cross-posted from: https://hcommons.social/users/adachika192/statuses/114611927184686873
Pro-Israel Figures Threaten to Kill Greta Thunberg Over Gaza Aid Mission - Quds News Network (2025-06-02)
https://qudsnen.co/pro-israel-figures-threaten-to-kill-greta-thunberg-over-gaza-aid-mission/
------>> … Greta Thunberg is facing a wave of violent threats by pro-genocide individuals after joining a Gaza-bound aid flotilla. Pro-Israel figures have called for her death or harm as she sails to challenge Israel’s siege on the devastated territory.
>> Republican Senator Lindsey Graham posted on X: “Hope Greta and her friends can swim!”…
#StopIsrael #StopGenocide #FreedomFlotilla
@[email protected] @[email protected]
Can we all agree. A certain percentage of Zionists people. Are blood thirsty monsters? And they should be taken out before they can harm other people. Preferably put in prison.
That “certain percentage” is 100%.
I would say the same thing about the J word. But you get banned if you say the J word. So Zionist it is.
You don’t get banned for saying “Jews”. You WILL get banned for saying the Jews should be exterminated, or that “100% of Jews…”
We do not tolerate hate speech, no matter who it’s directed at.
To my understanding Jew is not perjorative but could be in context eg if offense is obviously intended or if mention of ethnicity or religion is otherwise irrelevant.
Correct, there’s nothing perjorative about “Jews”, but the overall context can be concerning.
People get all hot and bothered and start conflating “Jews” with “Israelis” and “Zionists”.
You can be a non-Israeli Jew. You can be a non-Jewish Zionist, they don’t all mean the same thing.
It sure feels like any disagreement with a certain group. Gets you banned.
You’re welcome to disagree, just don’t make hateful statements.
It’s more that pretending certain groups are a monolith, or really pretending anything is something it’s not, to justify hate speech is banned. Sure, it’s easy to pretend that all Jews are Zionists (ergo all Jews are pro-genocide) but it’s demonstrably untrue and just lazy thinking.
Most Jewish people are pro Israel and amongst those who are most religious or Orthodox most rises to an overwhelming majority.
This isn’t pretending an ethic group has negative characteristics from a stereotype this is acknowledging an actual view most in a group have.
Most Americans are pro Christianity. Even if you view Christianity negatively it’s ok to say Americans are infatuated with the trappings if not the actual virtues of Christianity because it’s true even if this isn’t true of every single one of us.
Right, but “most” is not “monolith.” There’s around 16 million jews worldwide, so even if 90% of jews are pro-zionist that’s still over a million non-zionist jews. List of Jewish anti-Zionist organizations. Generalizations about groups of people are harmful even if they’re true, because it’s unfair to the those who don’t fit the generalization.
Removed by mod
Fuck off Nazi, anyone with sense knows the difference between Zionism and Jews.
“A certain percentage of rhombuses have four equal sides.”
“I think that percentage is 100.”
“I would say the same about rectangles, but you get banned if you say rectangles. So rhombuses it is.”
Not all rectangles are rhombuses. And not all rhombuses are rectangles. Don’t be racist and you won’t get banned.
anti-zionist jews are some of the loudest voices and most crucial organizers of resistance against the zionist occupation of palestine. fuck right off you antisemitic piece of shit.
I’m not an anti-Semite. I’m from a similar tribe as Jewish people. I just have family who lived through their own genocide and I have no patience for people perpetrating genocide in the this modern era. If I can’t be objective against this group for what I have anecdotally experienced. Then what do you call that? Because that’s not free speech. I don’t call people names or call them slurs.
A: what exactly is a “similar tribe as Jewish people”? Like, Arabic? Cause that doesn’t exactly preclude being racist against Jews…
B: my man, you literally just said that all Jews are blood thirsty monsters, and they should be taken out before they can harm other people. You can’t seriously think you can somehow flip that around as some sort of enlightened anti-genocide platform.
Friendly reminder that even being Jewish doesn’t preclude being racist against Jews.
I am not who you replied to, but my guesses:
A: Romani B: The post they were replying “100%” to specified zionists.
While I do not agree 100% of zionists are bloodthirsty monsters I do believe any people who claim some holy right to a land are inevitably going to commit atrocities to take or defend their magic dirt.
I’m gonna attach a screenshot so you can see that yes, the post they were replying to did indeed say Zionists, and they made it about all Jews. Not sure what exactly you’re trying to say with point B.
