Hemming and hawing over genocide is disgusting.

Saying Hamas is antisemitic is sure fire sign of being a Zionist.

Palestinians are a semitic people.

If you want to saw that Hamas hates Jews, well, when your entire life has been being bombed by planes with stars of David on them, while jackbooted thugs with stars of David on their shoulder kick in your door to kidnap your family members in the night, and settlers with star of David necklaces show up and claim your home and land by divine right, I can start to see where you develop feelings toward the people who carry the same sign.

Maybe, just maybe, if Israel wanted the world to be a safer place for Jews they would stop associating a genocide with Judaisim as they are so fucking desperate to do.

The German left, at least the loud one, is public ally dividing between this topic. On demonstration you see a lot of people openly supporting Hamas, wearing the red triangle etc. For me it is only natural to fight this form of anti semitism. That makes you a “Zionist” on Lemmy, as there is often only “anti genocide and pro genocide” in online discussions. But the world is very complex and there is a large continuum between Islamic and Jewish ethno state philosophy.

This is all nonsense and you are indeed a zionist. Thank you for making it clear to everyone.

That makes you a “Zionist” on Lemmy, as there is often only “anti genocide and pro genocide” in online discussions.

Thank you again for clarifying which side you are on.

It does not make you a Zionist on Lemmy. You are a Zionist in real life.

Spoken like someone that condemned the ANC as terrorists in the 80’s.

“Sure, apartheid is wrong, but the people suffering it and fighting it are the worst” <— you.

ask an anti german what they think of muslims in the middle east :) it’ll be the most misanthropic thing you heard all day. anti germans are disgusting zionists and need to be shunned from leftist places. they are pro-genocide and there is no nuance to it. they are not part of the left, just delusional cosplayers

What’s wrong with the term “leftist organization?” Educate, agitate, organize is the common saying, organizing is the fundamental task of leftists.

notice how you worry about how palestinians defending themselves, but not about the millions of them killed and starved.

“Is genocide bad? Who can say, it’s just so complex!”

Don’t be discouraged. Personally I don’t have the energy any more to endure the abuse of the mob (these “leftist” ignoramuses whose obsession with “Zionism” leads them to support literal fascism) but it’s important that somebody makes the points you’re making.

You should have been bullied more in school.

My favorite part is pointing out that most israelis are not white westerners, but from other middle eastern countries who were fleeing persecution in those countries and are more arab than western in terms of ethnicity and history.

But that doesn’t fit the nice narrative that all Israelis are white colonlizer/invaders from europe or something. Literally never had it acknowledged once, just denied and told that it is zionist propaganda.

deleted by creator

Sometimes the further left extremes I’ve heard hear are indistinguishable from conservative Q-Anon. I legitimately need to check users post histories to understand which extreme they are on

Liberalism was the original leftism: see the French revolutionary National Assembly. It doesn’t intrinsically have anything to do with capitalism. In general, liberalism is neither left nor right. It promotes individualism. Historically, it progressed from humanism.

leftism begins at anti-capitalism

Not the political science definition.

General definitions & the historical development of liberalism are academic.

liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.

Some of the earliest liberal practices are found in the US Declaration of Independence, which predates the French revolution spreading the practice of liberal ideals throughout Europe. The US declaration pretty much rehashes core tenets of liberal philosophy

• inherent equality of individuals
• universal individual rights & liberties
• consent of the governed (governments exist for the people who have a right to change & replace them, & authority is legitimate only when it protects those liberties).

Note how capitalism isn’t mentioned anywhere: it’s nonessential. Capitalism predates & isn’t liberalism. Liberalism is moral & political philosophy, not an economic one.

The philosophy is a natural progression of humanist philosophies from the Renaissance through the Protestant Reformation & the Enlightenment that stress the importance of individuality, secular reasoning, & tolerance over dogma & subservience to unaccountable authority. To address unaccountable authority based on dogma & traditions, English & French philosophers defined legitimate authority based on humanist morality pretty much as expressed in the US declaration. They argued that political systems thrive better with limits & duties on authority & an adversarial system of institutional competition whether in separation of powers, adversarial law system with habeas corpus & right to jury trial, competitive elections, dialogue, or economic competition.

