@snek@lemmy.world avatar

snek

@snek@lemmy.world

“Once you’ve been to Gaza, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Benjamin Netanyahu to death with your bare hands.”

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Leaked NYT Gaza Memo Tells Journalists to Avoid Words “Genocide,” “Ethnic Cleansing,” and “Occupied Territory” (theintercept.com)

The New York Times instructed journalists covering Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip to restrict the use of the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and to “avoid” using the phrase “occupied territory” when describing Palestinian land, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The Intercept....

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

And just when you think you’ve seen the worst of it…

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

It rides on a reputation

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

I meant tails as one tool people use specifically for added security.

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah but you knew full well that that is not what radicalized meant in sentence. /:

Givng off a lot of pedantic vibes here

snek, (edited )
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ad3dcc7b-5147-4767-be25-b02d7d5d0c34.jpeg

Hmmm. Do you always disambiguate word meanings by first taking them out of context and then applying some textbook definition you like?

I clearly meant this: www.jstor.org/stable/43783789

Even people writing papers on this use this word to mean that in this context.

I’m not denying other meanings exist. I’m just saying that you’re kinda being a jerk to get UMMM-ACTUALLYYY smart-points. In your head. They are only in your head my dude.

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

That is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard being said about language and how language works (and half my degree was in Linguistics).

If you can’t admit language changes, you’re gonna have a bad time.

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

I think you’re just trying to pick a fight.

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

And what? Radicalization can mean different things in context. What do you think was the context when talking about this violence cycle? Could it have been like that example from that paper, a widely used definition by both academics and non academics?

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

Sounds like an excuse to be violent. No better than a Nazi in my view. They also come up with excuses for using violence for “the good of the nation”.

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

I’m not a Liberal…

snek, (edited )
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

When you go around breaking people’s arms at random intervals where you are your own judge and jury over a system you made up with no scientific basis, just with flimsy reasons sewn together, by intentionally giving people severe trauma (pretending that any psychistrist would not be totally horrified at thid BS)… you BECOME an aggressor. You are no better than the police. No more effective. Not s day closer to your goal.

Also trauma can often cause the exact opposite. Who allows you to take this risk for all of us in society? To go give a radicalized person more reason and fuel to be radicalized? So for every Nazi you “beat into becoming decent” (an impossible and demanding righteous power-trip fantasy), the next might be the next masshooter thanks to your arm breaking trauma. And you’ll have your Pikachu mouth all open when they go around shooting everyone with a single arm.

You system is inconsistent, unscientific, and really wish washy.

Not much better than the average corrupt police.

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

But I am not talking like one 😎

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

Choose what?

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

So you think thay my “fear” is silly even though we have a good picture of how trauma affects individuals, and somehow it is akin to doing nothing according to your analysis (has it occured to you there are non violent ways to counter neoNazis?)…

but you also think your random knee cap busting is fine, mature, and heroic?

We have to agree to disagree then.

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

So in conclusion, no science, just your interpretation and gut feeling about some available literature that is not really saying what you want to say?

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

I am glad people like you don’t have any real powers in the real world.

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

@JustZ here is the legal definition of the crime of Apartheid

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid

"The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime" .”

The other definitions are similar. Nothing about majority or minority. Nothing about having to be exactly like South Africa.

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

"in which the minority political bloc purported to rule over the unconsenting majority, "

to all the nice folks reading this gibberish, please know that this is flat out misinformation. @JustZ had never been able to support this with any kind of source and it is not in the legal definition of apartheid. The crime of apartheid definition is very clear and says this applies to any racial group with absolutely NOTHING about it having to be a racial minority over a majority (and by miniority here, JustZ also just means less population).

Here is the definition of apartheid according to the ICC:

The ‘crime of apartheid’ means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by ONE RACIAL GROUP OVER ANY OTHER RACIAL GROUP OR GROUPS and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

You should use it in the legal sense :)

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

@JustZ do you know why you can never respond to this? Because your lame argument rests entirely now on your false definition of Apartheid. Once that is gone, you are forced to admit that ISRAEL IS A RACIST COLONIAL APARTHEID STATE and very little about its founding and practices is actually legal.

Don’t be the kind of law expert that enables evil by saying BS like this…

It hurts, I get it. It’s okay. You can cross that bridge.

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

“As practiced in South Africa.”

What is this from? Source?

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

Where is this quote from? Link please.

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

I thought there was hope for you. But today I’m convinced that either (1) you’re a hopeless pro-zioniat bootlicker or (2) you have some kind of psychological issue that makes you incapable of changing your mind even when provided with overwhelming evidence.

And today is the day I stop giving a fuck. I’m blocking you soon, goodbye forever. May we never meet. I don’t need more assholes to dehumanize me as a Palestinian and deny me the right to self determination and self defense in favor of a bunch of ruthless butchers.

Ps: frankly you seem quite racist. The slimy questionable lawer-type racist.

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

Yep and they will never get it… I’ve seen religion do this to people, but this pro-Zionism with them is religious/cult-like.

snek,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

And now I also think you are being stupid.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • provamag4
  • khanakhh
  • cubers
  • mdbf
  • osvaldo12
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • tacticalgear
  • everett
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • kavyap
  • ethstaker
  • DreamBathrooms
  • lostlight
  • magazineikmin
  • cisconetworking
  • Leos
  • anitta
  • GTA5RPClips
  • InstantRegret
  • tester
  • Durango
  • normalnudes
  • provamag3
  • modclub
  • JUstTest
  • relationshipadvice
  • All magazines