You just gotta know which things you disagree on, and why they might strongly disagree with you, and not just say "fuck it, imma blast off".

If you go in wanting to make a point then yea. They will not be courteous.

I don’t see an issue with it, no.

Erm. Well. That's rough, but I can't say I didn't expect it.

Then I'm not sure why you thought I called him a Nazi, I was very clear about what I was accusing him of and apparently you agree (though, on second reading it doesn't look like you said you agreed, just that you warned him, so maybe you don't agree with my accusation?)

Not my fault he picked that particular bigoted apple off that particular tree. (not that picking a bigoted apple makes one a bigot)

i do like how you ignored mentioning the dox attempts

I have no way of knowing if that's accurate, nor to i have any way of knowing what it was that got you perma'd.

try to say that stalin was a disaster for communism and his dictatorship killed it, then you’ll be in trouble

I probably wouldn't say that, because the US defeated communism (according to their own accounting). I would tread lightly around anything I may not agree with them on, but I do happen to agree with them on a lot. At least most of them. Half of them. Maybe slightly less than a majority of them.

What can I say, they aren't a monolith.

Lucky for all of us that none of those friendships lasted, then, huh?

You reported me for being off-topic, and I agreed with you and asked if you wanted to drop the topic.

Lol I reported you for breaking the rule, not me. To your credit you didn't bring those countries up again, though.

I have, and I was, and no, I got perma’d.

Welp, i guess there we have it. I've so far managed to avoid provoking them myself, cross my fingers I don't get on their bad side.

Maybe? You should go and try provoking them, see if they still treat you with civility.

edit: goat is right, I was using sarcasm and did not indicate that clearly. I do not support going there to cause trouble, but you are absolutely allowed to go there and behave.

Yup, and I'm fine with allowing any soviets spewing antisemitic or Islamophobic slurs have their lights put out, too.

Same with this guy, whoever he is.

yes, I saw your report, I appreciate it. Do more reports

I'll be sure to do that, and I'll look forward to seeing you give yourself a stern warning for it, too.

Lmao I didn't even say he was being a nazi, I said he was using the same rhetoric the Nazis used

He could think I called him a platypus, that wouldn't make it accurate.

edit: conspicuously absent is your opinion on if what he was doing was blaming the Palestinian Genocide on their Islamic beliefs, and if (to your recollection) the Nazis also blamed the Jews for their own genocide. Fair if you don't think so, but you've so far avoided elaborating on your opinion on Islam.

Careful not to betray your commitment to nonviolence, bud.

(still no acknowledgement of the Islamophobia of the cartoon)

That Nazis did blame the Jews for their own extermination, and that is what that person was doing.

Nowhere did I say that he was a Nazi.

Close, but thanks for following directions.

I wouldn't be fishing here if I wasn't getting bites, and I wouldn't have thought to dip my hook in the water if I hadn't seen abundant signs of good fishing.

You are free to create a Hexbear account and contribute however you like. I promise they will answer any questions you have civilly, so long as you don't provoke them. But they've not committed to civility like you've done here, so be careful not to let you mask slip.

Point to where I called him a Nazi and I'll disavow communism and join the IOF.

I’ve condemned both. What are you talking about?

Where the fuck did you do that? Must've missed it in all the obfuscation and deflection, help me out and point me to it. I'm not an avid follower of yours, so if it happened in some other thread just assume I didn't see it.

You've conditioned the end to Israel's genocide against Palestine on Hamas's surrender, but apparently have no conditions for Israel ending their own hostilities. You've deflected accountability away from Israel by saying 'whatabout' Iran/China/Russia, even as they are already being held to higher standard and face far more severe consequences for their once removed involvement (by an order of magnitude. It is not close.), and have made no indication that Israel deserves accountability of the same -if not more severe- magnitude. You've decontextualized the violence conducted by Israel and the US and western powers that define the current conflict, and gone out of your way to remove displays of bigotry and hate against Muslims.

Clearly not “nothing”, if you stand in support of Israel’s war and occupation of Gaza.

I do not.

You repeatedly placing the blame on resistance groups and selectively using the term 'terrorist' against them -while avoiding using the same term to describe Israel and their slaughter of innocent civilians - certainly says otherwise. I'll accept any application of the term 'terrorist' or 'terror' to the current Israeli occupation force as evidence of your opposition to their war. Even any clear indication that Israel is ultimately responsible for their own acts of genocide as evidence of your opposition. If you can clear that up then maybe we can part ways.

