fake gamer | sporadic shitposter | pro-ship | BLM | trans rights | head of the antifa PR department | 🚩 🏴
i block tankies, right-wingers, and others with garbage opinions lol <o/
I already said that not everything Palestinians do to fight back is good or justified. I believe attacks on the Israeli government and military are at least potentially justified, but no, random Israeli citizens should not be killed. But even unjust violence on the part of the Palestinians does not change the position of victim and aggressor here, any more than the brutality that some Native American tribes exhibited against European colonists did. And what do the actions of surrounding nations have to do with Palestinians? Besides, I'd say the oppression of Palestinians goes far beyond what anyone could possibly consider reasonable safety measures. Frankly, you sound like an American conservative talking about the "invasion" at the southern border.
Genuine question, because I literally don't know this: Is the green in Israeli-occupied territory natural green that comes from good tending, or is it artificial green like all the grass in Las Vegas? Should it be there or is it a massive waste of water turning a desert into an unnatural and unsustainable oasis? And if it's the former, could the lack of green on Palestinian soil be because of the bombings and destruction of infrastructure/social frameworks that could support greenery?
I believe you are laboring under the misconception that moderate Republicans can be swayed out of supporting queer exterminationists by appeals to queer people's humanity and decency. This is not the case.
My dad loves me, his openly queer child. Like, really genuinely loves me. I know because he's forgiven me for doing some truly awful shit to him. He's an amazing dad in some respects. He does not think there should be any legal prohibitions on queerness, and I don't think he cares much one way or the other about queer people. He also votes for queer exterminationists on the regular.
It's not as though I've never tried to point out how this hurts me, either. I have made it very clear to him that I feel betrayed by him continuing to vote for people who want me dead. I have told him directly that it endangers me. He apparently does not believe that I personally am in enough danger to warrant him changing his voting patterns, or perhaps he believes that the alternatives are more dangerous to me somehow. I'm not entirely sure.
Granted, I don't know if my dad counts as a "moderate Republican." He considers himself a libertarian. But I believe he is the sort of person you are talking about: a fence-sitter. Someone who isn't really an ally but doesn't outright hate us either. And I think his response is typical of those people.
Some people will simply never, ever give a shit about something until it becomes their problem. This is how you get genocides: Not by the majority being violently bigoted, but by the majority being apathetic.
What do you do, then, if you can't appeal to their compassion? The only option I can see is to become a group that is Not To Be Fucked With. You hit us, we'll hit back harder. Bigots won't let us live and moderates won't help us thrive. All we have is one another, and we have to unite and rally around our shared interests in order to save ourselves. Respectability politics only divides us, and we can't afford that.
And none of that matters even one single iota to a Palestinian child who's just been shot in the chest. Go ahead, go up to a grieving Palestinian family and tell them, "Well, I'm oppressed too." So what? So fucking what? Having been displaced and oppressed doesn't magically make it okay for you to turn around and do the same thing to others.
I don't have a problem with Jews living in Palestine if they don't displace the Palestinians. But that's exactly what they're doing. Jews, like anyone else, should be free to live absolutely anywhere on Earth without fear. But they have no right to inflict terror on others. No amount of oppression could possibly justify that.
As for why recency of claim matters, I don't think it's necessarily that important, but I was making a point. However, you could make the argument in the case of Native Americans that they're still quite tied to the lands they live(d) on and often care for those lands in a way colonizers don't, and therefore their presence is important for environmental reasons. You can't really make the same argument for Jews and Israel.
Hahaha, what? Native Americans don't have anyone calling for their extermination? They're literally still subject to a genocide, like many racial minorities in the US. They were involuntarily sterilized up until the 1970s, and they're still treated brutally by the government (and especially police).
:::spoiler child sexual abuse I literally heard a speech in person from a Native man who was taken to a residential school and repeatedly sexual assaulted until he was suicidal while his age was still in single digits. There are people alive today who have experienced this stuff.
Why does any of that matter? Why does any of that make it okay to displace the people who currently live in a place? It's their homeland, too. They have at least as much a right to it as Israelis.
Shit, I'm for landback for indigenous Americans, and even I don't think non-indigenous people should be kicked off the land they currently live on and relocated. And Native Americans have a much more recent claim to American land than Israelis do to Palestine.
If white Americans today went back to Europe and forcibly displaced the people living there, they would be colonizers. It doesn't matter that they can trace their lineage back to that location. The idea that blood links you to land is nonsense.
Jesus Christ, how much Israeli propaganda have you been drinking? I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but even assuming that's all true, whose fault is it that people there needed humanitarian aid in the first place? Try reading sources on Palestinians that don't have a pro-Israel agenda sometime.
My instance disables downvotes, so I can neither downvote you nor see your negative score, but good. I'm glad you're getting downvoted. That's exactly what uncritically regurgitated propaganda deserves.
The only people I've seen "exposing themselves in public" at pride are the nude bicyclists, who are a staple of pride in my city. And why shouldn't they? It's absurd that we've made the human body into a taboo. There's nothing inherently sexual or harmful about nudity. If they were, I dunno, visibly aroused that would be another thing. But the people having public orgies at pride are a product of your imagination.
