Israel is literally waging a war to expand borders, so yeah, maybe they want to be left alone in the sense that they won't accept any state other than Israel existing in the end.
Have you ever heard of this social experiment that was done a long time ago.?
A teacher in 1968, following days after MLK was murdered, decided to teach kids about racism. It ended up becoming a famous experiment about how people who are discriminated against will often do the same back to others. And that we are all equally capable of being taught to discriminate even when we ourselves have faced discrimination and know what it's like.
Here is the premise. (All kids were white, I believe)
The teacher told the students that blue eye color students were smarter than brown eye color students because the pigment in brown eyes was related to lower intelligence.
Here is the rest copied from Wikipedia
"Initially, there was resistance among the students in the minority group to the idea that blue-eyed children were better than brown-eyed children. To counter this, Elliott led the children to believe the false premise that melanin was linked to their higher intelligence and learning ability. Shortly thereafter, the initial resistance fell away. Those who were deemed "superior" became arrogant, bossy, and otherwise unpleasant to their "inferior" classmates. Their grades on simple tests improved, and they completed mathematical and reading tasks that had seemed outside their ability before. The "inferior" classmates also transformed – into timid and subservient children who scored more poorly on tests, and even during recess isolated themselves, including those who had previously been dominant in the class. These children's academic performance suffered, even with tasks that had been simple before.[10]
The next Monday, Elliott reversed the exercise, making the brown-eyed children superior. While the brown-eyed children did taunt the blue-eyed children in ways similar to what had occurred the previous day, Elliott reports it was much less intense. To reflect on the experience, she asked the children to write down what they had learned.[6]"
But yeah segregation was 50 years. People are alive today that weren't allowed to use the same toilets as whites or share drinking fountains. Restaurants wouldn't serve them.
That is one way to see it, but it’s also possible to have a more pluralistic view. Like in India which has a long tradition of many religions co-existing with respect.
Boy, you should really look into how they're handing their Muslim population. Though, yes, much like the Israel situation, the Brits really fucked that region up.
Then there is the Stoic view of Logos, which is the ”natural order” of the world. It’s a philosophical view, but according to it Logos has a divine source and it’s up to the individual to align with it and accept it. So since Logos contains multiple religions, does it matter which ones are right or wrong, rather how to align yourself with them?
That is to say, you are right about being not right.
At the core, Hindus and Christians basically share the same philosophy on God.
In Christianity, God has three aspects. Jesus, The Holy Ghost and God. In Christianity, this is known as "The Trinity". If you pray to Jesus, you are also praying to God and the Holy Spirit.
Similarly, ancient Hindus asserted that the essence of the deities was unitary, and the deities were nothing but pluralistic manifestations of the same concept of the divine god.
So, if a Hindi met a member of a death cult, they might think "This person is missing out SO much good stuff!" But not really - they'd probably think that Mr. Death Cult Person was a weirdo and missing the point of religion entirely.
believing you are right is requisite to belief. acknowledgement that you might be wrong, in the existence of doubt, that's maturity but it does not preclude the belief that you are right.
I think you've just talked yourself into a circle. You can't both believe something and doubt it. Doubt is the opposite of belief.
What you're talking about is possibly belief in belief. That's the belief that you should believe, or belief that you do believe. That is not the same as actual belief.
If your bar for believing something is that you're 100% certain that it is true (i.e., a complete lack of doubt), then you've rendered the whole concept of belief useless as there is no proposition this applies to.
Me, if I see a cat sitting on a mat, I will believe there is a cat on the mat. But it might be that it's a capybara wearing an incredibly convincing cat costume. Very low odds, but the possibility is there. It could also be that I was a bit careless in looking, and the cat is actually sitting on an especially mat-like section of the newspaper. There is always doubt. Sometimes there's more (maybe the lights were off), sometimes there's less (I spend a good hour examining the cat-mat situation, consulting biologists and mat experts), but there is always doubt.
