78
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2026
78 points (98.8% liked)
chat
8632 readers
230 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
That's plausible but a bit of a leap from A to B.
For something concrete, take the case in which 3 .MLs and 3 Hexbears a) line up in support of someone who tried to indiscriminately kill Jews, b) argue for guilt-by-association of how if your place of worship has ever had a shitty take, you and everyone who's ever attended there all deserve to be slaughtered, and c) call someone (who is vocally anti-Isra*el, donates substantial amounts to Palestinians, and has put emself on the line in solidarity demonstrations) a "Zionist" for being against a strategy of tension. (don't click if you want to keep high faith in this instance)
Why would you link to yourself getting pantsed over and over, do you have a humiliation fetish?
They still weren't valid targets and if you think they are, you have a "kill everyone with the tiniest arguable amount of associable guilt" approach to leftism.
It is a correct stance to say that donors to fascist causes are donors, that minorities are minorities, and an attempt to make a blanket equivocation of the two is part of what drives the cycle of violence.
It is a correct stance to say that there are varying levels of guilt in Zionist oppression, that individuals with discernible stances and impacts are better targets than a general population, and even that the typical Christian megachurch is more Zionistic, and more complicit in Isra*el's worst abuses, than the typical Reform synagogue is.
It is an incorrect stance to claim that "when you kill people, you make them less determined to do violence to you. I'm sure that poster would never claim that Hezbollah or Ansarallah, or the VNPA, or the Iraqi resistance (the list goes on), had a reduced ability to fight after being killed in greater numbers.
It is an incorrect stance to claim that "people change their minds and shy away when you kill them or threaten them, and they don't double down or find new ways around it". This is one of the few clear lessons in history. It applies to everyone, not just whatever historical forces you like best.
People go to a place of worship because they're looking for community, not because they select an ideal institution by analyzing all the history and political stances. Their biggest deciding factor is usually how close or accessible it is, not whether they took a certain stance 85 years ago or what their financials look like. Perhaps someone who's never been religious wouldn't understand this, but then they should refrain from talking authoritatively about it.
Hamas and PIJ operatives on October 7 were like "we are Muslims, we will keep you safe and treat you honorably" to those who had directly benefitted from oppressing them, or worse.
Random fediverse members with a penchant for violence are like "yeah if a Jew in America went to the wrong synagogue, they deserve to die".
I would have said all this therein, but a power-gluttonous stranger to green grass (no one who does any actual organizing IRL cultivates these opinions) banned me, not for what side someone takes, but for someone on their own side having anything less than total bloodthirst.
My count of people on this instance who don't understand this and choose a simplistic "just kill everyone in opposition" increases to 4. Maybe there's a pattern of why we didn't see the growth that other instances did.
It's adorable that you think anybody read all that, ain't nobody got that kind of time for zionist diatribes
baffling that a zionist isn't just banned outright
You just did: you couldn't resist the urge to revisit something 6 days old.
Also, no counter-argument to why killing random people, instead of powerful figures, is counter-productive. Do the kids at the synagogues deserve to be shot too? Take your shit back to the drawing board in Langley.
I clicked the link and it appears to just be you pooping in your diaper and then saying "uh oh, stinky"
How is it wrong to say that lethal violence should target discernable figures of a movement instead of random bystanders, and to say that we should uphold the distinction between diaspora Jews and Israel? Lay it out for me.
Tell Israel that, don't tell literally anybody else that. Your efforts expose your zionist loyalty.