But you actively chose to attempt to hurt one such person again by spewing vitrol at them because they were talking about generalized anger that only touches upon you due to that role?
You didn’t have to be kind, or comfortable, or any of the many pleasant things people like about dealing with other people. You could’ve blocked and moved on, gone for a walk to settle yourself, any dozens upon dozens of actions. But you chose to be actively combative, actively attack them, and actively justify it because they were too mean? How angry are the oppressed allowed to be at their oppressors.
I wasn’t merely being rhetorical with my comparisons earlier. How much kindness do you demand Palestinians display to Israeli forces whom have never considered the nature it’s genocidal apartheid until recently? How much grace do you demand of Jewish people for Nazis whom were just following orders, until realizing the nature of their crime?
When you say asking for death is enough, but hell is or anything of the sorts is just too far for the repentant, you must also make the claim the oppressed that do are unjust in their degree of anger when doing so. You then lashed back out at this anger and said you don’t have to stand for it. The meaning this betrays is that when the oppressed seek retribution no matter how minor, and a verbal lashing is as minor as can be, if the oppressor deems it too far by their own decree, they are allowed to strike again, by what means they deem acceptable.
And you dont see why I called that a lack of solidarity? You don’t see what many of us found abhorrent about the claims these actions require?
I reject all of this particularly this idea I’m demanding people play by my rules. I get it, people are going to rightfully hate me for running a computer during the wars. And that’s not to minimize what running a computer can mean during an occupation. What I am taking exception to is I’m uniquely guilty and should be thrown into a torture chamber.
Every American here my age is just as culpable as I am; and i am, but where’s the outrage? It’s just self righteousness
There is a very broad amount of guilt on Americans for our role in our genocidal state. Our exact point is when you say there is a degree in which you can strike back at someone that was a subject of one of those many instances by your metrics (because I doubt the user you cursed at thinks you were justified there), you’re saying there is a degree in which any or all of us are justified in the same privilege!
If you hear “death to the IDF”, is an IDF soldier justified in saying, “Well actually fuck you, cuz all Israelis are kinda guilty! You can’t just criticize my role”
Are black people not to call their distain for KKK members, or politicians, or whatever other fucking white-supremecist contributor or beneficiary for their specific role in that system?
“Um actually you can’t say you hate the white conservative because the white liberal also contributes!” -White Conservative
^ according to your logic they’d be justified for yelling at a black person who said bad things about white conservatives if they seem it too far.
You’re policing what parts of the apparatus people that are attacked by it are allowed to focus their criticism!
I don’t know how many ways I can put this: you don’t get to decide what is acceptable categorization for someone who was a subject of your oppression to criticize or rebuke you for! This applies to soldiers, politicians, citizens, it doesn’t fucking matter! If they wanted to say “death to the American proletariat!” and we all started going “but, but, but” we’d be just as guilty of doing imperialist work as you. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen others explain it too you in various so I’m pretty sure you just don’t want to get what we’re saying.
Deflection deflection deflection. The core of crackerdom.
The entire idea that your “fuck you,” as a reaction towards that comrade was in any way justified was defining the boundary. You said what they said was, “too much.” By definition, for something to be too much, there has to be “enough,” and defining where that is, is defining the bounds between too much and enough, thus defining a boundary.
And you’ve done nothing to me for an apology to come this way.
But you actively chose to attempt to hurt one such person again by spewing vitrol at them because they were talking about generalized anger that only touches upon you due to that role?
You didn’t have to be kind, or comfortable, or any of the many pleasant things people like about dealing with other people. You could’ve blocked and moved on, gone for a walk to settle yourself, any dozens upon dozens of actions. But you chose to be actively combative, actively attack them, and actively justify it because they were too mean? How angry are the oppressed allowed to be at their oppressors.
I wasn’t merely being rhetorical with my comparisons earlier. How much kindness do you demand Palestinians display to Israeli forces whom have never considered the nature it’s genocidal apartheid until recently? How much grace do you demand of Jewish people for Nazis whom were just following orders, until realizing the nature of their crime?
When you say asking for death is enough, but hell is or anything of the sorts is just too far for the repentant, you must also make the claim the oppressed that do are unjust in their degree of anger when doing so. You then lashed back out at this anger and said you don’t have to stand for it. The meaning this betrays is that when the oppressed seek retribution no matter how minor, and a verbal lashing is as minor as can be, if the oppressor deems it too far by their own decree, they are allowed to strike again, by what means they deem acceptable.
And you dont see why I called that a lack of solidarity? You don’t see what many of us found abhorrent about the claims these actions require?
I reject all of this particularly this idea I’m demanding people play by my rules. I get it, people are going to rightfully hate me for running a computer during the wars. And that’s not to minimize what running a computer can mean during an occupation. What I am taking exception to is I’m uniquely guilty and should be thrown into a torture chamber.
Every American here my age is just as culpable as I am; and i am, but where’s the outrage? It’s just self righteousness
Actually, if you noticed, that’s the exact point!
There is a very broad amount of guilt on Americans for our role in our genocidal state. Our exact point is when you say there is a degree in which you can strike back at someone that was a subject of one of those many instances by your metrics (because I doubt the user you cursed at thinks you were justified there), you’re saying there is a degree in which any or all of us are justified in the same privilege!
If you hear “death to the IDF”, is an IDF soldier justified in saying, “Well actually fuck you, cuz all Israelis are kinda guilty! You can’t just criticize my role”
Are black people not to call their distain for KKK members, or politicians, or whatever other fucking white-supremecist contributor or beneficiary for their specific role in that system?
“Um actually you can’t say you hate the white conservative because the white liberal also contributes!” -White Conservative
^ according to your logic they’d be justified for yelling at a black person who said bad things about white conservatives if they seem it too far.
You’re policing what parts of the apparatus people that are attacked by it are allowed to focus their criticism!
I don’t know how many ways I can put this: you don’t get to decide what is acceptable categorization for someone who was a subject of your oppression to criticize or rebuke you for! This applies to soldiers, politicians, citizens, it doesn’t fucking matter! If they wanted to say “death to the American proletariat!” and we all started going “but, but, but” we’d be just as guilty of doing imperialist work as you. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen others explain it too you in various so I’m pretty sure you just don’t want to get what we’re saying.
Deflection deflection deflection. The core of crackerdom.
Missed where I tried to define the boundaries of acceptable dialogue but okay, if I did that I’m sorry. If people wish death on me I get it.
The entire idea that your “fuck you,” as a reaction towards that comrade was in any way justified was defining the boundary. You said what they said was, “too much.” By definition, for something to be too much, there has to be “enough,” and defining where that is, is defining the bounds between too much and enough, thus defining a boundary.
And you’ve done nothing to me for an apology to come this way.
Okay enough I’m done here, hope we have better interactions elsewhere
Ciao.