Asserting you have no doubt is asserting you made no mistake in assessing reality, i.e., that you're perfect. And call me a dick, but I don't think you are.
I have beliefs about what I think is the most probable truth. That means I can both believe something is true, and acknowledge the probability that I'm wrong. Whenever my beliefs change, there's necessarily a period where I gradually come to see the probability that I'm wrong as larger than the probability that I'm right, at which point my beliefs about what is right change. However, the acknowledgement that I may still be wrong remains.
Yeah, and that's why realists who believe in an objective reality are stupid. They won't admit they're wrong no matter how much evidence is stacked against them.
I honestly don't even think I get your position here. Do you somehow not believe that you live in some kind of objective reality together with the rest of us? Do you think this is all just going on in your head? Like... is this some kind of far-out simulation theory thing? Even if we do live in a simulation, that simulation itself must exist in some kind of "real world".
Your perceptions are influenced by your beliefs, and your beliefs are influenced by your culture. So if someone can buy control of our cultural media, they can control reality for the general population. And that's exactly what they've been doing. The owning class have literally constrained our ability to imagine and perceive a fair and just world. For example, they spent centuries silencing queer people, and as a result, most people became literally incapable of perceiving a nonbinary person. When they looked at someone like Me, they would see a man or a woman instead. Their foundational perception was and is distorted.
For a revolution against the owning class to be successful, we need not just to destroy the state apparati of physical control, but also of mental control. We need to destroy the belief in a capitalist cisheteropatriarchal reality. https://soulism.net/
Sure, why not? Here, https://multiverse.soulism.net/post/67924/comment/535398. This Lemmy user said if you believe in gods, you think you're right and others are wrong, and that leads to a dogmatic mindset. Now, reality obviously has all the same qualities as a god in this context, so although I don't personally believe religion leads to dogma, I'm happy to cite you at yourself and ask that you take your own advice and believe in no absolute truth.
I sure can believe anything, I can believe whatever I want. I take choice, agency, and responsibility over My worldview. While realists take no agency and no accountability, they take no active part in shaping their perceptual world. I choose My perception based on My moral compass, but realists can be manipulated into believing anything.
A realists accountability is to reproducibility and observability.
But if you can believe anything, and that makes you happy, then good. I personally believe red is green and drive how I like. Sure I've killed a few people, but that's in reality so I don't believe it.
Wow, you made short work of that strawman! Problem is, this thread is old and we're deep in a thread, so nobody else is reading this. There are only two people listening to this conversation. Now, obviously a strawman fallacy won't persuade Me, so I must conclude that you were using that strawman for your own satisfaction, to feel like you've won the argument in your own mind, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Which is pretty hypocritical, given you were just making fun of that sort of behaviour.
You say that but there's no real evidence of a mass migration, suggesting the chase never happened. But, considering the Israelites' goal back then was to annihilate the natives of (what was until 1948) Palestine and take their land because someone said Yahweh said they should.. If they were banished they probably had it coming. Just like modern day Israelites have it coming.
Are you aware that there were laws in most of Europe that were created with the explicit purpose of expelling Jews from their homes? They didn't choose to have Polish last names.
I am. That was likely just cruel discrimination, and preceded the radical Nazi Party, so we know that looking upon Jewish folk as lesser humans was widespread. Not, however, related to the Israeli Zionists who waged/wage war against others, often hurting their own people.
You need to know that there's a difference between Jews and the extremists in politics. You must not generalise, and discriminate against, regular people.
Well I'd agree but I have standards.. If you catch your neighbour burning your shed down for the eighth time, eventually you're going to decide they can't be trusted in your garden. The Zionists have fucked with Palestinians for decades recently, and centuries past, and seem incapable of refraining from murder.
And that makes everything US-upon-middleast does okay, got it.
Historical wrongs don't let you invade your neighbours. And given that Israel was founded as a way to export people from their existing homes, maybe it shouldn't exist. Maybe the forces that formed Israel should repatriate their citizens and stop this leibensraum shit they've picked up from their past abusers.