You still don’t understand. No context justifies violence against innocent people. You demand a lot from me, so now I will demand something from you. Say, “No context justifies violence against innocent people.”

I'll be as clear as I can be: unprovoked violence is always wrong, but I do consider hate speech to be a provocation. If a Nazi is standing on a corner spouting antisemitic slurs at passers-by, I think that Nazi is liable to have his lights put out. I wouldn't tell someone to go do it, but I certainly wouldn't direct my condemnation towards the person who threw the punch and then intentionally obfuscate the hate speech that immediately preceded it in my recounting

Where is the hate speech towards Muslims? You have to supply some now if you’re going to make these accusations and explain as to how they are hate speech.

The cartoon you've repeatedly dismissed as unimportant is hate speech. It's Islamophobic propaganda, and it borders on genocide denial. It renders passive and absent the genocide and famine that Israel is committing and holds up a racist and inaccurate religious practice as abstractly culpable for a horror Israel has chosen to commit themselves. I won't say it justifies calls to violence, but it absolutely does matter. It is important context to someone who would otherwise believe the call to violence was unprovoked. That cartoon was a provocation.

A part of understanding liberation movements is acknowledging that the oppressed minority is always held to a higher standard than the oppressor group, and in no thread has that been made more apparent than this one.

I'm not defending the massacre of innocents any more than you are.

The dominant ideological position of any system never requires a rational, coherent, or consistent analysis. All they need is a post-hoc rationalization of their ideology by nature of their dominance at the top, and a rejection of all violence outside their hegemony.

It's the rhetorical equivalent of scoring just enough points to win and then taking the ball home with you. They deny everyone else the means of establishing a competing worldview by prohibiting the exact same violence they used to establish themselves as the dominant system.

None of these liberals really see the inconsistencies or contradictions of the ideology they're defending, assuming they try to see them at all. Most of them simply resign themselves to an unjust world because 'that's just the way it is'. There's no other way to break through to them other than slowly and patiently challenging them, and even then, most will never really see it. I don't know if goat will ever see reason but maybe a few in his community will, assuming he doesn't ban me for the constant pestering.

We'll see.

Of course you’re one of those reactionary evangelists who’ll claim none of these have anything to do with religion and the people in the region are just puppets waiting for the secularist liberals to pull their strings.

Religion is only the rationalization of universal self-importance and a justification for unjustifiable violence, but the desire for violent domination is always rooted in an intense desire for material security and liberation.

compare it to, say, the Syrian, Yemeni or Sudanese civil wars

And yet they each were still ultimately fighting over the control of land, water, and the material production of their countries. The justification may have been couched in religious symbols and significance, but the outcome was still definitively material.

Edit:

I'll also add - the existence of secularist liberal states investing in the conflict isn't an attempt to frame it as an 'evil secular proxy war', it is to show that secularist liberals have reason to involve themselves even without a religious justification. It's a counterexample to the assertion that this conflict is a religious one: if that were true then it leaves more than half the involved parties without any apparent rational to engage in the bloodshed.

If you believe they’re starving their kids directly then this newspaper is too difficult for you

Of course they're not suggesting they're 'starving their kids directly', but what they are doing is sidelining the colonial power actually responsible for their starvation and instead holding up an inaccurate and bigoted portrayal of their religious practices as a stand-in for Israel's culpability.

To blame Muslims for Israel's sustained genocidal bombardment of innocent Gazans is a level of depraved racist bigotry I honestly never thought I'd witness in my time. The Nazis blamed the Jews for their own extermination, and that is precisely what you are doing here.

This conflict is as related to religion as a doughnut is related to the cultivation of sugar cane. Impossible to exist as it does without it, but could (and probably would) have arisen under different circumstances and with slight differences without it.

Reducing this conflict into its religious factions conveniently ignores the cascading history and various material interests that allied imperial states have within the region. It also happens to be an easy way to ideologically frame the conflict about out-of-touch religious fanatics, even though it never would have happened at this scale or on this timeline without the vested contributions of secular liberal states.

I hope you're not one of those reactionary evangelists who believe the rapture will come once Israel is destroyed and are therefore aroused by the boundless death of innocent people.