argue in bad faith that the people that call for an end to an apartheid system are antisemitic..

EDIT: Moreover, when I see people mad at people criticizing apartheid ethno-states, it's generally because they are racist against brown people.

If I followed your logic you would be, by definition, racist. And I would be publicly justified in calling you a bigot for your defense of apartheid.

Kinda shitty, right?

Maybe you shouldn't do that?

If your evidence of anti-semitism is the phrase:

From the river to the Sea, Palestine will be free.

Then you're either delusional ( small chance ), or you're anti-semitically trying to link all Jewish people with a state that the largest humans rights organizations have labelled an apartheid state.

Why are you linking the actions of a state to a people? Are you trying to make those non-israeli Jewish people less safe by linking them to the actions of a genocidal apartheid state actively engaged in war crimes?

Why would you do such an antisemitic thing?

It means calling for a one party state with equal rights for all. You know, what non-racist people should want. Guessing from your bad faith lies about that statement, I'm guessing that isn't you, though.

One of the last arguments defenders of apartheid systems like to use is: 'we can't give them equal rights. Do you know what they'll do to us? They might do to us what we did to them.'

Last time I heard this argument was from defenders of Apartheid South Africa about the ANC. Whom they also declared were terrorists.

You know, that racist shithole country whose final ally was Israel?

Apartheid countries like to stick together, I guess.

EDIT:

Do you think apartheid South Africa should have fought to maintain apartheid like Rhodesia did?

Why or why not?

Were the ANC arguing to kill all white people in South Africa when they argued for an end to an apartheid state?

How is that different from Israel?

If you're not an intellectual coward, you'll answer these questions, even if only to yourself.

EDIT EDIT: Holy crap you're a human walking contradiction. Based on your comments you're a pro-union anti-racist that is pro deportation without judicial process. You're also transphobic and racist against Chinese people.

You have no consistency to your ideological beliefs, like, AT ALL.

This is the correct answer. So much better than mautrix and hostng a matrix server.

Some States do not deserve criticism.

Some States deserve destruction.

The south in the US civil war: deserved to be destroyed.

Nazi Germany: deserved to be destroyed.

All apartheid ethno-states: deserve to be destroyed.

You don't like that last one? Explain to me why Rhodesia should exist.

It seems to me that people that think arguing for the destruction of apartheid ethnostates is wrong think that way because they are racist against brown people.

NoneOfUrBusiness is one of the most consistent anti genocide, anti apartheid voices in Lemmy.

Enough so that I recognize their username even without tags.

They're making a point here, and it isn't to justify Israels apartheid or genocide.

Probably the only non-evil response.

It fails the 'all it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing' test.

It fails the 'If I was in Nazi Germany, I would have resisted' test.

But I suspect that that isn't the reason used by Peter_Arbeitslos@feddit.de

I would guess that he would have supported Rhodesia if his government said that to oppose them was racist against white people.

You edited to add 'nowadays'.

What a cowardly edit.

How was it okay to back the terrorist group ANC (Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist) and call for the fall of the Apartheid South African government in the 80's, yet not okay to call for the downfall of the Apartheid ethnostate that Nelson Mandela said the concentration camp they created (Gaza) was worse then any of the Bantustans created by Apartheid South Africa?

What Israel is doing is quantitatively worse then Apartheid South Africa. Why was calling for the end of that government okay?

$5 says you're too much of a coward to answer that question, even if only to yourself.

You make up people calling for a Jewish genocide in this thread, but you still can't bring yourself to use the word Genocide for the state that set up torture rape camps that they used to rape doctors to death.

Why the double standard? Why does calling for a single state with equal rights for citizens constitute calling for a genocide, but you can't call the country that has bombed and destroyed every hospital and school while continuing to block all access to food genocidal?

Why the double standard?

But are they self sealing?

So freedom of speech shouldn't allow people to say that apartheid South Africa shouldn't exist? That Nazi Germany shouldn't be allowed to exist?

I can remember when opposing apartheid ethnostates was the correct moral opinion.

What happened?

What makes Israel different?

Or are double standards proof of anti semitism only when they're negative?

EDIT: No response needed from moral cowards that would have protected apartheid South Africa, Belgium Congo, or Nazi Germany from criticism that they should not be allowed to exist.

You probably won't read this, but things like this are EXACTLY why freedom of speech exists.

You would have condemned Nat Turner and justified slavery.