There are infinite possible ways to implement wealth tax. If you want to avoid your scenario, tax corporations on their profits, reducing the dividend payout to shareholders. For example.
These people have ALL THE MONEY and it needs to be stopped, like yesterday. Find a way.
Maybe if you had used it constructively instead, by, say, making any coherent point whatsoever? Then we wouldn’t be here would we.
I haven’t once argued in bad faith. You, on the other hand have essentially forbidden any criticism of Israel whatsoever, made no arguments except those where you attack me (hint: this is called an ad hominem fallacy) and continuously hand-waved without actually stooping so low as to tell me where I’m wrong; you just claim that I am but you can’t be bothered to say why/how.
Bonus points for your “I know you are but what am I” on the subject of open-mindedness.
If this is you at your coolest, I guess if you were to actually lose your temper we’d just get an incoherent string of characters as repeatedly you smash your keyboard into your face to make a point.
Is this a joke account?
want to live in peace
Genocides their neighbours
Literally a lie.
Amnesty international.
The UN.
Pretty much every government in the world.
All liars.
My only wish is that Israelis would wake the fuck up and realize that trying to kill all of the Palestinians isn’t a winning strategy. Sure, a lot of them don’t harbor that sentiment, but enough of them do. I do not feel bad about the Nazis or Japanese Imperialists that were killed in WW2, and I don’t feel bad for these idiots that won’t give up Zionism to better their lives. All sides have to agree on peace, and as it stands, Zionists don’t want that.
Ftfy
Bloody hell, yes. I missed that!
I’m not advocating for genocide, but…
Predictably goes on to unambiguously advocate for genocide
Friendly reminder that Palestine is an illegally occupied territory and it’s near impossible to “improve your life” without first freeing yourself from oppression.
“This crap” being a rational take. It seems like you’ve made your mind up, and any contrary viewpoint be damned.
Side note: it’s a bad faith argument to attach everyone to some arbitrary group, fail to define that group, and then attack it.
an attempt for me to state more concrete positions
It is exactly this. You attack “the left” and “liberals” as though they are the same thing (they very much are not) without mentioning anything specific, so it’s hard for me (the left; not a liberal) to defend any position. I suspected a bunch of implied strawman fallacies was hidden behind this hand-waving and frankly I think this is a cowardly way to argue your point. So let’s do the bullet points.
“From the river to the sea” is not a blatant anything. Yes, it has been used by Hamas, but it has also been used by Likud, for basically the opposite meaning. Therefore context must be absolutely appropriate in the understanding of the intent of the words. If a person or group who are in favour of Palestinian sovereignty and/or a single-state solution use the phrase, you can quite fairly assume that they are talking about this issue, rather than calling for the extermination of an ethnic group. It’s dishonest in the extreme to label anyone who calls for Palestinians to be free an antisemite. As for the other phrase you mentioned, it seems like you are saying anyone who mentions an intifada is antisemitic. That seems ridiculous, and possibly you need to give more context.
Israel is an apartheid regime. It is a settler colonial project. It meets these definitions, and either you’re for settler colonialism or you’re against Israel in its current manifestation.
The reason you’ve not heard about other states doing other things is because we are talking about Israel, and the ways in which Arabic people are opressed there. The mistreatment of Jewish people in other places at other times does not pardon or imply permission for the mistreatment of Arabs anywhere.
It’s not about being “progressive coded”. It’s context, again. If a group’s aim is to restore human rights for people, and/or oversee equality then any accusation of racism should be considered with this context. Conversely, an organisation which has historically made horrific racist/homophobic statements should be considered differently in the same scenario. Again, it’s hard to pinpoint exactly which groups and which incidents you are talking about, as you give no examples.
What sort of nuance and objectivity would you like to see from the huge portion of liberals you mentioned?
“The left” blames Hamas for the kidnapping and murder of these innocent Israeli hostages, because they’re the ones who did it.
“The left” blames the Israeli government for the murder of 186,000 innocent Palestinian civilians, because they’re the ones who did it.
Do you get it now?
More than that, people need to learn to read men. “Yeah I’m fine, don’t worry” is often a very quiet cry for help from a gender which is traditionally taught to show only strength and permanence and to never show outward signs of “weakness”.
It’s nothing short of traumatic, the upbringing where you don’t get to cry.
TL:DR Fuck the patriarchy
Has nobody mentioned Barotrauma? Had a few hundred hours of fun with this, my buddy and I. Especially if you don’t mind shit being not very shiny. It is unique, and it keeps on giving.
I fundamentally disagree that this distinction exists, and even if it did this is not a situation where it would apply.
But it does exist; preaching is persuading or guiding others to follow your own beliefs. If no distinction existed then we would be mechanically bound to preach what we believe, and we’re not, so it’s a choice.
Everyone is a hypocrite to some degree. There are levels of hypocrisy that are breathtaking, and levels that are just meh.
‘Thou shalt not kill’ is a biblical commandment, not a principle. It comes from the fundamental principle of harm minimisation, and the two examples you gave are different (extreme) applications of that principle, see: the trolley problem etc. It’s morality for babies; looking at extreme black and white cases to be able to get a clear, consensus issue. Life is rarely that simple. Morality is never that simple.
They straight up went “when I break my own moral principles it doesn’t feel as bad as when others break them against me”
I’m not sure, that seems like another extreme interpretation of something more nuanced.
This behaviour is morally no better than that of megachurch pastors who preach the immorality of gay sex and get caught paying men to fuck them in the ass.
OP didn’t say they preached their morals though. Holding morals and preaching them are different things. I’d put this more in the category of people who pray secretly to a different god than the state-enforced religion, since OP is living in a capitalist society whilst not holding capitalist values.
I think there’s got to be room for some grey areas in morality. I abhor late-stage capitalism, but I would not rather die than shop at a chain supermarket.
There are different levels of lying though aren’t there. This woman had a history of stirring trouble, and if the motive AND outcome of this lie were to stir up trouble on as large a scale as possible, then to not oppose this behaviour would be to invite more unrest.
The whole country just rioted based on a complete fabrication; a racist lie, cynically fabricated for the purpose of provocation. That needs to be addressed, and if she is the provocateur then she needs to be punished, because that type of behaviour is evidently destructive to society.
DO IT YOU FUCKING COWARDS
Not in the slightest. I’m aware that a country isn’t a monolith. Unfortunately, the country as a whole celebrates its victories in sporting events. These athletes shouldn’t be punished, true. But the politicians who are committing genocide should. Their ability to celebrate their nation and to receive international acclaim is unfortunately tied up in their athlete’s careers.
Allowing Israel to participate is validating a genocidal apartheid ethnostate. The athletes wear that flag.
Louder for the people in the back