Nope.

“I got kicked out of several places by people accusing me of being a bigot” is an incredible comment to make, lmao.

They are implying that ml instances are no less egregious about the types of bad content they allow, even if the content itself is different

They are wrong.

“B-b-but my side virtuous (in all ways, and can do no wrong), while their side ignoramus (everything they do is because they are poopy-heads)!”

I wish I could add /s here but a good half the population on earth seems to hold to this as an invariant position, solidarity in the face of all obstacles, i.e. the Nazi bar effect.

Case in point: who doesn’t love it when a religious institution offers food and shelter and medical care to the needy, or counsels people to forgive, laying down their burdens and seek therapy to thereby travel lighter through the world? It is the diddling kids part that for some strange reason (/s on this one) people tend to get upset?

Since we were talking about Zionism here, I will mention that Deuteronomy 13:5 (in the Torah, part of the Old Testament for Christian and Muslim and offshoot religious branches such as Mormonism) provides an EXTREMELY stern warning about those who would misuse their authority to lead people astray.

TLDR: intolerance paradox - if you tolerate the intolerant, it corrupts the entire system, giving it a bad reputation when people see the worst excesses and extrapolate that to infer the properties of the whole. e.g. Reddit is fascist, hence we did not stay and put up with it but rather moved here.

They fully support the Russian invasion

wut? Even lemmygrad.ml doesn’t - their support of the Russian Federation’s invasion has always been critical, not full. Just like their support for Hamas is critical - it’s extremely obvious that neither the capitalist-run RF nor the Islamist Hamas are groups they agree with at all.

(I am not a campist, I’m simply explaining the campist concept of “critical support”)

They fully support the Russian invasion and genocide of Ukraine though, hence the hypocrisy.

Did you know that inventing “genocides” based on perceived vibes and presenting them as equivalent to extremely real, well-documented, and universally agreed upon actual genocides is a form of genocide denial? Liberals such as yourself have been doing the work of fascists like this for a long time, this type of Holocaust denial is called “double genocide theory”.

There is no genocide in Ukraine. Ukranians are Russians.

Yeah, probably the South African white genocide too, right?

Russia is, in fact, not enacting genocide on Ukrainians. It’s carrying out an invasion which we can condemn, but calling every conflict a genocide is actually a form of genocide denial, because it minimizes the horrors of actual genocides.

If you want to see criticism of Russia in Hexbear (my main instance), yesterday there was a post asking for peoples’ opinions on Putin. Here’s mine so you can see how much we “love the Russian government”. You may be surprised to see that most comments and upvotes are highly critical of the contemporary Russian government.

In no way shape or form Ukraine is a genocide. By using that term for both Palestine and Ukraine you are just demeaning the word, and actually helping the propaganda against Palestine.

Ukraine is defending its sovereignty, and it is experiencing a national aggression by Russia, but what Israel is doing to Gaza is in a different sphere.

I’m gonna paste a comment that I wrote some time ago responding to the whole “Soviets sided with the Nazis” lie that is often propagated on Lemmy. Feel free to respond to it, I’d love to engage with you in its contents:

The only country who offered to start a collective offensive against the Nazis and to uphold the defense agreement with Czechoslovakia as an alternative to the Munich Betrayal was the USSR. From that Wikipedia article: “The Soviet Union announced its willingness to come to Czechoslovakia’s assistance, provided the Red Army would be able to cross Polish and Romanian territory; both countries refused.” Poland could have literally been saved from Nazi invasion if France and itself had agreed to start a war together against Nazi Germany, but they didn’t want to. By the logic of “invading Poland” being akin to Nazi collaboration, Poland was as imperialist as the Nazis.

