Failing to call a genocide a genocide, or a Holocaust a Holocaust, is very suburban denialist person living near to a death camp circa the 1940's, and I like to think I'd never be that.
I've always regarded failing to acknowledge mass murder and persecution a really serious social faux pas. Rather below accepted standards of conduct and politeness.
A gentleman acknowledges atrocity.
🇳🇱
Thats wonderful! I agree.
Shall I take this to mean you are calling out the murder of civilians (terrorism) as well as mass murder of both sides, the Israeli and Palestinian and condemning them both? Short of condeming **both** you are not living up to that ideal. If you do, then you are.
If you dont support terrorism then why wouldnt you condemn it? So its natural for you to insist we condemnt terrorism but int he same breath its unnatural to condemn it? The wha now?
Sounds like you hit a hypocritical contradiction and having trouble justifying it by the sound of it and now it just broke you with this contradiction.. either that or i just misunderstood you.
@freemo It sounds to me like you are a bullshit propagandist focusing on excuses for war crimes through the mechanism of false equivocation, quite unrepentant, very hypocritically, to stymie the actions and sympathies of men better than yourself.
You are hitherto blocked on that basis, pending your introduction to the conscience, and balance, you have failed as yet, to attain.
What an idiotic thing to say.. to think that calling people out on their war crimes, mass genocide, and murdwer of civilians makes me a propagandist since I call it out EVERYWHERE, and not just selectively for the sides I "like"....
Man you suffer from a serious case of hypocrisy if I every saw one.
@freemo@qoto.org I wholly recognise false equivalency and otherism as primary mechanisms and precursors of genocide. The coloniser ability to self absolve, and insistence made of mutual condemnation, the better to facilitate any genocide and innocents demise through limitless collateral damage.
Shallow gotchas unworthy even of primates do not sway me. Nor should they sway anyone.
I will not engage in the language of otherism. I will not equally condemn the colonizer and the colonised. I will not give permission for endless collateral damage. I will not engage with false equivocation, or infinite vengeance.
That is what you may expect from me. Not condemnations uttered as if we're a sock puppet for the military industrial complex.
A gentlemen does not allow himself to be weaponized by the enemies of freedom, peace, and justice.
Proportion is always significant.
It can indeed go unsaid that terrorism is undesirable among decent men, and that we beyond it, still have questions, perhaps more pressing ones to ask of our conduct.
Colonisation is a greater evil now, and will be confronted as such. This is the restoration of balance. False equivocation is the avoidance of balance.
I will condemn what condemn, in the proportion I condemn it.
Not to be moderated or baited by those of less moral fibre than I.
You may only expect what I volunteer.
Insistent people can go and fuck themselves.
Almost nobody in the west really supports terrorism knowingly, the reasons to insist upon such condemnations are highly psychologically unnatural, and linked to the propaganda produced by the military industrial complex, one that has an insistence on a faux equivalency, while subjecting innocent civilians. to genocide, for the acts of terrorists.
This is a bit of a bold take. Are you saying that the point of demanding that terrorism be condemned is to justify state-sponsored terrorism against terrorists?
@freemo @lhgmk2 It’s not impossible to understand, although I had to read it twice.
The take is definitely bold. There might be some truth to it, although the citizen class making sure other peers aren’t supportive of terrorism makes perfect sense.
This instinct might be co-opted by the government of course but motive and weaponization are two entirely different things.
@freemo ...and as an insistence, a gentleman must reject it, serving as it does, such collective and retrogressive lack of objective fluidity, a product of low wit, unworthy doctrine, and a dubious frame-setting for the false equivocation in both degree and duration of crimes against humanity.
This gentleman will therefore not serve others expectations in condemnation.
Let the genocidal provide their own excuses to the Hague, and not look to me for absolution.
At no point did I say they were **equivelant**.. only that both sides met the criteria you set forward and insist we condemn people on. The fact that one side is more guilty in that than the other doesnt change the fact both sides are guilty of heinous crimes.
@freemo You can take it any way you like. Almost nobody in the west really supports terrorism knowingly, the reasons to insist upon such condemnations are highly psychologically unnatural, and linked to the propaganda produced by the military industrial complex, one that has an insistence on a faux equivalency, while subjecting innocent civilians. to genocide, for the acts of terrorists.
It is an insistence, and indoctrination, propagated only by those of low character and war criminals