I have no issue with Jews, none at all. I think all of the various sky-daddies are fucking ridiculous. But I do think that they're building their own self-destruction. They'll be unstable forever as a result of their actions.
I'm scared of the things that will happen when the US stops supplying munitions to Israel.
Again: I don't have strong opinions on race or religion, I just think that all of Israel's neighbours would like to see US influence in the region gone, and that would include Israel. And the cause of this is entirely Israel's own aggression as a state.
What do polls have to do with it? They are manipulated and controlled by governments anyway. And actions matter, not thoughts and feels. If your country is doing something reprehensible, you shut it down - 100% strike, block everything. Otherwise you are responsible for what your country does. How you answer a phone questionnaire is irrelevant.
I'm sick and tired of dipshits like you saying this garbage I don't even want to try to keep rebutting it anymore just go touch grass and learn something idk
If more than 50% of the people in the us keep voting for war mongers, its not really "overwhelmingly unpopular". Its just full of people who say they dont like it, but vote for it anyway. So they are either cognitive idiots, or hypocrites.
First you play really loud music. Then when the neighbor comes over to complain you say they were yelling aggressively (to be heard over the loud music) and you had to defend yourself.
The twitter feed is bottom to top anyway, so the retweet replies are shown that way (regular replies are top to bottom which is why nobody uses them and just quote tweets everything)
Israel is a failed experiment in statehood. It's about motherfucking time for every decision maker in virtually every government in the world to acknowledge that - and correct course.
Look up UN votes on various issues regarding Israel. We're already there, and have been for decades. It's just that the US holds the UN hostage with their veto power.
I agree with Eylon. No more subsidies, no more outside anything. Thirsty? There's no water? Talk to your imaginary god. Hungry? Food doesn't grow? Same thing.
Sometimes as Palestine would say, I just want my grandma’s house that the government stole from her and kicked her naked into the street. I miss the good memories.
Yeah. When someone comes to your house, shoots your parents, kicks you out, and "settles" in your neighbourhood you should just leave them alone. After all, they would never have done that if you hadn't... shot rockets at them after they did it??
Sure. They just occupied, blockaded and displaced a shitload of the people that now live in Lebanon, because their homes were stolen and their families were killed by Israelis.
you talk nonsense and don't put yourself in their shoes because israelis don't see others as equal humans. Israel never comitted to the ceasefire on lebanon neither on gaza. Israel kept bombing and killed thousands throughout the ceasefire. at some point they realized they will keep getting bombed and killed either way. wtf is your logic exactly? Israeli violates the ceasefire and all ita agreement and keep bombing and killing you everyday, displacing and taking your land... and you do nothing?
Zionazis are so far up their own asses that literally the only way that they could ever be brought back to reality is by stomping them into the dirt. They need to face complete, unconditional surrender just like other genocidal, fascist states like Germany and Japan in WWII.
132 Comments
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 168 pts · 151d
Israel is literally waging a war to expand borders, so yeah, maybe they want to be left alone in the sense that they won't accept any state other than Israel existing in the end.
prettybunnys@piefed.social · 63 pts · 151d
It’s … wild because this is part of the roots of the Jewish people being chased from their lands.
In a world where folks accepted other peoples gods but revered their own … the monotheistic Abrahamic religions fucked all that up.
Greddan@feddit.org · 32 pts · 151d
daannii@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 151d
Have you ever heard of this social experiment that was done a long time ago.?
A teacher in 1968, following days after MLK was murdered, decided to teach kids about racism. It ended up becoming a famous experiment about how people who are discriminated against will often do the same back to others. And that we are all equally capable of being taught to discriminate even when we ourselves have faced discrimination and know what it's like.
Here is the premise. (All kids were white, I believe)
The teacher told the students that blue eye color students were smarter than brown eye color students because the pigment in brown eyes was related to lower intelligence.
