Kansas Crimson

Shirley wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 11:05 am

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 10:20 am God Bless America

https://twitter.com/CPD1617Scanner/stat ... 6356452369

Sad, but I guess I’m glad there is some pushback.

I gave up looking for pro-Jewish demonstrations to attend around here.

I have to admit I have not seeked (sp?) any pro-Jewish/Israel get togethers. I know there was one at my temple a few weeks ago.

I'm 100% in support of people who care about civilian deaths in "Palestine" and are letting it be known. No matter what their religious and political beliefs are. The majority of Jews who I have discussed it with are extremely distraught about it.
My problem is with the pro "Palestinian" "protesters" who care less about "Palestinians" and are more focused in regards to their hatred of Jews and Israel.

In Chicago there are white and blue lights on the top of some iconic buildings.
I figure that has to piss off a lot of people who feel there should be red, green, and black lights.
I work in a building that has white and blue lights on top. I admit it slightly concerns me from a security standpoint.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 11:34 am

Shirley wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 11:05 am

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 10:20 am God Bless America

https://twitter.com/CPD1617Scanner/stat ... 6356452369

Sad, but I guess I’m glad there is some pushback.

I gave up looking for pro-Jewish demonstrations to attend around here.

I have to admit I have not seeked (sp?) any pro-Jewish/Israel get togethers. I know there was one at my temple a few weeks ago.

I'm 100% in support of people who care about civilian deaths in "Palestine" and are letting it be known. No matter what their religious and political beliefs are. The majority of Jews who I have discussed it with are extremely distraught about it.
My problem is with the pro "Palestinian" "protesters" who care less about "Palestinians" and are more focused in regards to their hatred of Jews and Israel.

In Chicago there are white and blue lights on the top of some iconic buildings.
I figure that has to piss off a lot of people who feel there should be red, green, and black lights.
I work in a building that has white and blue lights on top. I admit it slightly concerns me from a security standpoint.

100%.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 10:28 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 9:56 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2023 9:27 am Honestly, I can take the cue to “sit down” better than being called a liar, Goebbels, a holocaust denier, wait I mean just the same thing as a holocaust denier, a bitch, pro-Putin, and - the bangiest banger of all - not thinking critically.

So, I guess I’ll go sit down.

Now, could anyone please recommend a good slouchy chair in which to sit?

I think the reactions you’re seeing are BECAUSE you otherwise have a solid reputation around these parts. Personally, I don’t like seeing the curious, somewhat-contrarian side of you getting sucked down a weird path.

I think there’s a lane for the sorts of things you’re wanting to bring up - the moral murkiness of all of it, the fundamental blameworthiness of many/most/all actors, etc.

But I also think you’re missing a couple major shifts. Putin waging a conventional war against Ukraine is a massive one. So is our diplomatic response on Israel - Biden couching his advice to Israel in terms of the mistakes made post-9/11, for example - is another.

I’m not the boss of this or any other bored. But personally, my opinion is that 1.3% of your opinions are tarnishing the rest, and the reaction you’re getting is indicative of people not wanting to see that happen.

Which is NOT to say that the only worthy opinions are consensus ones. Far from it. But I personally would take your contrarian points more seriously if you would avoid anchoring yourself to hills that are not worth dying on.

hi!

just checking in.

let me stress, I don't wanna stir up another shit-throwing contest, I swear.

but if I may ask, with as little snark intended as possible:

are we allowed to discuss anything that might deviate from the consensus opinions yet?

or maybe the question should be, what exactly is the lane for bringing up these sorts of things?

but, the thing is...this situation is so fucked up, I can't help but feel like speaking up about it IS some hill worth dying on.

Like for real, do you realize how many kids in Gaza have been killed by Israeli forces with bombs paid for by you and me?! (Assuming that's not just more Hamas/Putin propaganda, I guess.)

It bothers me! and honestly, if it does NOT bother you, then maybe the discussion should be, who exactly among us has been sucked down the weird path.

Ous.

No one has said you’re not allowed to have, or express, opinions that deviate from the consensus.

However, I’ll continue to identify when I see you regurgitating talking points that are straight out of the alt-right playbook. And I would note also that characterizing reasoned criticism as censorship is straight out of that playbook.

Everything is going splendidly.

https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1718690378944332152

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 1:47 pm
Ous.

No one has said you’re not allowed to have, or express, opinions that deviate from the consensus.

However, I’ll continue to identify when I see you regurgitating talking points that are straight out of the alt-right playbook. And I would note also that characterizing reasoned criticism as censorship is straight out of that playbook.

Fish.

While no one has explicitly said that, I guess, you gotta realize how yourself and a few other posters here have acted - very, very, very, very, VERY incredibly aggressively against any opinion that DOES deviate from the consensus. I've been mocked, put down, ignored*, labeled a bad-guy propagandist, a fake news peddler, a Putin parrot, a holocaust denier, a wannabe Goebbels, a liar, a bitch, a lying bitch, etc., all for trying for a position that has historically turned out to be the more accurate one, over and over again.