Moreover, the whole point of pride is not that we're normal, it's that we're different and that's okay. There is nothing wrong with being a freak, weirdo, or societal outcast. If you want to live in a Satanic lesbian BDSM commune, you should be able to do that without the rest of society trying to suppress you. People should not have to conform to be accepted.
For a gay furry, you seem to have internalized a lot of conservative Christian propaganda. I don't mean this as an insult, but I think you'd do well to learn some queer history. The people who fought and died for the rights we queers enjoy now were not, for the most part, the sanitized gays you see on TV with their vanilla sex lives and 2.5 adopted kids and skinny white bodies. They were queers who called themselves slurs and were proud of it, sex workers who blurred the lines between trans and crossdresser and threw bricks at cops, people who had threesomes in back alleys and didn't care if they offended the sensibilities of The Normals. They were much more like the lesbian commune I mentioned than today's "respectable" gays.
As the saying goes, assimilation will not save us. And it's not gay as in happy, it's queer as in fuck you.
Genuine question: Why should anyone care what you like to see in public spaces? I'm honestly curious if you've examined that train of thought. Why should your personal feelings even enter into what is and is not acceptable in public?
Besides, you're a furry, yes? Every argument against kink in public is equally applicable to fursuits in public. "But those people do weird sex stuff and when I see them it makes me think about it" is every bit as true of furries as it is of kinksters.
Personally, I'm a little grossed out by some of the things I see among kinksters at pride. But I'm an adult and I can ignore harmless things I dislike.
What alyaza said. No matter how you bow and scrape and try to be "normal," they will still hate you. You might as well be as loud and weird as possible.
You don't win by becoming normal. You win by making it okay to be weird.
I'm sorry, how do you think YOU would behave if your homeland were colonized? You'd just politely ask the colonizers to leave until they felt bad enough for you to listen? Not everything Palestinians do to fight back is good or justified, but they're clearly the victims in this scenario.
Half of children in Gaza are suicidal. HALF. 60% self-harm, and 80% are depressed. Are you cool with that? Because that is directly Israel's doing.
To be clear, Israel is not a unique evil. The US and China are at least as bad. But Israel is not magically exempt from criticism, nor is it remotely comparable to Ukraine.
The line between kink and queerness has historically been very blurry. Being gay or trans was once considered a sexual fetish just like any other.
Kink has always been part of pride; it did not "become" a part of it. Both kink and queerness are sexual identities that are marginalized by the mainstream, so it makes sense that they would come together to throw bricks at cops.
Your response was a refreshing reminder that normies don't care about this stuff, so thanks for that lol.
Kink at pride is BDSM enthusiasts (and similar) at pride, often in BDSM gear.
Hard disagree. Kink belongs at pride. It's always been there and is a part of our history. Kinksters are often the people who work the hardest to keep us safe, and who will fight the cops beside us if needed. Besides, pride is specifically a celebration of freaks and weirdos, the kinds of people whose sex lives are condemned as immoral by the majority. Kinksters have every right to be there.
Are you seriously comparing an apartheid state to a country that's a victim of an invasion? Is Israel "defending itself" when it slaughters Palestinian children?
Yeah, don't bother. Tankies are red fascists.
You're the ones who don't understand that socialism means worker ownership of the means of production, not state ownership of the means of production.
Fuck this. Does anyone know if there are going to be solidarity protests in other parts of the country?
It's... it's a war zone, dude. What do you think happened? The dam just exploded all by itself?
But like... You're still treating the rights of states as if they supersede the rights of individuals. I don't understand this. Why should the majority of people ever have the right to oppress the minority? "Just move," you say, but it's never that easy. What if you can't afford to move? What if nowhere else will take you? What if nowhere else is any better? What if you just don't want to leave behind your whole life? Why should you have to move, anyway, when the majority can just practice their religion in peace without imposing it on you at no cost to themselves?
Surely you don't believe that if 51% of the populace votes to become a Stalinist dictatorship, they should be able to impose that on the 49% who are Objectivists. Or is "might/majority makes right" genuinely your argument here?
I don't see how getting rid of some of the less democratic aspects of American democracy is "remaking the entire political system in [liberals'] own image." To put it bluntly, I think America would be more or less the same hellhole it is today even if all those reforms were implemented. The human wood chipper that is American society would still be chipping away, just maybe at a slightly slower rate.
Also, I disagree that not everyone wants to change the political landscape to match their own views. Unless you happen to think our current system is perfect, of course you want that. That's what having an opinion is. You say you don't want to remake things, but not wanting to remake things is part of your ideology. Do you see what I mean? You're kind of saying, "I actually don't want things to be the way I want them to be," which doesn't make any sense.
Combating CSAM is great and all, but something tells me this will also be used for far more sinister purposes.
You are not supposed to use q-tips to clean your ears. But if it's wrong, I don't wanna be right.