Armenian. Our genetics show up as Jewish on 23 and me because we are similar tribes from wayyyyyyyyyy back. I also had my entire male side of my family killed in the Armenian genocide. And my aunts turned into slave sex workers for the Turks.
To be clear, you’re saying that you would say that 100% of Jews should be “taken out,” except that this would get you banned?
Absolutely not. I would say zionists need to be stopped judiciously. Through the human rights courts and other organizations. This is all their making. We need to stop them before they start a nuclear war.
Is that percentage 100%? Because any desire to take land without any respect for the ones living there for thousands of years has a certain… Lebensraum ambience attached to it
While I agree, why so much punctuation?
I’m a terrible writer.
But a great panda.
It might be voice to text. It sometimes gets carried away.
A certain percentage of all people are bloodthirsty monsters, especially when it comes to people unlike themselves.
And anyone who thinks this problem is caused by no one trying to use a bomb, gun, or flamethrower to solve it is the biggest idiot in planet earth.
Basically we need to stop being captain america and lean towards being the punisher.
Same with other side right?
A certain percentage of all humans with personal causes are blood thirsty monsters.
Yes, but most bloodthirsty monsters don’t get to use advanced military weapons and don’t receive billions in aide to seek blood
Way too many folks that enjoy genocide these days.
Just put little silver skulls on the front of your hats already.
they probably really want to
May a million Greta’s protect our. Greta on this mission for pace.
to the mods that removed [email protected] bs.
good job 👍
Haha do it. Kill and stream it. Show everyone even clearer what is in your heart
…then what… probably nothing
I’m pretty sure that our government would issue a strongly worded statement.
They’re being lobbied to pursue charges against a children show host for expressing sympathy for starving children.
Precedent shows they follow the instructions of the lobbyists with the biggest and/or most recent check.
So it’d be a strongly worded statement of support for the extrajudicial slaying of a human rights activist, because that’s already the norm.
Bad headline. They are advocating for killing her. They are not threatening to kill her because most of the people mentioned do not have the power to do so. I could threaten to arrest Netenyahu but it would not be a credible threat because that’s not within my power at all. But I can post online in favour of the idea.
Looks like the fatwa’s on the other foot.
I’m gonna be so devastated if she dies…
Removed by mod
Removed for misinformation.
"An earlier fact-finding mission named by the same UN forum to investigate the flotilla incident also found in a report last September that the blockade violated international law. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says the blockade violates the Geneva Conventions.
Israel says its Gaza blockade is a precaution against arms reaching Hamas and other Palestinian guerrillas by sea.
The four-man panel headed by former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer found Israel had used unreasonable force in dealing with what it called “organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers.”"
I would argue that nothing I said is misinformation. My post said that the basis for much of the Freedom Flotilla Coalitions argument is based on the Freedom of Movement clause of the UN Law of the Sea Convention as they state in #1 on their own post. Their purpose for doing the blockade run is about the violation of international law for Collective Punishment, but the basis for which they believe they can challenge the the blockade is the UN Law of the Sea.
As I stated in my original post, they are smuggling goods inside of the Economic Exclusion Zone of Israel. When told to stop and yield to inspection they are claiming they don’t have to because of the UN Law of the Sea which is incorrect in this instance.
Since you referenced the UN Forum to investigate the 2010 flotilla incident, the UN panel in their report noted that
“It is clear to the Panel that preparations were made by some of the passengers on the Mavi Marmara well in advance to violently resist any boarding attempt. The description given in the Israeli report is consistent with passenger testimonies to the Turkish investigation that describe cutting iron bars from the guard rails of the ship, opening fire hoses, donning life or bullet proof vests and gas masks, and assuming pre-agreed positions in anticipation of an attack. Witness reports also describe doctors and medical personnel coordinating before the boarding in anticipation of casualties. Furthermore, video footage shows passengers wearing gas masks, life or bullet proof vests, and carrying metal bars, slingshots, chains and staves. That information supports the accounts of violence given by IDF personnel to the Israeli investigation”
“The Panel accepts, therefore, that soldiers landing from the first helicopter faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they descended onto the Mavi Marmara. Material before the Panel confirms that this group was armed with iron bars, staves, chains, and slingshots, and there is some indication that they also used knives. Firearms were taken from IDF personnel and passengers disabled at least one by removing the ammunition from it. Two soldiers received gunshot wounds. There is some reason to believe that they may have been shot by passengers, although the Panel is not able to conclusively establish how the gunshot wounds were caused. Nevertheless, seven other soldiers were wounded by passengers, some seriously.”
