MeanwhileOnGrad
"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.
Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post, rather than engaging in unrelated arguments.
Brigading — If you're here because this community was linked in another thread, please refrain from voting, commenting or manipulating the post in any way, this includes alt accounts. All votes are public, and if you are found to be brigading, you will be permanently banned.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
view the rest of the comments
You are being obtuse.
Hamas and Israel are opposing factions in armed struggle.
Israel seeks occupation, apartheid, and genocide over Palestine.
Hamas fights for the liberation of Palestine from Israel's barbaric oppression.
It should not seem complicated.
As if Hamas were just reacting to Israels oppression and have no agency of their own? As if they aren't fighting for a fundamentalist islamist state!?
Hamas emerged from within the context of a brutal occupation.
Before Israel, there was no Hamas.
Before the Nakba, there was no Hamas.
Hamas is fundamentally a construct of colonial resistance.
It is not seriously a threat to any interests except Israeli atrocities. Even if it did threaten Palestinians, the threat would be dwarfed by such atrocities of Israel. Palestinians are far safer through Hamas than they would be without Hamas. It is easy to imagine a superior alternative, but none actually exist in the present.
So you can't answer me? It's just as I thought. You brainlessly just repeat the same shit again and again like a drone. There's no substance or thought into it whatsoever. You don't seem to understand that repeating the same bullshit endlessly isn't going to change anything, it's still invalid. I literally gave a chance to give your case and you can't. My point stands because it's true.
I responded to your question appropriately, by observing that it is based on a distortion of language.
Hamas is, de facto, the current Palestinian resistance against Israeli atrocities.
Try asking a question politely and in good faith, if you genuinely want answers that promote the quality of discussion.
Oh don't give me that cop out bullshit. We both know I'm not the one being disingenuous here. I asked you the most direct, straightforward, and central question in this entire discussion... and you didn't answer it at all. You ignored it and went back to repeating the same shit again and again like a broken record.
I'll ask again, what has Hamas done to resist Israel? You're all over this thread explicitly voicing your support for Hamas. When people rightfully asked you why, your answer is that they're a "resistance group". That is your entire justification, that is your core point, your central argument. I said fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and have you explain yourself. Explain to me how, when, and where has Hamas resisted Israel? Once again, I'm giving you the floor to give your case because you didn't do nothing on it last time.
The reason why I'm asking you because I'm genuinely baffled that people like you exist. I want you to explain to me where the substance behind your claims lie because I don't see it. Hamas has been in power for 20 years, what have they done to resist Israel? I cannot think of anything whatsoever besides them launching a bunch of rockets that hit nowhere and terrorist attacks that targeted civilians. Every single time they did anything, they got Israel to bomb the shit out of them and advance their goals. It's the epitome of taking 1 step forward and then 100 steps back.
Their crown achievement was supposed to be the Oct 7th terrorist attacks. Them massacring a bunch of civilians at a music festival and nearby villages and taking hostages was the absolute peak of their "resistance". Not even 24 hours later, Israel pushed them back into Gaza and then started their campaign of turning Gaza into hell on earth. It's been over 2 years now. Israel has bulldozed the entirety of the strip, captured all the of the territory, killed tens of thousands of people, cut off all aid and utilities, and they have successfully achieved virtually all of their initial goals one by one. Where's the Hamas resistance during all this? There isn't even a symbolic resistance let alone an effective one. Their resistance can accurately be assessed as negative.
I cannot do any more than repeat my explanation one last time, that you are anchored to a straw man.
The basic facts are exceedingly simple. Hamas, a faction of Palestinians, is engaged in an armed struggle with Israel, which is perpetrating atrocities against Palestine.
Such an uncontroversial observation should not provoke such confusion or hostility.
Of course, it would be more favorable for Palestine to have the means of acquiring more potent military capacities.
If you want to ask a question, then please find one that is not meaningless within the context.
You can't answer my question because you don't have an answer, and the reason for that is that you know you're lying and can't admit it.
I asked a very simple, direct, and straightforward question. It's not a loaded question, it's very much relevant, and it's literally the reason why we're having the discussion. I'm literally asking you to back up your claims, and you just can't do it.
Unlike you, I actually gave my explanation. I actually provided examples and went in depth, and I gave you multiple chances to do the same, but you chose not to. The fact that you're trying so hard to weasel out of this question like greasy rat instead of just directly addressing it tells me that you won't ever actually provide anything ever.
At this point I'm 95% sure you're a troll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Actually read the article you posted because you clearly don't know what the fallacy even is.
What is my mistake?
A strawman is a specific fallacy where a person intentionally misinterprets someone's agruement and then agrues against that misinterpretation. I did no such thing. Again, read the link you posted.
Intention is not normally considered a necessary condition for the characterization as a straw man.
Regardless of the specific term, any misrepresentation or misinterpretation is equally counterproductive regardless of intention.
Instead of defending your intention, perhaps try reflecting on whether you made any mistakes.
Moreover, the one who offers an argument is the one whose intended meaning is relevant in discussing the argument. When someone claims you have attacked a straw man, it is best to reengage with your own intention of genuinely understanding the intention of the argument you attacked. Instead, you have dug in your heels, only interested in finding a way to prove yourself right, and to prove someone else wrong.
ICE is just performing imperfect border security.
Such an uncontroversial observation should not provoke such confusion or hostility.
ICE is not resisting a colonial aggressor. ICE is not fighting an antagonist perpetrating atrocities. ICE is not representing a people who have lived under siege their whole lives.
Keep trying.