As a Spaniard leftist it’s so infuriating when the Soviet Union, the ONLY country in 1936 which actively fought fascism in Europe by sending weapons, tanks and aviation to my homeland in the other side of the continent in the Spanish civil war against fascism, is accused of appeasing the fascists. The Soviets weren’t dumb, they knew the danger and threat of Nazism and worked for the entire decade of the 1930s under the Litvinov Doctrine of Collective Security to enter mutual defense agreements with England, France and Poland, which all refused because they were convinced that the Nazis would honor their own stated purpose of invading the communists in the East. The Soviets went as far as to offer ONE MILLION troops to France (Archive link against paywall) together with tanks, artillery and aviation in 1939 in exchange for a mutual defense agreement, which the French didn’t agree to because of the stated reason. Just from THIS evidence, the Soviets were by far the most antifascist country in Europe throughout the 1930s, you literally won’t find any other country doing any remotely similar efforts to fight Nazism. If you do, please provide evidence.

The invasion of “Poland” is also severely misconstrued. The Soviets didn’t invade what we think of nowadays when we say Poland. They invaded overwhelmingly Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian lands that Poland had previously invaded in 1919. Poland in 1938, a year before the invasion:

“Polish” territories invaded by the USSR in 1939:

The Soviets invaded famously Polish cities such as Lviv (sixth most populous city in modern Ukraine), Pinsk (important city in western Belarus) and Vilnius (capital of freaking modern Lithuania). They only invaded a small chunk of what you’d consider Poland nowadays, and the rest of lands were actually liberated from Polish occupation and returned to the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian socialist republics. Hopefully you understand the importance of giving Ukrainians back their lands and sovereignty?

Additionally, the Soviets didn’t invade Poland together with the Nazis, they invaded a bit more than two weeks after the Nazi invasion, at a time when the Polish government had already exiled itself and there was no Polish administration. The meaning of this, is that all lands not occupied by Soviet troops, would have been occupied by Nazis. There was no alternative. Polish troops did not resist Soviet occupation but they did resist Nazi invasion. The Soviet occupation effectively protected millions of Slavic peoples like Poles, Ukrainians and Belarusians from the stated aim of Nazis of genociding the Slavic peoples all the way to the Urals.

All in all, my conclusion is: the Soviets were fully aware of the dangers of Nazism and fought against it earlier than anyone (Spanish civil war), spent the entire 30s pushing for an anti-Nazi mutual defence agreement which was refused by France, England and Poland, tried to honour the existing mutual defense agreement with Czechoslovakia which France rejected and Poland didn’t allow (Romania neither but they were fascists so that’s a given), and offered to send a million troops to France’s border with Germany to destroy Nazism but weren’t allowed to do so. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a tool of postponing the war in a period in which the USSR, a very young country with only 10 years of industrialization behind it since the first 5-year plan in 1929, was growing at a 10% GDP per year rate and needed every moment it could get. I can and do criticise decisions such as the invasion of Finland, but ultimately even the western leaders at the time seem to generally agree with my interpretation:

“In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)

“It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.

"One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course” Neville Chamberlain House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact’s signing)

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this

The communists spent the decade prior to World War II trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.

When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.

Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:

If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.

Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few decades prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.

The communists were responsible for 80% of the total Nazi casualties. The communists beat the Nazis.

Jesus Christ. Westerners really are the most propagandized people on earth.

Communists absolutely defend Jewish peoples, Zionism is anti-semitic, especially anti-Yiddish. We also don’t “simp for authoritarian regimes,” we support socialist systems where the working classes hold the authority in society, rather than capitalists. None of this is “simping,” I support worker-run structures because it’s more equitable and democratic.

Idk where you got that those sites don’t defend Jews. I feel very supported in those places, and the moderation on Hexbear at least takes antisemitism seriously(I can’t say for the other two because I’m on there less often, but I’m yet to hear anything that would make me doubt that they defend their Jewish users as well)

It just shows how some people know jack shit and still throw their opinions around LMAO

Sorry, but this is not how you talk to people.