Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Razgovory]

I'm not particularly impressed when the far right makes those statements, no.  And let's be honest, you aren't either.  The two cases we were discussing were about defending Hamas.  The difference between not wanting black people in the park and not wanting Jewish people in the Middle East is because one is left and one is right.

The two people in the article were defending Hamas.  One was tearing down posters because they said that Hamas were terrorists which she felt was just propaganda, and the other one said we need to "stop apologizing for Hamas"

[Admiral Yi]

As said I do think the difference is between is it the person themselves being a problem or is it people who have decided they're a problem.
You have a worker who has a habit of shouting the n word at people- yeah...better fire him. Thats just good business practice.
You could say its a no brainer and there's no real choice there, but it is still your free will in firing him.

On the other hand you've somebody who seems fine but who a group on the internet have decided they really don't like and claim is an anti-semite with minimal out of context proof...then its their push which is far more behind this than any potential risk of the worker mistreating Jewish customers.
Its still down to you to pull the trigger. But the consequences of not doing so are completely out of your control. You can't just sit down with the worker and get them to apologise and promise not to say any offensive words going forward as you might have had a chance with the first guy. The wheels are in motion with the pressure group.

As you say free will is a continuum and not a black and white thing. But I'd say the more abstracted something gets from the reality on the ground the more free will is removed .

Okey dokey.  So your principle is: if it's a habit, fire him or her.  If it's not a habit, then they seem  fine and one video is minimal out of context proof and they should not be fired.

So for example these guys seem fine and there is minimal out of context proof and they should not be fired.

Correct?

[Razgovory]

"That's offensive to black people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let black people decide what is offensive to them"
"Okay, that makes sense"


 "That's offensive to LGBTQ people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let LGBTQ people decide what is offensive to them"
"Okay, that makes sense"

 "That's offensive to Jewish people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let Jewish people decide what is offensive to them"
"Fuck you, Jew"

[OttoVonBismarck]

Israel has struck targets in Iran, reports right now suggest Isfahan, but details sketchy.

[jimmy olsen]

Yeah, I've seen reports that they've hit the main nuclear site and an air force base.

[Razgovory]

Not good.

[jimmy olsen]

Not good.

Understatement

[viper37]

Jerusalem Post (developping story)

Explosions in Syria, Iran and Iraq.

An Israeli missile strike targeted a site in Iran early Friday morning, according to ABC News. The report came shortly after local sources reported explosions in Isfahan in central Iran, in the As-Suwayda Governorate of southern Syria, and in the Baghdad area and Babil Governorate of Iraq early Friday morning.

[Tamas]

It's still a few hours before I can go to the petrol station, would appreciate a bit of a delay to Armageddon, thanks.

[Josquius]

"That's offensive to black people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let black people decide what is offensive to them"
"Okay, that makes sense"


 "That's offensive to LGBTQ people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let LGBTQ people decide what is offensive to them"
"Okay, that makes sense"

 "That's offensive to Jewish people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let Jewish people decide what is offensive to them"
"Fuck you, Jew"

And many Jewish people have said speaking against Israeli behaviour is not anti-semitic no matter how some might try to twist that definition.

I'm not particularly impressed when the far right makes those statements, no.  And let's be honest, you aren't either.  The two cases we were discussing were about defending Hamas.  The difference between not wanting black people in the park and not wanting Jewish people in the Middle East is because one is left and one is right.

The two people in the article were defending Hamas.  One was tearing down posters because they said that Hamas were terrorists which she felt was just propaganda, and the other one said we need to "stop apologizing for Hamas"

I would apply the same reasoning for racism, transphobia, or whatever it might be.
No matter what the far right themselves might want everyone to think, its not a case of use the wrong word once and you're forever damned- though there definitely are those out there who practice this behaviour.

And again lack of context is showing on those quotes.
Saying you shouldn't apologise for Hamas is not at all the same thing as saying Hamas are great.
I've seen this kind of phrase quite a lot over the years actually, though not about Hamas- more typical would be "Muslims shouldn't apologise for Al Quaida"- this doesn't necessarily mean they think Al Quaida (/Hamas) are fine. It means they find issue with the idea that Al Quaida somehow represent muslims and that muslims should therefore always be on the defence and having to apologise for them.