Here is the rest copied from Wikipedia
"Initially, there was resistance among the students in the minority group to the idea that blue-eyed children were better than brown-eyed children. To counter this, Elliott led the children to believe the false premise that melanin was linked to their higher intelligence and learning ability. Shortly thereafter, the initial resistance fell away. Those who were deemed "superior" became arrogant, bossy, and otherwise unpleasant to their "inferior" classmates. Their grades on simple tests improved, and they completed mathematical and reading tasks that had seemed outside their ability before. The "inferior" classmates also transformed – into timid and subservient children who scored more poorly on tests, and even during recess isolated themselves, including those who had previously been dominant in the class. These children's academic performance suffered, even with tasks that had been simple before.[10]
The next Monday, Elliott reversed the exercise, making the brown-eyed children superior. While the brown-eyed children did taunt the blue-eyed children in ways similar to what had occurred the previous day, Elliott reports it was much less intense. To reflect on the experience, she asked the children to write down what they had learned.[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott
Here is an in-depth article by PBS on it. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/introduction-2/
Here is a documentary about it , also made by PBS. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1mcCLm_LwpE
It's a fascinating experiment into human behavior and self reflection. And how superiority complex changes performance and personality.
WillFord27@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 150d
I was surprised to learn Jane Elliott is still alive. MLK's assassination really wasn't as long ago as they want you to believe.
daannii@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 150d
Black slavery really wasn't that long ago either.
1863
163 years.
That's roughly only 2 lifetimes ago.
Two.
But yeah segregation was 50 years. People are alive today that weren't allowed to use the same toilets as whites or share drinking fountains. Restaurants wouldn't serve them.
Sundown towns. Lynchings.
The latter is still occurring.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 151d
The problem with believing in gods is that you think you are right. That makes other people wrong. And so it begins...
ptu@sopuli.xyz · 8 pts · 151d
That is one way to see it, but it’s also possible to have a more pluralistic view. Like in India which has a long tradition of many religions co-existing with respect.
DaMummy@hilariouschaos.com · 4 pts · 151d
Boy, you should really look into how they're handing their Muslim population. Though, yes, much like the Israel situation, the Brits really fucked that region up.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 151d
You can respect someone and still think they're wrong. Just like I respect you right now.
But if you truly believe in your religion, then you must believe that other religions aren't right.
ptu@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 150d
That’s only your view of it, and if it suits you then so be it.
I think the Hindu school of thought is described here, that there is one truth (god), but it has many manifestations (religions)
https://www.sanskritica.com/shlokas/rig-1-164-46-ekam-sat
Then there is the Stoic view of Logos, which is the ”natural order” of the world. It’s a philosophical view, but according to it Logos has a divine source and it’s up to the individual to align with it and accept it. So since Logos contains multiple religions, does it matter which ones are right or wrong, rather how to align yourself with them?
https://www.stoicmentality.com/logos-in-stoicism
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 150d
So Hindu believe that the alien worshipping death cult that thinks all Hindu should die is as true as their own religion? That doesn't seem right.
ptu@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 150d
By the way, I actually put in some effort in that comment to you which you downvoted. To me that felt a bit disrespectful of you.
ptu@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 150d
You have to ask some Hindu about it. Maybe if you’re less argumentative and more eager to learn they’ll tell.
MerryJaneDoe@piefed.world · 1 pts · 131d
You are correct!
That is to say, you are right about being not right.
At the core, Hindus and Christians basically share the same philosophy on God.
In Christianity, God has three aspects. Jesus, The Holy Ghost and God. In Christianity, this is known as "The Trinity". If you pray to Jesus, you are also praying to God and the Holy Spirit.
Similarly, ancient Hindus asserted that the essence of the deities was unitary, and the deities were nothing but pluralistic manifestations of the same concept of the divine god.
