▲ 433 ▼ UN experts say ceasefire needed as Palestinians at 'grave risk of genocide' (www.reuters.com) submitted 2 years ago by TokenBoomer@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world 108 comments fedilink hide all child comments Reuters
[+] VirginWith40yo@lemm.ee -52 points 2 years ago (2 children) Are you supporting terrorism? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] alquicksilver@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago (1 child) Supporting terrorism by...condemning Hamas and Israel? Are you drunk? Where did I support anything except not killing civilians? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) A common thing that seems to be going around lately is people claiming that any condemnation of Israel is support for Hamas Edit: Funnily enough though I see way less of the opposite. It's almost as if those people are poisoning the well for discussion on the matter. I also see people saying that condemning Israel's actions is antisemitism but I've been seeing less and less of that lately permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jet@hackertalks.com 4 points 2 years ago It's a rhetorical tool. It's not new. I've been familiar with it ever since I was cognizant of global news. Fascist governments like to conflate their populations with their ideology to make criticisms difficult. If the facts are in your favor, you argue the facts If morality is in your favor you argue morality If historical precedent is in your favor, you argue historical precedent And if nothing else, you argue about arguing. This is where the "if you're not with me you're against me " accusations of antisemitism exist.. from my perspective. It's a bullying rhetorical tactic. When you hear this, it means the other sides already conceding they can't defend themselves, and they're just relying on rhetoric to shut you up so that they can get their message out there. I don't blame people for using all the rhetorical tools available to them, I am sad that a lot of people don't have the proper critical thinking skills to deal with empty rhetoric. That makes me sad. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago This parody account isn't funny. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] alquicksilver@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago (1 child) Supporting terrorism by...condemning Hamas and Israel? Are you drunk? Where did I support anything except not killing civilians? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) A common thing that seems to be going around lately is people claiming that any condemnation of Israel is support for Hamas Edit: Funnily enough though I see way less of the opposite. It's almost as if those people are poisoning the well for discussion on the matter. I also see people saying that condemning Israel's actions is antisemitism but I've been seeing less and less of that lately permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jet@hackertalks.com 4 points 2 years ago It's a rhetorical tool. It's not new. I've been familiar with it ever since I was cognizant of global news. Fascist governments like to conflate their populations with their ideology to make criticisms difficult. If the facts are in your favor, you argue the facts If morality is in your favor you argue morality If historical precedent is in your favor, you argue historical precedent And if nothing else, you argue about arguing. This is where the "if you're not with me you're against me " accusations of antisemitism exist.. from my perspective. It's a bullying rhetorical tactic. When you hear this, it means the other sides already conceding they can't defend themselves, and they're just relying on rhetoric to shut you up so that they can get their message out there. I don't blame people for using all the rhetorical tools available to them, I am sad that a lot of people don't have the proper critical thinking skills to deal with empty rhetoric. That makes me sad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) A common thing that seems to be going around lately is people claiming that any condemnation of Israel is support for Hamas Edit: Funnily enough though I see way less of the opposite. It's almost as if those people are poisoning the well for discussion on the matter. I also see people saying that condemning Israel's actions is antisemitism but I've been seeing less and less of that lately permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jet@hackertalks.com 4 points 2 years ago It's a rhetorical tool. It's not new. I've been familiar with it ever since I was cognizant of global news. Fascist governments like to conflate their populations with their ideology to make criticisms difficult. If the facts are in your favor, you argue the facts If morality is in your favor you argue morality If historical precedent is in your favor, you argue historical precedent And if nothing else, you argue about arguing. This is where the "if you're not with me you're against me " accusations of antisemitism exist.. from my perspective. It's a bullying rhetorical tactic. When you hear this, it means the other sides already conceding they can't defend themselves, and they're just relying on rhetoric to shut you up so that they can get their message out there. I don't blame people for using all the rhetorical tools available to them, I am sad that a lot of people don't have the proper critical thinking skills to deal with empty rhetoric. That makes me sad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 4 points 2 years ago It's a rhetorical tool. It's not new. I've been familiar with it ever since I was cognizant of global news. Fascist governments like to conflate their populations with their ideology to make criticisms difficult. If the facts are in your favor, you argue the facts If morality is in your favor you argue morality If historical precedent is in your favor, you argue historical precedent And if nothing else, you argue about arguing. This is where the "if you're not with me you're against me " accusations of antisemitism exist.. from my perspective. It's a bullying rhetorical tactic. When you hear this, it means the other sides already conceding they can't defend themselves, and they're just relying on rhetoric to shut you up so that they can get their message out there. I don't blame people for using all the rhetorical tools available to them, I am sad that a lot of people don't have the proper critical thinking skills to deal with empty rhetoric. That makes me sad. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago This parody account isn't funny. permalink fedilink source parent