I've ran into this shit on this very thread. I think the Palestinians deserve freedom and basic human rights- ergo I'm an anti-semitic Hamas lover. No. I will not defend Hamas. That's irrelevant to what I stand for.

As to tearing down posters- I haven't seen these posters. Its pretty standard for quite despicable groups to use on the surface perfectly innocent and acceptable messaging. Look for instance to the far right's anti-paedophilia messaging. Who could possibly disagree with that?....except when its all a load of conspiracy fuelled dog whistles.
In this particular case further context is provided with this being the same person spreading the conspiracy theories; which again helps to build up a overall picture.
But then her explanation that banging on about Hamas is a tactic to minimise Palestinian rights also adds context the other way.

As said I do think the difference is between is it the person themselves being a problem or is it people who have decided they're a problem.
You have a worker who has a habit of shouting the n word at people- yeah...better fire him. Thats just good business practice.
You could say its a no brainer and there's no real choice there, but it is still your free will in firing him.

On the other hand you've somebody who seems fine but who a group on the internet have decided they really don't like and claim is an anti-semite with minimal out of context proof...then its their push which is far more behind this than any potential risk of the worker mistreating Jewish customers.
Its still down to you to pull the trigger. But the consequences of not doing so are completely out of your control. You can't just sit down with the worker and get them to apologise and promise not to say any offensive words going forward as you might have had a chance with the first guy. The wheels are in motion with the pressure group.

As you say free will is a continuum and not a black and white thing. But I'd say the more abstracted something gets from the reality on the ground the more free will is removed .

Okey dokey.  So your principle is: if it's a habit, fire him or her.  If it's not a habit, then they seem  fine and one video is minimal out of context proof and they should not be fired.

So for example these guys seem fine and there is minimal out of context proof and they should not be fired.

Correct?

I'd put one out of context video beneath a continuous display of behaviour in the ranking of bad shit, but still ahead of one random out of context tweet.
In a video of someone being a dick for several minutes you've a lot more contextual clarity. Also the factor of this behaviour being displayed in public boosts how concerning it is over random internet posts.

[Threviel]

"That's offensive to black people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let black people decide what is offensive to them"
"Okay, that makes sense"


 "That's offensive to LGBTQ people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let LGBTQ people decide what is offensive to them"
"Okay, that makes sense"

 "That's offensive to Jewish people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let Jewish people decide what is offensive to them"
"Fuck you, Jew"

And many Jewish people have said speaking against Israeli behaviour is not anti-semitic no matter how some might try to twist that definition.

But that holds true for all those examples, that not all the supposedly offensed feel offensed and that counter-examples are easy to find.

[Josquius]

"That's offensive to black people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let black people decide what is offensive to them"
"Okay, that makes sense"


 "That's offensive to LGBTQ people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let LGBTQ people decide what is offensive to them"
"Okay, that makes sense"

 "That's offensive to Jewish people"
"No, it isn't"
"Why don't we let Jewish people decide what is offensive to them"
"Fuck you, Jew"

And many Jewish people have said speaking against Israeli behaviour is not anti-semitic no matter how some might try to twist that definition.

But that holds true for all those examples, that not all the supposedly offensed feel offensed and that counter-examples are easy to find.

True. People like Candice Owens exist for every group.
But they're a tiny minority, no matter how much the right likes to inflate their numbers, and usually found very much stepping outside of the mainstream media for their group, instead rubbing shoulders with 'the enemy'.

Jewish people saying criticism of Israel and anti-semitism are not the same thing are a widespread mainstream however and long have they been fighting this attempt to conflate the two from the Israeli-right.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/07/debunking-myth-that-anti-zionism-is-antisemitic
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/mar/20/jonathan-glazer-speech-jewish-groups-defense

[Threviel]

That's an opinion piece and a celebrity...

[Razgovory]

Poster in question

[Josquius]

That's an opinion piece and a celebrity...

So they're only Jewish people when they're banging the Israel uber alles drum?

Poster in question

Yes. It is typical of the appeal to the heart "how could anyone possibly disagree with this?" tactics the far right like to use.
You need to think critically here about its purpose.
(incidentally, irrelevant to the point but the Israelis killed this baby, along with many others)