So, if a Hindi met a member of a death cult, they might think "This person is missing out SO much good stuff!" But not really - they'd probably think that Mr. Death Cult Person was a weirdo and missing the point of religion entirely.
harmbugler@piefed.social · 0 pts · 151d
Not necessarily. If I wear rose-tinted glasses while yours are tinted green, I may still believe that the worlds we see are lit by the same light.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 151d
If you believe that, then you believe you do not actually know the truth. But only an interpretation of what might be true.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 151d
Why would you believe anything if you were going to believe you were wrong?
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 151d
And that's why you shouldn't.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 151d
believing you are right is requisite to belief. acknowledgement that you might be wrong, in the existence of doubt, that's maturity but it does not preclude the belief that you are right.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 151d
I think you've just talked yourself into a circle. You can't both believe something and doubt it. Doubt is the opposite of belief.
What you're talking about is possibly belief in belief. That's the belief that you should believe, or belief that you do believe. That is not the same as actual belief.
wpb@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 150d
If your bar for believing something is that you're 100% certain that it is true (i.e., a complete lack of doubt), then you've rendered the whole concept of belief useless as there is no proposition this applies to.
Me, if I see a cat sitting on a mat, I will believe there is a cat on the mat. But it might be that it's a capybara wearing an incredibly convincing cat costume. Very low odds, but the possibility is there. It could also be that I was a bit careless in looking, and the cat is actually sitting on an especially mat-like section of the newspaper. There is always doubt. Sometimes there's more (maybe the lights were off), sometimes there's less (I spend a good hour examining the cat-mat situation, consulting biologists and mat experts), but there is always doubt.
Asserting you have no doubt is asserting you made no mistake in assessing reality, i.e., that you're perfect. And call me a dick, but I don't think you are.
Anyway, death to Israel.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 151d
look who isn't familiar with uncertainty
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 150d
I have beliefs about what I think is the most probable truth. That means I can both believe something is true, and acknowledge the probability that I'm wrong. Whenever my beliefs change, there's necessarily a period where I gradually come to see the probability that I'm wrong as larger than the probability that I'm right, at which point my beliefs about what is right change. However, the acknowledgement that I may still be wrong remains.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · -3 pts · 150d
Yeah, and that's why realists who believe in an objective reality are stupid. They won't admit they're wrong no matter how much evidence is stacked against them.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 150d
I honestly don't even think I get your position here. Do you somehow not believe that you live in some kind of objective reality together with the rest of us? Do you think this is all just going on in your head? Like... is this some kind of far-out simulation theory thing? Even if we do live in a simulation, that simulation itself must exist in some kind of "real world".
Please explain
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 1 pts · 150d
Your perceptions are influenced by your beliefs, and your beliefs are influenced by your culture. So if someone can buy control of our cultural media, they can control reality for the general population. And that's exactly what they've been doing. The owning class have literally constrained our ability to imagine and perceive a fair and just world. For example, they spent centuries silencing queer people, and as a result, most people became literally incapable of perceiving a nonbinary person. When they looked at someone like Me, they would see a man or a woman instead. Their foundational perception was and is distorted.
For a revolution against the owning class to be successful, we need not just to destroy the state apparati of physical control, but also of mental control. We need to destroy the belief in a capitalist cisheteropatriarchal reality. https://soulism.net/
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 150d
Citation needed
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 1 pts · 150d
Sure, why not? Here, https://multiverse.soulism.net/post/67924/comment/535398. This Lemmy user said if you believe in gods, you think you're right and others are wrong, and that leads to a dogmatic mindset. Now, reality obviously has all the same qualities as a god in this context, so although I don't personally believe religion leads to dogma, I'm happy to cite you at yourself and ask that you take your own advice and believe in no absolute truth.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · -5 pts · 150d
That's not true. I believe in gods and I'm n antirealist. I think everything is subjective and we should kill the idea of one objective reality.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 150d
If you can believe that, then you can believe anything, and you're one good conversation away from being manipulated and used.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · -1 pts · 150d
I sure can believe anything, I can believe whatever I want. I take choice, agency, and responsibility over My worldview. While realists take no agency and no accountability, they take no active part in shaping their perceptual world. I choose My perception based on My moral compass, but realists can be manipulated into believing anything.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 150d
A realists accountability is to reproducibility and observability.