So, the Flotilla asserts that they have the right to freedom of movement by the Law of the Sea Convention, which they didn’t, and when the IDF boarded the ship they were violently attacked by “non-violent” activists.
The flotilla was intercepted by Israeli naval forces in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea, approximately 70–80 nautical miles from the Gaza coast, and well outside Israel’s territorial waters
The blockade is illegal, the raid was illegal, activists has the right to self defense against the occupying force
The blockade is illegal
Sure, I’ll agree with that
the raid was illegal
No, it’s factually not, even the UN agreed.
activists has the right to self defense against the occupying force
They did not have the right to deny the IDF access to the ship. The UN Panel agreed.
Why would you quote the event organizers as if they are a valid or unbiased source?
EDIT: Since you’re following me around I’ll just direct you to my final response to you
The blockade is illegal. Stop justifying the terrorist state actions
Can you provide anything to support that assertion?
https://imeu.org/article/fact-sheet-legal-status-of-israels-siege-blockade-of-gaza
Collective punishment contravenes the Hague Conventions on the laws of war, as well as Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states: “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed.”
Also in 2010, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, condemned the blockade, stating: “I have consistently reported to member states that the blockade is illegal and must be lifted.”
In 2011, after Israel’s attack on a flotilla of civilian ships taking aid to Gaza killed nine human rights activists, including an American citizen, the UN released a report by a panel of five independent rights experts who concluded Israel’s blockade is in “flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law.”
In 2012, 50 international aid agencies, including the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and Oxfam, released a statement calling on Israel to lift its siege and blockade, declaring: “For over five years in Gaza, more than 1.6 million people have been under blockade in violation of international law. More than half of these people are children. We the undersigned say with one voice: ‘end the blockade now.’”
In a 2016 report, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 condemned Israel’s blockade as illegal, stating: “As a form of collective punishment imposed upon an entire population, the blockade is contrary to international law.”
This is a good response to my earlier question. Please note that my first post was about the assertion of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition that they had the right to run the blockade. When someone said that the blockade itself was illegal I asked for a source which you and they have provided.
You could make the argument that since the blockade is illegal then the right to defend it would be ceded, but I don’t think it works that way. Much like how if a cop illegally arrests you you still don’t have the right to resist arrest.
The UN Panel that investigated the 2010 incident said both that the loss of passenger lives on the IDFs fault was unacceptable (especially including shooting some of the dead multiple times or in the back) and that the treatment of the passengers was unacceptable.
That same panel also stated, “The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.”
Going back to the 2010 flotilla, it was 70 miles off the coast of Israel (well within the EEZ). Israel told them to to submit to inspection and that they would deliver the goods to Gaza. The flotilla refused to allow inspection in the EEZ and also refused to leave. Israel attacked and took over the ship. I’m really not sure what anyone was expecting here?
Do you have any source of the legality of murdering many activists on that ship?
You can phrase it how you want, but at the end of the day they are smuggling goods in an area internationally recognized as being under the control and jurisdiction of a country. Part of nonviolent civil disobedience is that you are breaking the law. I don’t think it’s good that activists get hurt, but it’s definitely not surprising.
In the incident a UN Panel found that the IDF boarded the Mavi Marmara and were met with resistance from ~40 of the passengers where were said to be armed with iron bars and knives.
The panel had this to state about the actions of the flotilla:
“However, the Panel seriously questions the true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, a coalition of non-governmental organizations. The leading group involved in the planning of the flotilla was the Turkish NGO “İnsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri Vakfı” (IHH), a humanitarian organization. It owned two of the ships; the Mavi Marmara and the Gazze I. There is some suggestion that it has provided support to Hamas, although the Panel does not have sufficient information to assess that allegation. IHH has special consultative status with ECOSOC, a status which in the Panel’s view raises a certain expectation with respect to the way in which it should conduct its activities.”
“Other elements also raise questions concerning the objectives of the flotilla organizers. If the flotilla had been a purely humanitarian mission it is hard to see why so many passengers were embarked and with what purpose. Furthermore, the quality and value of many of the humanitarian goods on board the vessels is questionable. There were large quantities of humanitarian and construction supplies on board the Gazze 1, Eleftheri Mesogeio and Defne-Y. There were some foodstuffs and medical goods on board the Mavi Marmara, although it seems that these were intended for the voyage itself. Any “humanitarian supplies” were limited to foodstuffs and toys carried in passengers’ personal baggage. The same situation appears to be the case for two other of the vessels: the Sfendoni, and the Challenger I. There was little need to organize a flotilla of six ships to deliver humanitarian assistance if only three were required to carry the available humanitarian supplies. The number of journalists embarked on the ships gives further power to the conclusion that the flotilla’s primary purpose was to generate publicity.”
