teledildonics [none/use name]

apologies if this violates the disengage, but you’re right that was wrecker shit. deleted the comments and will return to anonymous browsing until i have something positive to contribute. thanks for your work

deleted by creator

https://hexbear.net/comment/4384399 some correlating commentary from the time about people getting banned for hamas support

deleted by creator

https://hexbear.net/comment/6426226

As of now they [Nakoichi] have been demodded, I agree that mods are held to a higher standard as stated in the code of conduct.

deleted by creator

from what I’ve gathered the historical ““line”” was that burning a star of david feels icky (i get it, but ultimately ceding ground to the cynical utilitarianism of the nakba settlers), followed by “well it gives ammunition to external bad actors”, but also simultaneously “this is a small and insignificant site so why do you care about it go touch grass”.

deleted by creator

im a permalurker who contributes NOTHING but would like to add +1 updoots for the news mega. it really is a fantastic resource and thank you to the posters for clocking in

heres the main relevant comment thread: https://hexbear.net/comment/6419306 warning: ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ahead

This is the exact argument used by the judge who just recently created federal precedent to charge anti-zionist protestors with hate crimes, immediately escalating them to federal crimes. This precedent, and your argument here, will be used to fuck over activists across the country with trumped up federal crimes.

"The Star of David — emblazoned upon the Israeli flag — symbolizes the Jewish 
race,” the judge said, comparing attacks against the Star of David to using racial 
slurs against Black people, and dismissing the defense’s argument that such an 
offense could be “an objection to state policies.”

In future lawsuits alleging antisemitism stemming from anti-Israel activism, for 
example, plaintiffs will be able to cite the Sumrall lawsuit as evidence that there 
is a legal standard equating anti-Zionism with anti-Jewish discrimination. 
Mainen said the case would likely be “heavily cited” in the future.

https://archive.is/MTtAM

and if you want to attempt to nullify equivalencies by arguing scope and context you can make that argument, but its undeniable that this stance is at the very least normalizing rhetoric that will be used to fuck over anti-zionist activists, and for no good reason besides “optics”

some of those other users are even moderators!

and the mods should have to post a self-crit, inexcusable conduct

Times of Israel - Legal group hails breakthrough as US judge equates Israeli flag with Jewish identity https://archive.is/MTtAM

“the strongest language a federal court has come out with yet
 that anti-Zionism is obviously antisemitism."

In future lawsuits alleging antisemitism stemming from anti-Israel activism, 
for example, plaintiffs will be able to cite the Sumrall lawsuit as evidence t
hat there is a legal standard equating anti-Zionism with anti-Jewish
discrimination. Mainen said the case would likely be “heavily cited” in the future.

The lawsuit also made novel use of an obscure federal legal provision dating back
 to the Civil War era aimed at combating racial discrimination. The provision, first 
enacted as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, guarantees equal rights for all racial 
groups, and Jews have been recognized by the Supreme Court as a race for 
purposes of civil rights law. The provision elevates racially motivated assault from 
state court to federal court.

“If I’m on the street and I hit someone, assault and battery, that’s not really a federal 
crime. That’s a state crime. But if I’m on the street and I hit someone because of 
their race, this law federalizes that violent act,” Mainen said. “It allows you to sue in 
federal court when there’s a hate crime component to it. This case in DC was the 
first post-October 7 case, and it’s possibly the first ever antisemitism case to use 
this to apply it to antisemitic violence.”

ah yes the Jon Stewart argument