GarbageShootAlt2

preventing global terrorism

You're a miserable chauvinist and your college course would be crap. Israel is a rogue terrorist state that exists for the purpose of terrorizing its neighbors and therefore hindering development and destabilizing the Middle East

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HZs-v0PR44

You can be opposed to Israel’s excessive use of force while still supporting the Biden administration’s actions.

Israel is a settler-colonial state, all of its forces is excessive and it as a state should not exist. Anyone supporting Biden's actions is supporting settler-colonialism and terrorism.

"Look at how long he has beaten his wife for. You'll find that it's not possible from him to completely stop beating his wife"

In most lemmy instances, the default feed is a mix of that instance's and popular threads from other instances. Participating in such a thread that you find spontaneously is therefore not anything resembling "brigading," even if other people on your instance also see it spontaneously and participate.

(I am excluding illegal settler communities here)

Israel isn't, you fucking idiot. There can be no removal of settlers unless we have the destruction of the state of Israel. That doesn't mean pushing Jews into the sea, that means the former Israelis who don't flee (as many will) are now living in a restored, non-ethnonational Palestine.

Palestinians don’t want people’s apartments!

Those in diaspora don’t want someone’s garden!

Broadly speaking, assuming they don't need to live under siege conditions, they want their land back. That's what movements like the March of Return were about. If it was your family's house, then whatever mockery of the human condition was built on it by settlers is logically also yours. Talking about stealing gardens is especially goofy since it's materially just a pile of fertilizer and dirt.

The fight is more about freedom than land.

This is such a convenient story because it lets you ignore all the historical injustice and Israel's role as a settler-colonizer and look only at what is happening right now -- Palestinians being penned in and bombed, where of course their first concern is not being bombed -- and make that the whole issue. Remove siege conditions and suddenly they aren't as concerned with their ability to migrate to Egypt, what a funny thing!

My comment was entirely drawing a line of distinction between the two. I don't know how I can make it more clear.

Shit, I thought I deleted it in time after I realized that I misunderstood your implication. I read the insinuation in the opposite direction, that if this is reasonable then Israel's evacuation orders are reasonable, because I've been so submerged in zionist bullshit lately. My apologies.

Who do you think the "someone else" is here? Are you so desperate to scream "But Trump!" at any specific criticism of Harris that you have discarded basic reading comprehension?

Except for that one part where Israel gives you less than 10 minutes to grab your cat and daughter.

And then also bombs you in the designated safe zones, so really it's nothing alike and minimizing civilian casualties is the correct way to prosecute a war, right?

and very nearly succeeded

How can you say this? Do you think that there's some artifact in the Capitol that grants the power of Legitimate Governance? Do you think a dipshit protest-turned-walking-tour where the cops only saw fit to fire on like one person and only a couple of cops were killed by the rioters is enough to reverse an election in the country that is the global superpower? The country that overthrows governments abroad with much greater violence every few years?

Is it possible that a couple of politicians would have been beaten to death? Yeah, in a somewhat different world, but the rioters did not begin to approach doing anything in the same dimension as a "successful coup". There was no connection between what they did and what a group would need to do to take over the country, and imagining there was even anything in the Capitol that could be used for a bit of leverage (like if some pols got caught), that still wouldn't be a coup and the feds would send SWAT in to blow some brains out.

It's just classic American aggrievement politics, the hogs put on a show for you so now it's "1/6" like it's a new 9/11 combined with the fucking burning of the White House in 1814. It was never going to amount to anything on the magnitude that you're asserting, or even several orders of magnitude below it. There is no conflict in which like 6 people die (multiple from rank stupidity) that can connect even notionally to the outcome of overthrowing the most powerful country in the world!

Well, unless it's like a judicial coup or some other situation where people are exercising their political power directly, to be fair. But it's not like Trump was doing the smarter thing and using executive orders to lay the ground for toppling the government, and even then there are so many barriers he'd need to get over that he didn't even have the cognitive capacity back then to grapple with.

It's a critical element of the financialization of the economy that has lead to it becoming even more irrational and unstable than it was before. Easy example, look up stock buybacks. It's not just that though, it's the entire system of obligation to shareholders to deliver quarterly gains with no concern for employees or even the long-term health of the company.

That's not at all what the quote is and neither is the top level commenter's interpretation, and I think it not being these is pretty obvious if you read No Exit. The point that he was making (and this is putting it crassly because I know jack shit about his Heidegger-based phenomenology) is the presence of other people forces us to be self-conscious, to regard ourselves as the object of someone else's perception and judgement. That's why Sartre goes out of his way to say the room (their jail cell in Hell, effectively) had no reflective surfaces, so that the character's perception of themselves could only come from the people they are stuck with (this doesn't entirely make sense, but I am pretty sure it's what he meant). You can read him talk about some of the premises informing this by checking out his writing on "The Look," like is quoted below this comic.

So it's a slightly obtuse point about intersubjectivity that people have turned into a cutesy way of talking about their own misanthropy. It's probably more emblematic of the meaning of the quote how people in this thread, original commenter especially, are talking about silently judging people for this and that action.