“It should be noted that flotilla passengers specifically committed not to bring weapons on the journey. Neverthless, it is alleged that the IHH participants on board the Mavi Marmara included a “hardcore group” of approximately 40 activists, who had effective control over the vessel during the journey and were not subjected to security screening when they boarded the Mavi Marmara in Istanbul. The Turkish report refers to 42 volunteers who acted as “cleaning and maintenance personnel” who boarded the Mavi Marmara in Istanbul and asserts that these individuals were subject to security screening. The Panel notes in this regard that all participants agreed to follow the decisions of the IHH organizers during the voyage and that at least one witness described himself as working for IHH ‘like a security guard.’”
“Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation.”
So the event organizers had alleged ties to Hamas, there were 10 tonnes of supplies provided by the organizers but the only supplies intended for the Gazans was that which was brought by individual volunteers, and a core group of armed volunteers tried to resist the IDF when they boarded. These were the UN’s findings.
You can phrase it how you want, but at the end of the day they are smuggling goods in an area internationally recognized as being under the control and jurisdiction of a country. Part of nonviolent civil disobedience is that you are breaking the law. I don’t think it’s good that activists get hurt, but it’s definitely not surprising.
The occupation is illegal stop justifying the unjustifiable , there is a difference between occupied land and internationally recognized land administrated by a country. I don’t want to hear about it being surprising or not. I want to know if you think the death of the 9 activists was respecting international law
This document expose all Israeli lies and you covering from them . You ain’t fooling anybody pretending to be unbiased https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/mde150132011en.pdf
the event organizers had alleged ties to Hamas Everybody is Hamas according to Israel
You made a lot of statements and a lot of questions at once, so I’ll try to split them up.
The occupation is illegal
Agreed
stop justifying the unjustifiable
Disagree?
there is a difference between occupied land and internationally recognized land administrated by a country
Agreed, the coastal waters off the coast of Israel are different than the dry land in Gaza
I don’t want to hear about it being surprising or not
I’m sorry?
I want to know if you think the death of the 9 activists was respecting international law
Yes, people were smuggling goods through the internationally recognized waters administered by Israel. When the IDF boarded the ship to stop the smuggling they were attacked by a group of the passengers. While unfortunate, it was legal to defend themselves. I will say that the IDF should have done more to prevent the escalation to the point that people didn’t get killed, but that would likely have required an even larger show of force.
This document expose all Israeli lies and you covering from them
This is an article by Amnesty International? I’ll take the UN Panel’s report which stated ““The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.””
Everybody is Hamas according to Israel
Not really a good answer. Interestingly the Palmer report does say specifically where in the Israeli report they document the connection to Hamas, but for the life of me I cannot find the actual report. If anyone finds it I’d be curious to read it.
Yes, people were smuggling goods through the internationally recognized waters administered by Israel. When the IDF boarded the ship to stop the smuggling they were attacked by a group of the passengers. While unfortunate, it was legal to defend themselves. I will say that the IDF should have done more to prevent the escalation to the point that people didn’t get killed, but that would likely have required an even larger show of force.
Justifying murder very cool. The law say to only use enough force necessary. Murdering with live ammunition is not
The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces
during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine passengers were
killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces. No satisfactory
explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths.
Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times,
including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the
material presented by Israel.
Hey thanks for providing this, it actually answers the question. For those who didn’t read through this, the main International Laws Israel is accused of violating are:
-
Human Rights violations - Israel is a member state of the UN and as such the UN asserts that Israel must follow the laws set forth. In reality Israel has been a signatory on 9/18 human rights treaties. (EDIT: Specifically Collective Punishment.)
-
Invading a UN recognized State - Palestine was recognized in 1988 and is considered part of the UN. Israel occupying Palestine is tantamount to a violation of International Law.
I started this post and then had to step away and by the time I got back I had a bunch of responses, but you were the first.
-
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
So far she’s advocated for causes involving justice, what’s wrong with that?
Nothing wrong with it. Didn’t mean to come across that way.
That’s what the conspiracy theory about her was when she was just Climate Greta.
That’s depressing.
when she was younger she definitely was. not going to hold it against her as she was a literal child, however, it is obviously she learned she was being coerced into becoming a grifter and she broke off then.
she could have very easily have become a lib grifter and make kunmbaya world tours.
