Someone explain this to me? Hamas is a terrorist group the controls the Palestinians in Gaza. They are not representive of most Palestinians. So this feels like an easy, “yes I condemn Hamas,but also the Palestinian people are being screwed by the Israeli government”
Most people don't have an issue with it. But starting each interview with a question: "Do you condemn Al-Qaeda?" is sinister. It is not a good faith question.
If you are asked this question each time you want to speak about atrocities committed against civilians and have to proclaim that you do not in fact support terrorists, you have the right to be offended. Especially when the person asking you that question cannot condemn cutting off water to civilians.
After 9/11, thousands of Arabs living peacefully in the US were asked to condemn Al-Qaeda, which they did because who wouldn't? That condemnation and support was used to justify attacking Iraq - the country where Al-Qaeda was not located in, and resulted in the death of a million people there. Imagine being an American Iraqi supporting the US's right to "defend itself" and seeing your family in Iraq and their children being killed.
There is a level of analogy here where a person with relatives in Gaza is asked by interviewers that question while trying to advocate to not cut water or bomb one of the most densely populated places in the region.
You have the right to be offended if people start asking you to condemn segregation, Nazism, or bigotry when you never claimed that you don't have an issue with those things. Especially when the person asking you is using it as a tactic while you are trying to alarm about human rights being violated, and civilians / children being hurt.
The meme is that westerners care more that that the people that are seeing their kids murdered condemn the only (while very imperfect) group that is helping them instead of focusing on the fact that kids are being murdered.
America is a white supremacist nation, if you click that option you won’t be able to get your flight. In any civilized nation such an option would be illegal (as it’s not their fucking business) but because they’re a shithole country with no oversight, they get to fuck people over their views.
Its not healthy to be so angry on the internet. You should cook dinner with your mom instead. Do it with her not for her. She will appreciate the time you spend with her.
No one on hexbear likes Russia in its current state. No one thinks it is a “neo-USSR” (lmao). Russia is not Communist and no self respecting communist would call it that. The West is imperialist and bad, the most obvious example of this being the entire global south.
No one on hexbear likes Russia in its current state.
Meanwhile in this thread by hexbear users: “nothing Russia is doing is that bad, they should just become citizens, stop hating on russia”
For “not liking” Russia imperialism, they sure spend a lot of fucking time apologizing for Russia’s imperialism. We can hate multiple despotic shitholes at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive.
I mean the fact that you think the people of hexbear support the Russian Federation thinking its communist but then go on to say they have no nuance or political intelligence is kind of funny
sure, make comparisons between Nazi Germany, Apartheid Israel and … Russia
Are Ukrainians being crammed into a strip being bombed constantly without food or water? Russia despite being reactionary in many ways (eg LGBTQ rights) is relatively tolerant towards religious and ethnic minorities.
Oh fuck off. Russia is committing cultural genocide and is constantly bombing civilian targets. Russia thinks nothing of bombing hospitals or other civilian infrastructure. The only reason the Ukrainians are not also being crammed into a strip is because Russia's military hasn't been capable of doing that.
Actually, yes, Ukrainians that happened to live in the east of Ukraine are in fact stuck in a literal war zone without feasible way to live… unless they accept Russian “citizenship”, that is
let’s just ignore how the pretext for this line was Data observing how, sometimes, terrorism is an effective vehicle for social and/or political change.
edit: just to be clear, this isn’t a criticism, just an observation about the glibness of the meme as compared to the seriousness context.
that was Data’s whole point. Then, just as Picard was about to dish out a bunch of huffy, self-righteous moral indignation, their conversation got cut off by an incoming message or some other rather convenient interruption. Trek was often bold in how it approached controversial sociopolitical subjects. And, sometimes, it scampered off without honestly addressing them.
this occasion was one of the latter.
edit: although, one could argue that, due to the fact that Data got his comment in before Picard was able to give a self-righteous counter-argument, the writers, in fact, were quite brave. The comment was so controversial, in fact, the episode was banned in several markets which refused to air this episode, and it still remains banned in some places to this day.
Due to political sensitivity, as Ireland was still in the midst of the Troubles when “The High Ground” aired in 1990, the reference to Irish unification and terrorism in the episode resulted in its removal from first-run in the United Kingdom. To date, some syndicating networks will not air the episode, and it was only in 2007 (fifteen years after its first run, nine years after the conflict ended in a peaceful manner) that it was broadcast on the BBC.
In fairness, it’s less controversial and more that the line is outright offensive. At the time, people were being murdered by acts of terrorismin in the troubles, so to wontonly say that those attacks are effective and will get results was extremely insensitive. It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened, or the 2015 Paris attacks.
That being said, it’s still an interesting point that Data raises in the episode.
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened
here’s the thing, though: by no measure could this statement be considered even remotely true. if someone, very boldly, were, today, try to make the argument that “the Troubles were worth it,” I dare say that they’d have a good case for that argument, despite the heavy controversy which would come with it. The argument you propose, conversely, lacks the obvious evidentiary support required to substantiate such… an ambitious arguments yours.
And I certainly don’t support it.
edit: it’s a matter of factual and evidentiary support. come back with evidence to support your claims.
Do you want evidence that people died in the tororist attacks, or that the statement is offensive? As to the first, you’re free to read up on the history of the troubles yourself if you like. As to the second, it’s a matter of opinion, not fact, but considering that history, one that I feel is fair enough. As far as I’m concerned, comparing a single terrorist attack to a series of terrorist attacks is more than reasonable.
It was and still is unclear what you were asking me to prove. A comparison isn’t a statement of fact, it’s to illustrate how two things are similar. I further explained why I feel that it was fair to compaire them. If you want to keep picking things apart for the sake of it though, have at it.
It was and still is unclear what you were asking me to prove.
I made myself very clear:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened
here’s the thing, though: by no measure could this statement be considered even remotely true…The argument you propose, conversely, lacks the obvious evidentiary support required to substantiate such… an ambitious arguments yours….come back with evidence to support your claims.
A comparison isn’t a statement of fact, it’s to illustrate how two things are similar.
which you failed to do spectacularly by comparing two things which bear no resemblance in the way you suggest:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
because it wasn’t, for it achieved none of its intended goals. if it is your assertion that it did, it’s your job to prove that, which you have not.
I further explained why I feel that it was fair to compaire them
no you then used this straw man instead:
Do you want evidence that people died in the tororist attacks, or that the statement is offensive?
then you used a series of unrelated equivocations rather than addressing the flaw in your logic: the lack of efficacy of the 9/11 attacks as a tool for social or political change (the entire premise from the start).
If you want to keep picking things apart for the sake of it though, have at it.
you’re not a victim because you made a terrible argument and got called out for it.
There’s no reason to be rude. I strongly suggest you reread what I said and consider the context of the thread. I never said that 9/11 was a successful use of terrorism, I said that the statement Data made about the troubles being successful was offensive and would be similar to saying the same thing about other terrorist attacks. You then aggressively began demanding evidence for something that was never a statement of fact, making it unclear what you were talking about. When further questioned, you became genuinely insulting for absolutely no reason. I won’t be responding again, but please take some time to consider how you approach discussions in the future.
I never said that 9/11 was a successful use of terrorism
I have quoted you several times saying exactly that.
I said that the statement Data made about the troubles being successful was offensive and would be similar to saying the same thing about other terrorist attacks.
you may have intended to argue that, but you clearly argued:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
and now you keep insisting that:
You then aggressively began demanding evidence for something that was never a statement of fact, making it unclear what you were talking about.
when you very clearly said this:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
and now are acting indignant that I have to keep reminding you of that and how you’re somehow unclear of why after I’ve explained it several times.
I’’m very sorry you can’t wrap your head around this. and, yes, it’s best you don’t respond again, as I’d just keep repeating myself.
except for the first time you said it in your last comment, show me where you said “9/11 was a terrorist attack" before. because what you were arguing before was:
It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism
ok, so, you do have amnesia and have forgotten our entire conversation. well, then I suggest you go back to the beginning because I’m not walking you through this again.
In fairness, it’s less controversial and more that the line is outright offensive. At the time, people were being murdered by acts of terrorismin in the troubles, so to wontonly say that those attacks are effective and will get results was extremely insensitive. It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened, or the 2015 Paris attacks.
I mean I get that it is a pretty touchy subject, but honestly at the end of the day the 9/11 attacks were stunningly effective at doing exactly what Bin Laden wanted us to do, get involved in a long drawn out war that undermined the stability of the US and accelerated its collapse.
The asshole literally wrote this all out in a letter and I am glad it made the rounds recently because we took the bait hook line and sinker. If as a society stories had trained us to think of terrorism not as some existential evil that comes from satan but rather a brutal political/military strategy enacted to accomplish certain logical political aims we might have been more equipped to deal with a 9/11 response more rationally. Specifically maybe we wouldn’t have just signed off on US warhawks throwing Iraq into the mix for absolutely no good reason than imperialism (Bin Laden must have been whooping and hollering happy when he heard the US decided to get itself stuck in TWO endless wars because of his actions).
Republicans offer nothing but culture war shit. They absolutely know Democrats are to the right of freedom-and-democracy . But they are playing the anti China part of the 3rd Red Scare while Dems play the anti Russia part and both are partaking in the [2nd Lavender]( scare (active / passive).
They are exploiting American ignorance and stroking historical previous Red Scare / Cold War indoctrination for the over 50s crowd.
The Red Scares were never about Crapitalism vs Cummunism. It was about different nations clashing over the world’s resources, but that would never fly in the public mind spoken out loud. That was all a front, but it gave cover for the disgusting domestic and foriegn policies such as The Jakarta Method, Vietnam War, Hollywood Blacklisting, Hayes Code, demonizing queer people in public life, and McCarthyism.
So they paint the opposition as ooga booga scary Mao CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY COMMIE COMMIE COMMIE! WHERE’S MY AUKUS MONEY JOE?!
They know the actual left knows they’re full of shit and that’s the real twisted part of these political hacks - they study and know very much every aspect of the actual target of theri demonization of things, but they hold the American public with such calous contempt they will willingly lie to manufacture consent for their major bribers. They know exactly who they are harming, why they are harming, and they just do not care because minorities aren’t majorities and caculated collateral damage. Plus if you can toss around commie or Marxist or Maoist to anything you don’t like, it further brainwashes the frothingfash ignorant masses to automatically put their brains down and choose you aginst the hedons as god’s chosen warrior!
They know the public is largely ignorsnt about matters that don’t concern them and they exploit it to the hilt.
Scotland could never leave. Britain doesn’t want to loose Scotland and Europe doesn’t want to split up all the British kingdoms and have them join one by one.
Northern Ireland has a chance to leave the shithole that is brexit by joining Ireland, but does Ireland want that? You’re gonna spark a fire if you do that. The politics and rebellions of the 80’s are only dormant, the sentiment is far from gone.
hexbear.net
Top