But if you can believe anything, and that makes you happy, then good. I personally believe red is green and drive how I like. Sure I've killed a few people, but that's in reality so I don't believe it.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 0 pts · 150d
Wow, you made short work of that strawman! Problem is, this thread is old and we're deep in a thread, so nobody else is reading this. There are only two people listening to this conversation. Now, obviously a strawman fallacy won't persuade Me, so I must conclude that you were using that strawman for your own satisfaction, to feel like you've won the argument in your own mind, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Which is pretty hypocritical, given you were just making fun of that sort of behaviour.
Banana@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 151d
lyralycan@sh.itjust.works · -23 pts · 151d
You say that but there's no real evidence of a mass migration, suggesting the chase never happened. But, considering the Israelites' goal back then was to annihilate the natives of (what was until 1948) Palestine and take their land because someone said Yahweh said they should.. If they were banished they probably had it coming. Just like modern day Israelites have it coming.
prettybunnys@piefed.social · 22 pts · 151d
K.
Id like anyone who read my comment to not see this comment and think it follows what I’m saying or expands on it.
This dude is standing alone just trying to normalize their hate.
lyralycan@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 150d
I stand proud, hating evil and cruelty. It has no place in the world I envision.
Pricklesthemagicfish@reddthat.com · -6 pts · 151d
So you dont think israel is wrong for stealing land and killing innocence woman and children?
prettybunnys@piefed.social · 12 pts · 151d
I’m not gonna circumcise this mosquito with you.
Pricklesthemagicfish@reddthat.com · -2 pts · 151d
Coward, also very freudian analogy you have used.
FerretyFever0@fedia.io · 6 pts · 151d
Are you aware that there were laws in most of Europe that were created with the explicit purpose of expelling Jews from their homes? They didn't choose to have Polish last names.
lyralycan@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 150d
I am. That was likely just cruel discrimination, and preceded the radical Nazi Party, so we know that looking upon Jewish folk as lesser humans was widespread. Not, however, related to the Israeli Zionists who waged/wage war against others, often hurting their own people.
You need to know that there's a difference between Jews and the extremists in politics. You must not generalise, and discriminate against, regular people.
qevlarr@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 151d
They can buy a house and live there, just don't genocide everyone else, is that so hard?
lyralycan@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 150d
Well I'd agree but I have standards.. If you catch your neighbour burning your shed down for the eighth time, eventually you're going to decide they can't be trusted in your garden. The Zionists have fucked with Palestinians for decades recently, and centuries past, and seem incapable of refraining from murder.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 13 pts · 151d
They need Lebensraum.
greyscale@lemmy.sdf.org · 5 pts · 151d
Why do they all sound like they're from brooklyn?
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · -5 pts · 150d
Because you are only watching one sided propaganda.
The majority of Jews in Israel are Mizrahi, meaning from the Middle East and Mediterranean region.
greyscale@lemmy.sdf.org · 3 pts · 150d
Where were they 70 years ago?
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · -5 pts · 150d
Getting forced out of the Muslim and Arab countries.
greyscale@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 150d
And that makes everything US-upon-middleast does okay, got it.
Historical wrongs don't let you invade your neighbours. And given that Israel was founded as a way to export people from their existing homes, maybe it shouldn't exist. Maybe the forces that formed Israel should repatriate their citizens and stop this leibensraum shit they've picked up from their past abusers.
I have no issue with Jews, none at all. I think all of the various sky-daddies are fucking ridiculous. But I do think that they're building their own self-destruction. They'll be unstable forever as a result of their actions.
I'm scared of the things that will happen when the US stops supplying munitions to Israel.
Again: I don't have strong opinions on race or religion, I just think that all of Israel's neighbours would like to see US influence in the region gone, and that would include Israel. And the cause of this is entirely Israel's own aggression as a state.
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · -4 pts · 150d
I never said that.
SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org · 2 pts · 151d
Or, they want to be left alone to do whatever they want for the glory of the motherland.
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 143 pts · 151d
What do Israelis want?
It's to be able to commit genocide in peace.
CannonFodder@lemmy.world · 55 pts · 151d
Americans too apparently.
Soulg@ani.social · 20 pts · 151d
Nah, it's overwhelmingly unpopular in America but the Israeli polls are overwhelmingly popular
NikkiDimes@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 151d
The US does also like genocide though
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 151d
it goes well with our holiday roast beast
krull_krull@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 150d
Not "overwhelmingly" just only about ⅓
CannonFodder@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 150d
What do polls have to do with it? They are manipulated and controlled by governments anyway. And actions matter, not thoughts and feels. If your country is doing something reprehensible, you shut it down - 100% strike, block everything. Otherwise you are responsible for what your country does. How you answer a phone questionnaire is irrelevant.
Soulg@ani.social · 0 pts · 150d
I'm sick and tired of dipshits like you saying this garbage I don't even want to try to keep rebutting it anymore just go touch grass and learn something idk
CannonFodder@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 150d
Take responsibility for your country, or stfu.
UPGRAYEDD@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 150d
If more than 50% of the people in the us keep voting for war mongers, its not really "overwhelmingly unpopular". Its just full of people who say they dont like it, but vote for it anyway. So they are either cognitive idiots, or hypocrites.
lobut@lemmy.ca · 19 pts · 151d
They want to be left alone to commit heinous acts of murder and torture. Is it so hard to understand? /s
dm_me_yabooty@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 149d
And to provide their citizens with free healthcare at us tax payer cost. Also obviously that all girls school was asking for it /s
rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works · 84 pts · 151d
And you just start beating the shit out of your smallest neighbour while occupying their house
WanderingThoughts@europe.pub · 24 pts · 151d
First you play really loud music. Then when the neighbor comes over to complain you say they were yelling aggressively (to be heard over the loud music) and you had to defend yourself.
finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 151d
And you call them an anti-musicite.
D_C@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 151d
It's the only way to prove a point to my bigger neighbours. Plus it proves just how much I want to be left alone!!!
Akasazh@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 150d
Or bombing them and then killing the ambulance drivers that come to help them and bulldoze then into a ditch
chunes@lemmy.world · 39 pts · 150d
Why do these screenshots always show the comments in the wrong order? Is twitter really set up like that?
LodeMike@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 150d
The twitter feed is bottom to top anyway, so the retweet replies are shown that way (regular replies are top to bottom which is why nobody uses them and just quote tweets everything)
MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 150d
I think it's because they've screencapped the original and attached it as an image and images are always below the body of text in a tweet
medem@lemmy.wtf · 34 pts · 151d
Israel is a failed experiment in statehood. It's about motherfucking time for every decision maker in virtually every government in the world to acknowledge that - and correct course.
wpb@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 150d
Look up UN votes on various issues regarding Israel. We're already there, and have been for decades. It's just that the US holds the UN hostage with their veto power.
smeenz@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 150d
Didn't orange don say he wants to quit the UN ?
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 151d
awkward Statesia noises
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · -14 pts · 150d
Israel is a pretty successful state.
medem@lemmy.wtf · 15 pts · 150d
That depends entirely on your definition of 'success'.
insomnia_sufferer@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 150d
Pretty successful in committing a genocide if you ask me.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 150d
The us funds it though
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · -13 pts · 150d
Israel doesn’t need the funds.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 150d
They sure spend a lot of money to make sure it keeps flowing though
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · -11 pts · 150d
Israel needs diplomatic backing more than money.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 150d
Let me know when they stop taking billions from the us
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · -7 pts · 150d
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/g7pAnlLgtRk
wpb@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 150d
Haha your head is pretty far up your ass. No funding means no iron dome, no iron dome means no pissrael.
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 150d
Israel can afford it on its own.
