I would break my ribcage and turn my rib bones into bayonets so Hamas can stab more zionazi colonizers
Hamas bad because they kill soldiers within a crowd of civilians. Israel and pax americana reign of terror good because they kill civilians that supposedly host terrorists without evidence.
People, especially academics, will read and quote Fanon and then denounce any and all indigenous resistance. Goes to show they have just turned everything into a career.
Some of those people said if it was tossup between hitler or mussolini, they would vote mussolini. I don't know whether they got 0 historical illiteracy or legit believe it, either way they giving the veneer away.
Hamas is worth critical support
Of course it is, all support should be critical.
so is “Hamas is actually good, though.”
No they are actively doing great damage to the occupation forces. Obviously we’d prefer that the PFLP was the dominant party, but given how things are at the moment, Hamas is good.
"XYZ is good" is invariably read as blanket approval of everything XYZ does. That's not what we mean, so we shouldn't say it.
I disagree. If I say “I like puppies” does it mean I not only like when they’re cute and friendly, but also when they pee on the floor? If I say the USSR was good do I mean everything about it was perfect including LGBT persecution and it’s internal contradictions that led to collapse? Anyway, I can think of ways Hamas can be better, but what don’t I approve of? So yes, Hamas is good.
Disprove the atrocity propaganda, say you don’t care if they’re religious because they’re doing the work. You’ll get the same response if you say critical support from the jump.
Edit: maybe starting with critical support is better in a conversational context, but it’s a meme and “it’s good” works so much better.
You’ll get the same response if you say critical support from the jump.
Yes, but it doesn't land the same when you say critical support from beginning to end. If you start with "good" and switch to "critical support" that comes off as backtracking or trying to weasel around what you mean.
but it’s a meme and “it’s good” works so much better.
It's just not that great of a meme. It flattens the best take (critical support) into something resembling what the pro-genocide crowd accuses us of (blindly endorsing even the bad parts of anti-imperialist resistance).
What bad parts do you keep pointing to? The meme will become much worse if I try to include a lot of nuance. That’s why people don’t like “leftist memes.” There’s a reason why “Stalin did nothing wrong” is a meme and not “here’s a few good things Stalin did and a few I don’t like as much.”
"Stalin did nothing wrong" is a shit meme because it could be taken as being analogous to the "Hitler did nothing wrong", the premise being that it's obvious he mostly did wrong things but saying the contrary, being ironic. Unknowing people will take the former like the latter.
Now "Stalin shouldn't have stopped at Berlin" on the other hand...
Aren't you the guy who constantly curves the colonized who bring up any kind of attempted struggle against their settlers? Yeah, this peckerwood-assed take scans coming from you. Hell, there's already been a read-down on you; it ain't just me.
Do better.
Aren't you the guy who constantly curves the colonized who bring up successful struggle against their settlers?
That's a link to a thread about working class people being more generous about sharing small costs, where I point out that class traitors have played prominent roles in every successful revolution, and should be encouraged.How is that related to "critical support is the best take, not a blanket endorsement"
The point here is you can't be trusted to have a single decent take regarding colonized people, which you clearly aren't (or are a Sunken-Place-assed coon; which'd be sadder, but I'm beyond tears for you if that's the case). Any time the subject of colonizers and how to deal with them come up, you can always be counted on to be running interference for opfor. Every time. At least you finally said something for once, I expected this to be another one of your hits where a subject-of-empire addresses you and then you just play "I have mysteriously gone blind" for a fuckin week.
The point here is it is not your fucking call to condemn people dealing with their colonizers in the way they see fit. Giving this situation "critical support" implies there's some element here that perturbs you, that makes you incapable of uplifting their struggle to the point it deserves. What about driving out the colonizers by any means necessary merits bare critical support out of you? You approach them from a state of colonial chauvinism that you've never once investigated or attempted to unmake. And it disgusts me.
Neither of these are the original takes you made; nice revisions though. At least my revisions are up-front and indicated by a marker on the post; you do yours skullduggerously, after-the-fact to cover for already-committed fuckshit. For the original take of #1, why won't you endorse the any-means-necessary driving out of colonizers? Why can you only critically support it, and why does it walk hand in hand with your chauvinism? For the original take of #2, you were not fucking arguing for the support of class traitors, you were whelping about how our use of "cracker" wasn't "coalition-building behavior". Own your bullshit with your whole chest, thank you.
Further, when you put an objectively bad take out there and someone addresses you on it, doesn't your instance specifically have a rule about walking out on good faith dialogue? That one I'll allow it might be Lemmygrad specific; but I'd swear Hexbear had something like that on the books too, and in ignoring it, you come off as just another haughty-assed settler trying to set conditions on the field when your walk-off comment is running defense for crackers.
You can absolutely leave it here, but just understand that you radiate a certain look at this point; and for someone as obsessed with optics politics with how you've tried debating QueerCommie down, it amazes me that you can't tell. Like I said before: do better.
This coming from the person who edited both of their comments after I responded to them.
Someone can't read timestamps, apparently.
What I mean by critical support
There is a time and a place for 'critical support'; and a war against colonizers is not it.
Debatelord shit
I could call your repetitive lying and backpedaling settler shit, couldn't I? Only reason I hadn't til now was I was still trying to be civil; but I guess that's out the window.
I was criticizing the comment “I don’t trust a white person unless they have a biracial kid, and even then maybe not.”
Wrong, you posted a top-level comment to a thread OP that had NOTHING TO SAY about biracial kids "Lots of normal comments, very conducive to building a mass movement". You were whelping about the whole thread at that top-level point, and then tried to move goalposts to a convenient other comment after you caught pushback. Lies, damn lies, and settler shit. You might as well have that be your last reply to me; it perfectly encapsulates everything you're about.
You’re right that our support should be critical, but in the previous discussion you constantly implied there is something wrong with hamas, playing into liberal Zionism.
On the referenced link, as a cracker, I get why people don’t trust us. We have not been great organizationally in the past. We have to earn trust. You mention that race isn’t real and just there to divide us, but you don’t realize it was made to protect a colonial system. You don’t appear to recognize the national oppression of the black nation, instead falling into the patsoc error of think we must simply unite to make a socialist us. That’s impossible.
Of course there are things wrong with Hamas. It endorses some reactionary social views and is not a socialist organization, but a national liberation one. I support them where they fight against imperialism but disagree with them where they're reactionary or hostile to socialism. This is the best take for Iran and Russia, too. It only plays into liberal imperialism if you use it as an excuse for supporting the U.S. or its client states, which I'm not doing.
On the referenced link, as a cracker, I get why people don’t trust us. We have not been great organizationally in the past. We have to earn trust.
There's a big difference between "white people have to work more to earn trust" and “I don’t trust a white person unless they have a biracial kid, and even then maybe not.” As I said in that comment, there is no AES state that approaches racism and discrimination that way, and it's a dead end in terms of building a mass movement in the U.S.
I didn’t say hamas is perfect, but they’re not anti-communist and I’d give them as much support as China. Support for anything should be critical, but the way you talk around it makes it sounds like your apologizing for Hamas as if they are some lesser evil.
I agree it’s extreme, but I understand why they are jaded.
We agree that critical support is the best position, we agree on how crucial Hamas is in Palestine's anti-imperialist struggle, we agree that Hamas is not perfect.
I don't know how a concept this familiar to leftists, that we agree on, that I've plainly stated multiple times, is interpreted negatively by other leftists.
Idk I agree with you, it just came off on the negative side about Hamas. “Saying they’re good is a bad take” sounds like you think they’re bad, but you accept that there is no alternative.
hexbear user 🫵
it's because they're from instances that defederated with hexbear