(About that, and no offense, but please also consider how much information from how many credible sources I've tried to present that you've just summarily ignored!)

but if you will not, or can not, consider that...that's all I should prob say for now.

ok, fine - one other thing for now: I am confident that your views at this point are far closer to "alt-right" here than mine. If you're confusing one for the other, it's a testament to how poorly you're able to consider anything that DOES deviate from the consensus - which isn't surprising! in fact, it's largely a testament to how effective the consensus narratives can be at conditioning us to think certain ways and believe certain things, to the exclusion of anything but!

Like for real, if this were 2003, and I tried to express any criticism for or doubt at all about the "WMDs in Iraq" consensus, I am extremely confident you, once again perhaps more so than any other poster, would be at the front of the pitchfork mob crying things like, "no ous yer actually a Saddam supporter!," and calling to cancel me even faster than the Dixie Chicks.

(and I'm tempted to say, "and look how well THAT aged!," but before I do think I should prob first ask...you, uh, do realize the "WMDs in Iraq" consensus turned out to be bullshit...right?)



*actually, to clarify, mjl ignored me for saying something like, "boy did Dajuan look tired during the Tenn game"

Too much in the blender, man. I’m done responding to questions or points that are not clear and specific. I know the game you’re playing (whether you mean to or not), and I’m out.

I don't mean to play any games here!

if clear, specific questions and points might really be allowed, let me at least try for one of them:

mjl posted a link that 55 UN countries voted against, and another 23 abstained from, a condemnation of Hamas.

like 55+23 nations is damn near half the world! And the UN's teeing up what should be a no-brainer slam dunk of a vote, to condemn literal terrorists! And they abstained, or voted against it anyway!

So, why do you think that could be?

One very possible explanation, sadly enough, is antisemitism.

for the sake of thinking critically about this tho - could there be any other explanations?

every time Hunter touches the ball he gets booed by the illys.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 5:13 pm every time Hunter touches the ball he gets booed by the illys.

Is he a Joo and are the illys Palestinians?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 5:01 pm I don't mean to play any games here!

if clear, specific questions and points might really be allowed, let me at least try for one of them:

mjl posted a link that 55 UN countries voted against, and another 23 abstained from, a condemnation of Hamas.

like 55+23 nations is damn near half the world! And the UN's teeing up what should be a no-brainer slam dunk of a vote, to condemn literal terrorists! And they abstained, or voted against it anyway!

So, why do you think that could be?

One very possible explanation, sadly enough, is antisemitism.

for the sake of thinking critically about this tho - could there be any other explanations?

I don’t really have an opinion on this.

American academia is fucking cesspool...

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/ ... 6324416943

ousdahl wrote:Like for real, if this were 2003, and I tried to express any criticism for or doubt at all about the "WMDs in Iraq" consensus, I am extremely confident you, once again perhaps more so than any other poster, would be at the front of the pitchfork mob crying things like, "no ous yer actually a Saddam supporter!," and calling to cancel me even faster than the Dixie Chicks.

Conflating the US coming to the defense of one our closest allies after they've suffered a terrorist attack and the existential(?) threat they face in the aftermath, with the choice to invade Iraq 20 years ago, has always been strained. And, imo, does little to advance your argument. Unless you're an isolationist, in which case we really do have nothing to talk about.

I wouldn't have taken the time to point that out because I have no interest in discussing it, but then with that as your premise, you make the wholly inaccurate assertion that there was no opposition to the invasion of Iraq among posters at .com. at the time. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth.

I would never oppose invading iraq.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 10:00 pm I would never oppose invading iraq.

So glad you chimed in. We were all waiting for your valuable insight

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 8:44 pm American academia is fucking cesspool...

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/ ... 6324416943

2 Questions.

I'm not convinced it came from students but let's assume it did.
My hope is these people will never receive a job interview from a substantial employer but if they do and they are asked why they referred to themself as "jew evil" and posted - "if you see a jewish "person" on campus follow them home and slit their throats. rats need to be eliminated from Cornell.
Or, hamas warrior" and they posted - "rape and kill all the jewish women, before they birth more jewish hitlers. jews are excrement on the face of the earth". How do they answer that?