Also note, ICE operates concentration camps and perpetrates forced disappearances
"Border security" is a sham, because freer borders would present no genuine threat.
Wow, so you're against legal immigration, and defending people against foreign invasions. Crazy.
Wut?
You're spreading debunked propaganda to claim that ICE is doing anything more than imperfectly standing up for their citizens.
Bye, troll.
The absolute irony is almost deafening.
Have fun simping for terrorists!
The irony I see is that you inadvertently demonstrate the pointlessness of attempting a discussion with a Zionist.
Nothing comes of it except deflections, obfuscations, and lies.
Cute. Did your terrorist-supporter buddies help you come up with that?
Dumb and dumberer.
Is that their names?
You're batting one thousand.
Cheer on any good massacres lately? Then lie and say they didn't happen and call it Hasbara?
No one claims, to my knowledge not one person ever, that the massive death toll for Hamas's surprise attack "didn't happen".
Please stop attacking such an absurd straw man.
It is essential to acknowledge, however, that Israel's account of events is not credible.
Lol you literally called it hasbara and debunked, but keep lying.
Hasbara is Israeli propaganda.
No one claims that no one was killed, only that Israel's account of events is deeply inaccurate. Arguing against the claim that no one was killed is, in the most charitable case, misconstruing the controversy.
For example, we do know that many of the Israeli deaths were directly attributable to fire from Israeli gunships.
Continuing as you do, either you are poorly informed, or deliberately dishonest.
I said they murdered and raped, you said that was "debunked"
Were you lying then, or are you lying now?
Your "gotcha" questioning isn't the own you think.
You blundered, by uncritically parroting Israeli propaganda used to justify Israel's atrocities.
Instead you should learn about the serious problems with the Israeli narrative. and then reevaluate your own perspective. Until then, your discussing the subject is not productive.
To people not dwelling in a rabbit hole of Zionist propaganda, my characterization is not misleading.
If someone says a Tale of Two Cities is fiction, are they lying because Old Bailey and the Bastille are real?
Just looking to know which time you were lying. Simple question.
I didn't parrot anything. Sorry you think "rape and murder is bad" requires some kind of propaganda to believe.
Says a lot about how you get your talking points though.
There's your problem. You're trying to discuss complex political issues with massively absurd oversimplifications.
I answered your question. If you don't accept the answer, that's on you.
Something is either debunked, or it isn't. That's simply not a complex issue.
Says a lot that you won't give a straight answer though. Or use concise language about anything.
Because if you did, you'd have to decide whether to go with:
I wonder which it is.
The actual events, and ascertaining them reliably, obviously are very complicated.
The simplest way to address your question is still relatively simple, but less simple than you pretend.
The question you insist is simple conflates two different things. One is the fact of fatalities occurring during conflict, and the other is the Israeli narrative as parroted uncritically.
One is accepted fact, which no one contests, and one is debunked propaganda.
You should be adequately thoughtful and sincere to acknowledge the distinction.
You should stop wondering, and start acknowledging that you have constructed a rather absurd false dichotomy.
It says a lot about you that I addressed your question directly and appropriately, several times now in succession, yet you still act too dense to understand.
Tell me what words I used that misaligns with accepted fact then. Why can't you do it? Prove you can be direct.
What is it you want to prove for yourself?
You seem to be searching for some straightforward and unambiguous proof that you are right, whereas I consider it completely right that you were called out for acting as a mouthpiece of Israel and Zionism.
It would be best for you to let go of your need for the world to be explained in terms that are black and while.
At least one thing really is simple, though. If you want not to be called a mouthpiece of Israel, then you should stop acting as one.
Tell me what words I used that misaligns with accepted fact then.
You're falsely accusing me of something. Prove it, liar.
You said I stated something untrue. Quote it.
Respecting the October 7 attacks, limited details are reliably known.
It is known that both Hamas and Israeli combatants perpetrated attacks, and it is known that many people were killed, including many Israelis.
It is known that Hamas taking hostages was planned as a important component of the mission, and that it was successful.
The claims of sexual assault have now been almost completely dismissed, many as completely lacking credibility, others as not supported adequately by evidence. Israel's dishonest and obstructive conduct has obscured the truth, probably irredeemably.
Even generously accepting some of the evidence offered for sexual assault, it would remain unknown whether such acts were spontaneous choices by individuals, or ordered by higher tiers of command.
Furthermore, it is unknown how many of the Israelis who were killed died as a consequence of Israeli fire.
Regardless of your sense of intention, I feel it is right that you were called out for acting as mouthpiece of Israel and Zionism.
You said I stated something untrue. Quote it.
Or admit that you lied when you said it.
You know what you wrote. Stop being obstinate.
I stand by my characterizations, regarding the allegations you repeated, as well as regarding issues more personal.
The truth is we don't know what happened, and you find it hard to accept a world with uncertainty and nuance.
You find it hard to accept that there is not always a clear path to proving yourself right and proving someone else wrong.
Yup, exactly. I know exactly what I wrote which is why I can be so confident that I caught you in a lie.
Quote it.
Oh I also forgot to add kidnapping and murdering babies to the list of things you sick fucks like for some reason.
You're an insufferable child, completely irresponsible and locked in narrow loops of self importance.
The discussion now completely lacks any chance of becoming constructive.
You can take your animosity elsewhere.
Look how hostile you have to get because you simply cannot quote the thing you so obviously lied about.
Disgusting that you just blatantly lie and gaslight like this. Is that your form of imperfect resistance?
Okay, was there rape, yes or no?