More like, a good contingent of those voters voted unconditionally for these people, who they had every reason to believe would act like this. They did this to themselves.

My father once yelled at me because he tried to to tell me a story about a friar in the 1600’s whose faith in God granted him the power of flight and I assumed it was a joke. It was not a joke.

Nothing? Who said anything about doing anything to them?

By the way, while I’ve got you here, did you know that a mod of c/Germany (as well as most of feddit judging by the upvote ratios) thinks you’re a rabid antisemite who wants to kill all Jews, and who thinks people should go to Gaza to join Hamas, because they misread some of your comments defending their policy? I was wondering if you’d do me a favor and explain to them that you’re on their side, I doubt that you’d want that sort of libel going around.

Feddit.org now bans

• The sentence “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”

• Comparing Israel to the Nazis

• Calls to end Zionism

• Calling for the dissolution of Israel

What’s the appropriate legal punishment for murdering 45 children? Because I think that all those responsible, including Netanyahu and Trump, should face the same punishment for this that an ordinary citizen would.

I just quoted what you said. Your real position is crystal clear, you’re a Zionist who thinks criticism of Israel should warrant a ban and also be illegal, because you view anti-zionism as a “dogwhistle” for anti-semitism. You are not, however, “happy to stand by it,” because you’re hiding behind all these excuses about “complying with the law.” The problem is you slipped up and gave the game away with your “dogwhistle” line.

It’s so funny how you types are constantly hiding behind the law and saying, “I didn’t make the law, I don’t agree with it, but they have to do this to avoid legal liability, hands are tied” and then five seconds later you say stuff like, “criticism of Israel is a dogwhistle for antisemitism.”

You’re a coward, refusing to admit your real positions because you know you can’t defend them.

Why would they have to “go” anywhere?

Elad Barashi, who has worked in the Israeli entertainment industry for several years, sparked outrage after posting on X: “Good morning, let there be a Shoa (Holocaust) in Gaza.”

In another post, he wrote, “I can’t understand the people here in the State of Israel who don’t want to fill Gaza with gas showers… or train cars… and finish this story! Let there be a Holocaust in Gaza.”

They have demonstrated that they are not “leftists” by defending the cruelties of Israel. There is no “infighting” here.

“Bans all criticism of Israel” is not the title. The title is that they are banning criticism of Israel, which is true. It’s also true that if someone bans oranges, then they are “banning fruits,” it would only be untrue if they said, “banning all fruits.”

The title does leave it ambiguous in a way that people might think it extends to all criticism, but that’s not actually what it says.

The best way to prevent another Holocaust is to make it illegal for anyone to ever warn that anything happening is similar to the Holocaust or to the Nazis and should be stopped before it goes further. Brilliant. Genius.

Equal rights for all, but with Jewish people being more equal than everyone else.

It’s very frustrating and the thread I linked made me feel like I was losing my mind. I try to seek out perspectives I disagree with but a lot of times I just end up concluding, “Damn, these people are even worse than I thought.”

Libs are always like, “Just because I support pulling the trigger doesn’t mean I support what the bullet does.”

What gets me is how wildly people in the thread blew it out of proportion. You had someone quoting “first they came for” as if lifting sanctions on a leader we installed is comparable to the Holocaust.

It’s like everyone needs everyone to agree that every time Trump sneezes, it’s the literal worst thing that has ever happened, and if you push back on anything ever you’re the enemy. These same people fantasize that they can win elections by appealing to moderates.

But the thing that really grinds my gears is how they all default to hostile intervention in foreign countries despite knowing absolutely nothing about their situation. The “null” position should be leaving everyone alone, but instead, it’s whatever the government or media tell them. Or in this case, whatever a random tweet from a crypto grifter tells them. And they will try to bring down the hammer of social condemnation and use things like this as a way to equate communists to fascists and kick us out of spaces, even when they aren’t actually at all invested in the issue.

Buncha clowns.

The right has their fair share of infighting. They may all want heirarchy, but they disagree on who should be on top. They can all agree on scapegoating an outgroup, but disagree on which people fall into that outgroup. Like, the ultimate endgame of fascism is for the last fascist to kill the second to last fascist for not being white enough.

They appear to be united because most of us don’t go into their spaces and lurk, because, I mean, ew. If a Trump supporter came to Lemmy, they’d find people quite united against them, and if one of us went on Truth Social, we’d find them quite united against us, but that doesn’t mean they actually get along internally.

I have seen people waxing poetic about Imperial Japan

What? Who? Where? That’s an absolutely wild take.

Both of us won out from that exchange.

You might want to look into what happened to the French government and its leadership shortly after funding that little proxy war. Let me give you a quick rundown, because I enjoy history:

The American Revolution was incredibly expensive and put France into an extreme financial crisis. Of course, the court’s extravagent personal spending didn’t help things (and made for better revolutionary propaganda), but in reality it was about 6% of total government expenditure, while loan payments, mostly from the war, represented around 50%. Even with very high taxes, it was impossible to balance the budget. A report from March 1788 estimated a deficit of 20% of expenditures, which could only be made up by more borrowing

This financial crisis led to the king calling the Estates General, something that hadn’t been done in hundreds of years, to bring representatives of the three estates (nobility, clergy, and everyone else) together to work out a solution. When an agreement could not be reached, the representatives of the third estate left the Estates General and declared that they were creating a “National Assembly,” which claimed to represent the popular democratic will, and started work on a new constitution. The royal family ended up declared traitors and got their heads chopped off. And the rest is history. (My source for this is an old book I own called The Coming of the French Revolution by Georges Lefebvre)

So, dumping a bunch of money on a proxy war in a bid to raise their geopolitical status and undermine their rival didn’t really work out so well for France. They were so focused on playing geopolitics against Britain, but by failing to address declining conditions at home, they created a much more dangerous domestic threat which brought about the government’s downfall.

I don’t think that perspective is consistent with facts or evidence. Do you have anything tangible to back it up, or is it just your assumption?Suppressing things and pushing them out of the mainstream can be quite effective, and that’s exactly why it’s dangerous - if it wasn’t effective, there’s be no real reason to fear a ban.

Imo it’s good so long as it’s constrained to just the Holocaust. Slippery slopes can exist but not everything is one, and in this case it’s likely that they intend to just stop there. There’s overwhelming agreement among historians and everyone who’s not a Nazi on this and this alone, there is nothing to be gained from debating or rehashing it and virtually everyone trying to is acting in bad faith. This isn’t necessarily true of all claims of genocide, and there are always going to be edge cases where there’s room for reasonable disagreement.