@jordanlund@lemmy.world you're answering other things up and down the thread, but I haven't heard from you. After this explanation do you still maintain that this post, that was apparently the straw that broke the camel's back got me banned, was "advocating violence"?

What do you mean not everyone knows the filmography of Bernardo Bertolucci?! /s Yea, my bad. It's a great movie, you should watch it.

Yes in principle, which is why it shouldn't be minimized. Corollary: the fact that it is should not in itself be used to minimize it ("ah it's all shit, so why do you complain about it").

Yes, but Jews in general don't have anything to do with that. That's an Israeli Zionist tactic and it's very important to make that distinction.

Hey NDP, enough with the incremental respectability politics. Give us what Mamdani is cooking.

We are all living the intergenerational consequences of the crimes and delusions of those fuckers.

My Greek yiayia was talking about being a kid during the occupation and being hungry. Intergenerational trauma: I feel horrible throwing expired bread away. They supposedly admired us for being Greeks and at the same time subjected us to famine and massacres.

I maintain that it is also intergenerational trauma and abuse that we are brought to splitting hairs about ordering nightmares.

Take care.

Take care buddy. Poking this shit is stressful as it is, no need to make yourself worse.

I'll just mention one factual error in your writing, that discussions and disagreements about the fate of Jews among Nazis are unthinkable. 1939-1940 discussions about the Gypsy Question were in the same period that the Nazis were debating what to do to the Jews. In the summer of 1940 the Nazis were approving the Madagascar Plan. It was in January 1941 when they decided on the Final Solution. Until then they were putting Jews in ghettos "pending a decision". Which means, there were discussions ongoing up until the Wannsee Conference.

Again, take care, none of this is worth your health.

YDI I think because you are downplaying the importance of antisemitism. You're also doing an antisemitism yourself by saying that Jews in general have become special kind of ubermenschen.

You're wrong about antiziganist Nazi views:

Under Adolf Hitler, a supplementary decree to the Nuremberg Laws was issued on 26 November 1935, classifying the Romani people (or Roma) as "enemies of the race-based state", thereby placing them in the same category as the Jews. (source, see also here)

So, no, Roma people are not in the same category as Poles and Slavs when it comes to the Holocaust. They are actually in the same category as Jews, Hitler put them there.

Antiziganism has deep deep roots in Europe, and has its own version of the blood libel. That Europeans are often completely oblivious of the depth and breadth of the problem is just further proof of how deep rooted and pervasive it is. For example, almost nobody know that the Roma were legally chattel slaves in Romania until the 1850s. For another example, Roma communities right now face systemic incrimination and racism all over Europe and it simply is not an issue. There is no continent-wide Roma Lives Matter movement, there is no Roma History Month, there is no widespread remembrance of the Porajmos, and there is no attempt to link the problems facing Roma people today with that legacy. There are no Oscar awarded movies about them, their stories and their suffering. The main name used for them is still a slur. Roma history is a black hole in the heart of Europe.

I don't trust Carney to not start placating these wackos in the name of "nation building". And if he does and these suicidal policies are draped with the maple leaf and called "nation building", what incentive do I have to not look for some other nation building project, par exemple un projet de nation fondé sur la hydroélectricité?

I'm only responding here because you're saying "they know what they were arguing and you’re being disingenuous if you try to say otherwise" and because you're making a whole bunch of assumptions about my intent and my ...rationality. Basically, I'm only responding because you're displaying a big degree of bad faith towards me, to the point where you're not understanding what I'm actually saying, especially in the third comment that got me the ban.

The comment with the all caps, mentioning Greece and Ukraine, fine, sure. I tested the line, asking specifically about the TOS and got burned. That's your line. I still think it's a silly line, but that's your line. Fine.

But the comment you banned me for is where I think you completely misunderstood me. Here's the comment:

Death to Israeli apartheid. Death to the institutions that uphold the Israeli Apartheid. Death to the institutions that uphold the occupation, the disposession and the genocide of Palestinians. Death to the structures that maim the humanity of both the colonizers and the colonized.

Long live all the people who live in Palestine from the river to the sea. Long live the children, the life, all children, all life, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, and other. Palestinian, Druze, Bedouin, Samaritan, Mizrahi, Ashkenaz, Sephardic, and other.

“The padrone is dead. But Alfredo Berlingheri is alive and we mustn’t kill him. […] Because he is living proof that the padrone is dead.”

I thought the last line, the reference to the padrone would be making it crystal clear, but it didn't. It's from the movie 1900 and I guess my mistake was believing that this is a classic that everyone has seen. My bad. Here is what goes on: after the revolution, the peasants want to kill the Alfredo character (DeNiro), who is the padrone, the boss. But Depardieu's character, Olmo, makes the case that they should in fact not kill Alfredo, because his role as padrone is dead and Alfredo, no longer being the padrone is just a regular person now. The padrone is dead, Alfredo lives. Imagine if the Jacobins hadn't guillotined Louis-XV, the line would be "the king is dead, Louis is alive and we mustn't kill him, because his continued existence is living proof that the institution of the monarchy is dead: he is now just a dude like the rest of us".

My argument here is that the institution of Israeli apartheid must die, to free the Israelis themselves from the shackles of being "the padrone". That's why I write underneath long live all life, and list explicitly Judaism among the religions and the various Jewish nationalities (Mizrahi, Ashkenaz, Sephardi). They are Alfredo. May they live! And may their continued existence be statement to the death of the "padrone" role, that Israeli nationalism has been ascribing to them.

When I say "death to israeli apartheid" and "death to the institutions and structures that uphold it with all its horrible outcomes" I am not advocating violence against people, I am advocating the destruction of horrific systems and institutions. I am saying the equivalent of "death to slavery", "death to patriarchy", "death to capitalism". And I'm adding explicitly in the people that will benefit from the death of these horrific systems and institutions precisely the groups of people that are currently benefiting from them. I'm not saying "death to the whites", I am saying "Death to slavery and its institutions so that whites don't have to be slavers".

If, despite what I think, you understood all of that and still somehow construed my writing as "repeated calls to violence", I don't know what else to say.

Edit: in fact I think you're also misrepresenting the context of my 1900 comment. It was not a follow up on the Greece/Ukraine comment. Instead, I was responding at a different branch of the thread, below a comment where someone was making the argument that "death to Apple" is not a threat of violence against the Apple CEO and employees. It was already in the context of discussing "death of institutions" vs of people.

Time for those festivals to start feeling the heat then.

Sports bros and punks are kind of different demographics though.