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 33 pts · 151d
What they want is no resistance to their colonial expansion.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 32 pts · 151d
"When I wanna be left alone, I just kill my neighbors. 🤷♂️"
redlemace@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 150d
after they locked the doors, killed you dog and wife, tortured your brother and starved you children while withholding them medical aid
theacharnian@lemmy.ca · 22 pts · 151d
Withdraw to your 1967 borders. Then we talk.
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca · 21 pts · 150d
I agree with Eylon. No more subsidies, no more outside anything. Thirsty? There's no water? Talk to your imaginary god. Hungry? Food doesn't grow? Same thing.
warbosstodd@piefed.social · 18 pts · 150d
And to have every other country fund it.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 17 pts · 151d
... And murder half of their children as well.
maxxadrenaline@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 150d
Sometimes as Palestine would say, I just want my grandma’s house that the government stole from her and kicked her naked into the street. I miss the good memories.
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · -28 pts · 150d
Most other people have gotten over the house their grandparents were kicked out off. For example the neighboring Israelis.
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 150d
LOL and of course you are a German. Nazi supporting Nazi i guess. Y'all love to be on the wrong side of history again.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 149d
Aw look at you stumbling over an attempted rebuttal. So cute.
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 149d
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tIdCsMufIY
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 16 pts · 150d
Why won't somebody think about the poor land-thieving child-murdering Israelis...
shawn1122@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 151d
When your persecution complex is so robust you reanimate the Old Testament as a "defense" strategy despite being a "secular" nation.
VinegarChunks@lemmus.org · 10 pts · 151d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 150d
So two state solution?
Objection@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 149d
Two Palestines seems like a bit much, but if you insist...
Marternus@discuss.tchncs.de · -13 pts · 150d
If the neighbors are preparing to kill me next week, maybe this is a possibility if i can't or don't want to go anywhere else...
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · -26 pts · 150d
Hezbollah could just not shoot any rockets into Israel.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 150d
Yeah. When someone comes to your house, shoots your parents, kicks you out, and "settles" in your neighbourhood you should just leave them alone. After all, they would never have done that if you hadn't... shot rockets at them after they did it??
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · -16 pts · 150d
Israel never settled Lebanon.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 150d
Sure. They just occupied, blockaded and displaced a shitload of the people that now live in Lebanon, because their homes were stolen and their families were killed by Israelis.
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · -6 pts · 150d
You mean the descendants of Palestinian refugees, who can’t get Lebanese citizenship and are banned from some professions?
wpb@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 150d
Exactly, and the allied forces could've just not attacked the nazis. All Germany wanted was to be left alone. Great point!
T00l_shed@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 150d
Israel could just not antagonize its neighbours, attacking them and stealing their land and murdering the inhabitants.
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · -20 pts · 150d
Israel‘s existence is anathema to many in the region. They don’t need to do anything to be attacked.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 150d
Non israeli existence is anathema to isreal, they don't need to do anything to be attacked by israel
toad@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 150d
Yes, nobody likes land thiefs.
Samskara@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 150d
Are you American by any chance?
toad@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 149d
Not culturally but I live in their empire.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 149d
Is your argument that Americans got to genocide natives so that makes it ok for Israelis to?
Olhonestjim@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 150d
No, the reason why is completely obvious.
answersplease77@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 150d
you talk nonsense and don't put yourself in their shoes because israelis don't see others as equal humans. Israel never comitted to the ceasefire on lebanon neither on gaza. Israel kept bombing and killed thousands throughout the ceasefire. at some point they realized they will keep getting bombed and killed either way. wtf is your logic exactly? Israeli violates the ceasefire and all ita agreement and keep bombing and killing you everyday, displacing and taking your land... and you do nothing?
Objection@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 149d
Or they could shoot more rockets into Israel.
Zionazis are so far up their own asses that literally the only way that they could ever be brought back to reality is by stomping them into the dirt. They need to face complete, unconditional surrender just like other genocidal, fascist states like Germany and Japan in WWII.