I didn’t mean to come across as holding it against her. It’s sad.
the opposite.
she overcame it, it’s a mark of her character.
deleted by creator
Oh please.
This is doing so much harm to the climate cause it’s crazy
That’s not fun at all.
Holy shit, I think I stumbled upon an archaeological internet site!
It’s not like her international protesting license is limited to only climate change. You can dedicate 3 months out of a year to other forms without having to pay for the dual pretest license.
Man, if the holocaust happened today, turns out most people would actually be on team holocaust. Wait, that’s exactly whats happening…
Most people in the west you mean. Most people in the world are very much against Israel and it’s genocide. I think we forget this.
If you live in the west you can feel alone in caring about the suffering. You just feel alone in the west.
I don’t think it’s most people. Opinions outside of Israel have largely shifted against it even in the US. Politicians often misrepresent their constituents on this one. At least that’s what it looks like in some polls I’ve seen.
Yeah, the debates seems to be mostly people questioning if it is war crimes or genocide, different experts and different organizations have different conclusions, although it seems more conclusions are shifting towards genocide.
“even the US” bro they have been feeding their people milk and cheese tobacco and lies for decades because it’s how you get rich, it’s literally a country where you can be a politician, decide to give you money, there’s nothing over there that has ever represented what actual people want for 50 years, they’re having a civil class war and the rich won long ago, megacorps decide what the people want
I see you’re also a Climate Town enjoyer. 😄
If there was only one person on earth I could choose to marry it would be that guy
They’re attempting to astroturf a Holocaust. People aren’t on board but the rich goombas are.
Emphasis on “rich” here. History has shown that genocide is always followed by claiming and then divvying up the resources once held by the displaced/dead. That’s always a rich-man’s game.
genocide is always followed by claiming and then divvying up the resources once held by the displaced/dead.
Like this
A line from Rage Against the Machine’s “Darkness”
They say they’ll kill them off, take their land and go there for vacation
So you’re saying the favor should be returned- reciprocated, even.
I like that idea.
Good thing Luigi’s mansion is common man’s game.
Opinions outside of Israel have largely shifted against it even in the US.
Not in Congress. Not on Wall Street. No where the power congeals. We’re hitting the end-stage of the War on Terror. Western states are not going to be happy until the entire Muslim world is cowed or exterminated.
Of course, but the disconnect growing on this coincides with the disconnect on other important issues and things are eventually coming to a head.
People who vote for nazis/murderers are complicit. Politicians are elected, so the “constituents” do not get to wash the blood from their hands. They are just as guilty.
The Israeli government doesn’t represent everyone who follows the Jewish faith. Jewish practitioners (especially abroad) shouldn’t be assumed to be complicit unless they claim or are shown to be.
That is completely true and also unlikely to matter.
I was born 3 decades after the end of WWII. By that point Germany and Austria had gone through great lengths to repudiate the policies of the Nazis. They had paid massive reparations. They had issued numerous official and unofficial apologies. The monuments of the Nazis were torn down in favor of memorials for their victims. That didn’t stop other kids from calling me a Nazi as soon as they found out I spoke German. To this day people are comfortable making Nazi jokes about random Germans (see Oliver Zeidler).
Similarly, we have evidence that the vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by a small number of repeat offenders. That doesn’t stop the repeated mantra of, “Not all men but always a man.”
Many people, particularly in Asia, are offended that the Nazis turned the Swastika into a symbol of hatred. Most people are aware that the Nazis stole the symbol but you really can’t wear one without risking a fight, even if you have the little dots in it.
It doesn’t matter if they should or shouldn’t be assumed to be complicit; they will. People around the world will see the Star of David as a symbol of death and destruction for generations.
That may be; I know nothing. But somebody just posted something like “Jews of lemmy, how is your family on Israel / Gaza?” And most said their families were all very pro Israeli government / Zionist. It sounded a lot like most were complicit.
Here it is, and it is a bit better than when I saw it first, but still…
If you don’t think Israel’s propaganda campaign extends to lemmy I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
What? I’m not saying anything like that. But… if you’re offering, I wouldn’t mind checking out that bridge.
And most said their families were all very pro Israeli government / Zionist. It sounded a lot like most were complicit.
Impressive research effort!
Who said that the government represent all jews? Governments set up country policies. When we say israel of course we mean israeli governments Israel since it’s creation policies was to oppress, steal land kill and rape palestinians.
