62
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
62 points (79.8% liked)
politics
19104 readers
1979 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This man does not want to win and he said many times he is a proud Zionist. There is no changing his mind.
People who think the term Zionist is somehow bad reminds me of Republicans who think the word Liberal is somehow bad.
People who don't realize that both liberals and zionists have a lot of imperialism to be ashamed of remind me of the US education system.
I saved this comment for my my fap folder.
Glad to be of service.
It's amazing how so many from foreign countries want to send their kids to.those imperialistic schools of the US Education system, isn't it?
Not really. Connections and social status will always have benefits.
So they send their kids for the opportunity to make connections with imperialists? How very liberal of them.
Yep, agreed.
"liberal" is significantly less specific in its implications, both in terms of modern day parlance and historical roots, than "zionist"
I'm sure you can do better than that. A Zionist means simply that that you believe there should be a Jewish state. The word liberal simply means you are willing to be open to ideas that are not your own. Neither are complicated. Neither are pejoratives.
Did you ignore the modern parlance part? A zionist is an Israeli nationalist. There's a bit more to it than "Israel should exist."
You can make up meanings all you want, but I'll rely on a dictionary. I'm sure Republicans have many definitions for a liberal.
And when I say "nick fuentes is a nazi" do you understand what I'm saying, or do you point out that he's not actually a member of the NSDAP?
I'm sorry if the need for common definition offends you. Yet, still the use of these terms by Republicans and Palestinian protestors seems the same to me, sorry.
To be clear, you don't agree that nick fuentes is a nazi?
2 hours later edit: anyone else find it funny how people with terrible opinions never answer direct questions and prefer to argue semantics?
doubling down on the stance of not understanding linguistics isn't the play you seem to think it is
the wikipedia article on zionism is several thousand words long, and you seem to think it's possible to accurately boil that down to a one or two sentence dictionary entry
it's more that they don't have a definition at all
they use it similarly to "woke", in that its a nebulous word that takes on any given meaning that they want given the context
if you tried to distill its myriad of uses into an actual definition you'd get something like "person i disagree with to the point of dislike", at which point the dumb part becomes making an assertion as utterly vacuous as "i don't like people i don't like"
it's completely dissimilar
I'm boiling it down because this isn't the kind of platform to express a thousand words. I use the dictionary, as you should. You seem to make a word which it is not. That may work in your world and it may work in the Republican world, but that doesn't mean people with a common language have to accept it. Both you and Republicans are trying demean others using language which is not applicable.
you're not avoiding excessive detail in a definition due to a limited character space, you're saying that a word can literally only ever have the precise meaning ascribed to it by the dictionary
those are two completely different things and it's astonishing that you would even try to make an argument that bad after opening this discussion with "i'm sure you can do better than that"
Still trying to justify your use of language...you need to be able to spit Zionist. That really says something about you.
i'm not trying to justify my use of language, i'm explaining why you're wrong, and you're responding by gesturing vaguely towards the concept of a dictionary
Vauguely? You've already Googled it and you know it's true. It's really telling that you keep on this for days.
the first result is the wikipedia article, which as we've discussed, is several thousand words long
Ridiculous. Enjoy your life and your hate.
lmfao
There shouldn't be a Jewish state though. It's a different thing. I don't think there should be a Christian state or a Muslim state either. Or a Mormon state or a Scientologist state.
There were Jews living in Palestine before it was carved up and given to the zionists. Why did it need to be turned into a Jewish state to the exclusion of people who have always lived there? At one point they were planning to carve up Argentina and South america. Which still would have been wrong. Though perhaps slightly less insane than what they did.
Since the beginning, groups of people with the same religious values have grouped together to form communities and then nations. There should no exception here.
Yeah. There should. It's always been a bad idea. And historically part of the reason they were persecuted. Not that it justified it. Nor does it justify them doing it in return.
So you're saying we should stop resisting and just give the fascists the US as a Christian homeland? Help me understand.
You do understand that Isreal is 40% Muslim, just as in the US only 68% identify as Christian. Just because a country starts in a certain way doesn't mean they don't evolve. But, sometimes they don't for a time, especially Theocracies.
And they are not treated equal. So you are saying that we should give America to the fascists? I mean after all if the Jewish homeland is 40% Muslim at other 60% is partially Christian as well. So less than 60% of the people in the Jewish homeland are Jewish. But it's still their homeland somehow? Then Christians with 64% of American population should of course have rights to turn America into their locked down Homeland too.
Look I see you post a lot and I generally agree with you. But this is a little too far off the reservation for this indian.
Well are people treated equal in the US?
Muslims in Isreal are a minority, but they do hold office and are cops, etc. They were murdered last October too Not too many Christians in Isreal. I never liked Isreal declaring itself a Jewish state, but if Christians had their wish in the US...so, I can .understand hardliners in Isreal. I'm an atheist, so I'm always the minority.
No. But you all aren't leaving and letting me and my relatives live on our land undisturbed. It's kind of a double standard.
In all seriousness. An Injustice somewhere does not justify Injustice everywhere. People should be treated more equal if not equally entirely. That seems like a pretty decent deal right? You all get to live on our ancestral lands we all just have to treat each other equally. Easy and pretty sweet right?
I have no idea what you are ranting about but have fun.
Zionism by definition is a nationalist ideology.
Love me, I'm a liberal
Suitably brutal and chilling version!
Never seen this version. Thanks