173
"I am not complicit" (thelemmy.club)
submitted 19 hours ago by to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Context

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 58 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (18 children)

The second sentence is "the suffering and pain caused by both sides is a human tragedy". At this point saying something like that may as well be full approval of the genocide, as well as calling it just "conflict between Israel and Palestine". Absolutely fuck this guy, I'm so glad to see everyone dropping out and giving him the shit he deserves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 15 hours ago*

    look, it's just a thousand year old 'clash' of different religions. Nothing you can do, this is how it will always be (until we succeed in killing all the muslims to finally have "peace").

    Sweet zionist lies that incurious Liberals tell themselves, and the last part in parenthesis is never stated out loud explicitly but understood implicitly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (15 children)

    edited to try and remove ambiguity

    It's obviously not the worst thing going on in the world, but people who mention "both sides" to try and look like some kind of enlightened centrist really piss me off.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 29 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

    Mentioning "both sides" without distinction implies that you think there is equal culpability for the genocide on either side, that's not true there's a civilian population on one side suffering a genocide, on the other a military force perpetrating that genocide, unless you make explicitly it clear you understand that then the assuming that you're a 'enlightened centrist' and/or are trying to downplay the crimes of the genocidaires is a completely reasonable inference

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 17 hours ago* (13 children)

    Care to elaborate on that? Because it sounds like you're about to do exactly that. Because last I checked one side is slaughtering thousands of children per day and the other has inflicted next to zero civilian casualties. So no it isnt tragic on "both sides".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 17 hours ago (12 children)

    Does it? I assure you that's entirely unintentional.

    Was it because I prefaced what I said with "its not the worst thing in the world"? Because by that I was just trying to diminish my complain to show that I realise how in the grand scheme of things its just a minor thing.

    Apart from that, I'm not sure what I could elaborate on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 17 hours ago (11 children)

    What else does it make you? The two sides are fundamentally different. On the Israeli side they have the luxury of being able to just leave. All Iraeli casualties are their own or their parents or the Israeli state's fault. This is one of the most clear cut cases of there being only one side that deserves any support, consideration or sympathy of any kind. So again would you care to elaborate what you meant?

    Because this is in the context of one of the biggest pop stars in the world lamenting the tragedy on "both sides" of a fucking genocide. In what possible world is that not sickening equivocation? Why would you even comment that in this context?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 17 hours ago (10 children)

    This is one of the most clear cut cases of there being only one side that deserves any support, consideration or sympathy of any kind.

    That's entirely what I meant. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, but it was my intention to point exactly that very thing out.

    So to paraphrase, my whole post was me trying to say "If you believe it's necessary to mention both sides at a time like this, fuck you".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 17 hours ago* (9 children)

    this absolute insistence that mentioning "both sides" makes you some kind of enlightened centrist that is somehow above the issue being discussed, it really pisses me off.

    So then this comment makes no sense, because that is the opposite of what you said here. Why does it piss you off to point this out?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 17 hours ago (8 children)

    When I read what I wrote, it parses in the way I intended. But seeing as you have read it differently, I'll try to rephrase it so that it's not confusing.

    People who insist on mentioning "both sides", like doing so makes you some kind of enlightened centrist, really piss me off.

    If this makes more sense, I'll go back and add an edit to avoid anyone else misunderstanding my intention.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 17 hours ago* (6 children)

    The sentence in text still reads ambiguously. It still reads like a hypothetical, "insisting that mentioning both sides makes you some kind of enlightened centerist" implies that the people insisting that it makes you a centerist above it all, is what pissed you off. I know english is a stupid language but I clearly wasn't the only one that thought you were upset about the people calling them spineless centrists and not the people doing the spineless centerism, particularly implies that "mentioning both sides makes you some kind of" implies there is ever a time it does not. Hope that clarifies where the structural issue lies with the wording.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 16 hours ago (5 children)

    I think I understand where the structural issue was. I've edited the original post to reflect that. Thanks for sticking around to help me iron it out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

    I think actually the issue here might be that you didn't realize that in this space, calling someone an "enlightened centrist" is a serious insult, akin to calling someone a motherfucker

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 15 hours ago (1 child)

    But I do realise that. I was trying to say that people who say "both sides" are motherfuckers. Was even that unclear? If so, this really goes down as a massive failpost.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 14 hours ago

    You said that insisting saying "both sides" makes you an enlightened centrist pisses you off. Johnny read that as saying it pisses you off that people assume anyone who says "both sides" is a motherfucker.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent