Putting words in my mouth man. I still find genocide abhorrent. What I learned was to not make it my entire personality.
You're allowed to enjoy your life. Advocacy is important. Standing up for what you believe in is important. But when you let arguing with randos on the Internet become who you are, you're not making a difference, you're just being an ass. And, in my experience with lemmy.ml, that's what it reminds me of. Being that guy who was trawling the Internet, looking for a debate.
And to be clear, when I was 15/16, the current Israeli situation wasn't in the zeitgeist. I was obnoxious about a completely different set of issues, lol.
Nah dude. Wasn't an aim to discredit you. I'm just taking the piss.
I mean, I do think I'm right. But honestly, I'm not looking for a fight. Just having a pleasant evening.
And maybe I'm wrong and you're in your forties posting dozens of times a day on lemmy just to fight with people so you can call them a "dumbass". But honestly, that might be worse, if I'm being real with you.
Do y'all remember when you were like, 14 or 15, and you had your first big political opinion. That moment where you realized that there was something going on that was bad or didn't make a lot of sense, and appealed to your sense of injustice. And then, for the next few years it was all you talked about with people because, like, how is it possible that they didn't get it, you know? And you were just so informed on the issue that it couldn't even be possible that there was any nuance, because you were so clearly and obviously right?
I feel like that's what lemmy.ml is every time it comes into my feed.
Setting aside the fact that polygraphs are pseudoscience mumbo jumbo that don't work in any meaningful capacity, and the results of which are really just the vibes of the person running it (with all of their bigotry/biases on full display.)
The bigger issue is that there are over thirteen thousand school districts in the US. If each school board is four people on average, that's over fifty thousand people you'd have to do polygraphs for. And that's if all you wanted to do was school boards.
Trying to get all of those people polygraphs would be an absolute logistical nightmare. There aren't that many polygraphers out there.
And we shouldn't be legitimizing polygraphs anyway. They have time and time again been shown to be absolute bunk, and to discriminate against people with issues like anxiety (or really, anyone who gets agitated when you accuse them of something). The only people who can reliably pass polygraphs are sociopaths, which feels like the opposite of what you want to be selecting for here.
Absolutely! It's just a complete coincidence that the people who the school system is failing are barred from fixing it because in order to pass the test you have to have done well in school. It makes perfect sense.
It's not like the US has a history of refusing to educate people, and then refusing to let them participate in civic matters by gating that access behind tests. The US certainly has never, say, made passing a test a requirement to vote to disenfranchise people.
And we all know that, of course, that any test would be super effective at preventing the abuse the above article is about. You just put the question "are you sexually attracted to children," on the test. That way you'd keep out creeps. And no one would ever lie on a test. That'd be ridiculous.
I don't know why people are disagreeing. It's a perfect system!
In reality, the article is arguing that the people in charge of LiveNation and a few other big concert management companies are run by pro-Israel leadership, and if a band refuses to play Israel they will get denied concerts in other areas those companies control.
Though the article also says that, in the old days, artists would only ever make music if they actually had something to say, never for commercial gain. So, you know. It's maybe not the most intellectually honest opinion piece.
Not saying it's wrong. I don't know. Just that the author has some interesting thoughts writ large, lol. I don't know that I'd take them as the most reliable source of information.
Tough to follow the thread when my old comments keep getting removed, lol.
You keep accusing me of dishonesty, which I'm genuinely not being, but I don't think I'm going to change your opinion of me.
You did point out I was incorrect on something and I verified it and affirmed that you were correct. I'm not sure what else you want from me there.
However, if we're accusing each other of arguing in bad faith, I think it's pretty clear I wasn't saying, "the savages can't govern themselves." We don't need to resort to flagrant misrepresentation. I think I've attempted to approach your position charitably and engage with it in a respectful manner.
I did struggle to figure out what exactly it is you're arguing for in the last block of quotes. Do you think that reconciliation between Israel and Palestine is actually an easy problem that can be achieved without outside influence? Looking back I don't know that you've established what you think should be done to resolve all this.
I'm not ignoring it. I don't believe that the entire US should be dismantled and returned to the Native Americans, despite them being indigenous and suffering centuries of genocide either. History is messy and not every vase can be repaired.
A secular single state could be an ideal I could get behind certainly. I'm fine with that as an outcome. But to be clear, that's not what either side wants or is fighting for.
But to clarify, you're fine with the state of Israel continuing to exist and even fully annexing the West Bank and Gaza, so long as they secularize their government, stop the genocide, and allow equal representation to Palestinians? Perhaps some reparations thrown in for good measure? If so, I think we just completely agree.
Is it because I said "at minimum"? Because that's simply implying that there is a potentially more charitable read of what she said, which I then outlined.
Look, at minimum she clearly says all Jews are morally culpable Zionists. Do you think she's considering herself a culpable Zionist?
The word "all" is often used in ways that don't mean literally every single one. If I say "all Americans are fat and lazy," or "none of the users on lemmy.ml understand how language works," do I mean that there are literally zero exceptions to that? Of course not.
She is saying that the vast majority of Jewish people, even those who disavow the actions of the state of Israel, are still just as morally culpable as the staunchest Zionist and should be treated the same. And she makes it pretty clear how she values the life of the staunchest Zionist.
It's a pretty long article, so I probably won't read it again. It does end with "If Judaism has to die for Palestine to live, kill it," though. It also says that October 7th was a good and righteous attack that everyone should support.
I think that one can be against Israel without wanting the elimination of all of Judism. I also hesitate to full throatedly support an attack against civilians that happened prior to the large scale Palestinian genocide that's been happening since 2023.
None of which is to say that Israel is some misrepresented good guy. They're not. And they certainly aren't the victims of the Palestinian genocide.
But I don't think that's grounds to hate my Jewish American neighbors. And if there's one thing this article is abundantly clear in its stance on, it's that all Jews, even "non-Zionist Jews," are directly morally culpable for the Palestinian genocide.
Welcome to Lemmy.