The fact that you choose tocsay this bs comment instead of those activists risk to die from israel terrorism show how tou don’t care about those people and the activists
Who said that the government represent all jews?
Said government says it, and jewish non-Israelis are barely heard disputing that. I don’t know if it’s them or the media not giving them equal voice, but one or the other is essentially promoting Netanyahu as spokesperson for everything jewish.
I don’t know if it’s them or the media not giving them equal voice,
then educate yourself and stop speculating
No one implied otherwise here, and speaking of here, you’re rather preaching to the choir, don’t you think?
Indeed, while Israel is indeed a Jewish country, it does not represent all Jews, nor do all Jews agree with the way the Israeli behave. Condemning Israel is justified, hating all Jews because of Israel is not.
Yeah, no shit.
It is a holocaust, essentially.
Not most people, most bots
Then why are all the governments collectively punishing people for speaking out? I’m sure there is some astroturfing, but I know a number of people who have some weird opinions on this bcz they get their news from conservative sources.
I think the only bad thing about the Holocaust was that Germany did it. Germany threatened established colonial powers. They threatened international order. Therefore the Holocaust is a terrible thing and Germany had to be stopped.
When the good guys do a Holocaust it’s not bad anymore.
Edit: I mean as far as most people use it.
Yeah. People misunderstand your comment’s viewpoint, but it’s accurate.
The allies have retconned their WWII history as brave defenders of modern society and freedom when in reality they did not intervene for anyone’s sake but their own. Least of all the Jews’. Tons of advocates for eugenics and phrenology along vocal fascists like Henry Ford in the US, imperialist ambitions towards non-western countries, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact…
You actually think that? Please tell me it’s just poorly phrased.
I’m sure he only means it as “this is the shitty way the world actually works”. Not that he personally believes it himself.
The fact that you’re stopping to read what the person said and form a charitable interpretation of it instead of just leaping down their throat while smashing your phone / keyboard with rage is commendable.
Ignoring the actual content / intended meaning of what they said the moment THIS right here disappears from Lenny is the moment it’s dead.
I mean, if they actually think the holocaust was hunky dory then fuck them, but I agree it’s probably just poorly phrased.
If that were the case I’d hope they would try to be clearer.
The “@[email protected] is a giant asshole” reading is much, much easier than the “@[email protected] thinks the world sucks” reading, for me at least. The second reading takes some mental gymnastics for me.
Hoping you’re right, but not convinced. Also giving a lot of side-eye.
i don’t agree with the original comment bc it is pessimistic reductionism but i think you and the people dogging on it severely lack media literacy and critical thinking skills, as kindly as that can be stated.
in what way is the former reading more likely than the latter??
you need to make far more assumptions about the original comment and commenter to come to the conclusion that he made the comment out of some weird bigoted malice than to just accept the obvious reading of it being a commentary on global society’s attitudes towards various genocides.
jesus fucking christ i see this shit all over the internet and it is why our society is collapsing. just droves of people behaving and thinking in ways that would fucking abhor a literature teacher from even just a decade ago.
Hard agree. And many folk forget, English is not everyone’s first language.
It’s janky phrasing, but after a reread, it makes sense.
I’m personally scared for what the future holds, we are living in a post-Enlightenment society.
At the risk of sounding a little chud-y… we are tasked with the same challenge people like Newton or Spinoza dealt with in life; we need to rebuild meaning, reason, and thought from first principles in a way that is amicable to the modern order.
People, like those that we’re seeing in action here, probably think Modest Proposal is actually encouraging the audience to eat children. It’s a serious problem.
When someone says “I think the only bad thing about the Holocaust was that Germany did it” they need to do a fair amount of work to clarify that they do not mean that literally. Otherwise, I will be inclined to take them at their word.
of course he means it literally?
that’s why i think, as i said, his comment is reductionist. the key word is
I think the only bad thing…
he’s just trying to draw an edgy hyperbolic narrative that the world only cares about the Holocaust in particular not because it is a genocide but because it threatened the international status quo. he’s wrong, but he’s not a nazi, at least as far as i can tell from his singular comment. i won’t come up to bat for the original commenter, he very well could be a bigot or a nazi. i don’t have enough context to know as a reader. his use of leftist diction and the way he wields it is a pretty strong indicator that this was his intended thesis, on top of obvious contextual clues.
man fuck idek what else to say. your response here is purely reactionary, you aren’t even saying anything other than reaffirming things you’ve already said.
If you do a holocaust then you’re not one of the good guys. It’s pretty simple.
They’re clearly not speaking from their own perspective.