The President of Cornell is Jewish. Do the clowns realize that and if so, why not threaten her too?

honest question:

is it just me, media bias, or reality that the language used by anti-semites is notable worse than that used by islamophobes?

it sure seems like there is a stark difference in the level of hate

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 10:49 am honest question:

is it just me, media bias, or reality that the language used by anti-semites is notable worse than that used by islamophobes?

it sure seems like there is a stark difference in the level of hate

It's a really murky issue, in part because - and I thought about saying this in a snarkier way but I won't - we in the modern west (1) have a bent toward political correctness (and, thankfully, tolerance), and (2) really don't have a great modern point of reference for what I understand is correctly termed "Lesser Jihad."*

Are all (or even most) adherents to Islam, terrorists? Or even terrorist-sympathizers? Of course not. And restraint in suggesting or concluding otherwise is well-intentioned and in good faith; I'm glad that the bomb-the-desert-and-the-brown-people-in-their-caves troglodyte types are now the ugly, gross exceptions to the norm.

However, we in the modern west might have a bit of a blind spot to how dangerous the radicals are, because the notion of outright religious violence (yes, what we'd perceive to be "indiscriminate" violence) is something we in the modern west consider to be a relic.

Unfortunately, it is not.

This all relates to your question, because I think (without saying this is GOOD) it's more socially acceptable in our discourse to trade in stereotypes of Jews than in stereotypes of Islamic people.

* Go look up "Greater Jihad" and try to tell me, with a straight face, that you don't hear it echoing throughout the religious right. Every. Single. Accusation. Is. A. Confession.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 11:45 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 10:49 am honest question:

is it just me, media bias, or reality that the language used by anti-semites is notable worse than that used by islamophobes?

it sure seems like there is a stark difference in the level of hate

It's a really murky issue, in part because - and I thought about saying this in a snarkier way but I won't - we in the modern west (1) have a bent toward political correctness (and, thankfully, tolerance), and (2) really don't have a great modern point of reference for what I understand is correctly termed "Lesser Jihad."*

Are all (or even most) adherents to Islam, terrorists? Or even terrorist-sympathizers? Of course not. And restraint in suggesting or concluding otherwise is well-intentioned and in good faith; I'm glad that the bomb-the-desert-and-the-brown-people-in-their-caves troglodyte types are now the ugly, gross exceptions to the norm.

However, we in the modern west might have a bit of a blind spot to how dangerous the radicals are, because the notion of outright religious violence (yes, what we'd perceive to be "indiscriminate" violence) is something we in the modern west consider to be a relic.

Unfortunately, it is not.

This all relates to your question, because I think (without saying this is GOOD) it's more socially acceptable in our discourse to trade in stereotypes of Jews than in stereotypes of Islamic people.

* Go look up "Greater Jihad" and try to tell me, with a straight face, that you don't hear it echoing throughout the religious right. Every. Single. Accusation. Is. A. Confession.

thanks for the thoughtful response

nuance aside, i’m more just curious about what everyone else has seen/read. i know my intake is biased, despite my efforts at “fair and balanced”, but are others seeing the same sort of pattern in the specific language used?

as an example, i’ve not seen anything akin to “extermination of jewish rats” aimed at Palestinians. but, just because i’ve not seen it doesn’t mean that such rhetoric doesn’t exist

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2023 8:44 pm American academia is fucking cesspool...

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/ ... 6324416943

https://twitter.com/omriceren/status/17 ... 1279505782

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 11:58 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 11:45 am

KUTradition wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2023 10:49 am honest question:

is it just me, media bias, or reality that the language used by anti-semites is notable worse than that used by islamophobes?

it sure seems like there is a stark difference in the level of hate

It's a really murky issue, in part because - and I thought about saying this in a snarkier way but I won't - we in the modern west (1) have a bent toward political correctness (and, thankfully, tolerance), and (2) really don't have a great modern point of reference for what I understand is correctly termed "Lesser Jihad."*

Are all (or even most) adherents to Islam, terrorists? Or even terrorist-sympathizers? Of course not. And restraint in suggesting or concluding otherwise is well-intentioned and in good faith; I'm glad that the bomb-the-desert-and-the-brown-people-in-their-caves troglodyte types are now the ugly, gross exceptions to the norm.

However, we in the modern west might have a bit of a blind spot to how dangerous the radicals are, because the notion of outright religious violence (yes, what we'd perceive to be "indiscriminate" violence) is something we in the modern west consider to be a relic.

Unfortunately, it is not.

This all relates to your question, because I think (without saying this is GOOD) it's more socially acceptable in our discourse to trade in stereotypes of Jews than in stereotypes of Islamic people.

* Go look up "Greater Jihad" and try to tell me, with a straight face, that you don't hear it echoing throughout the religious right. Every. Single. Accusation. Is. A. Confession.

thanks for the thoughtful response

nuance aside, i’m more just curious about what everyone else has seen/read. i know my intake is biased, despite my efforts at “fair and balanced”, but are others seeing the same sort of pattern in the specific language used?

as an example, i’ve not seen anything akin to “extermination of jewish rats” aimed at Palestinians. but, just because i’ve not seen it doesn’t mean that such rhetoric doesn’t exist

I posted here about the Israeli defense minister calling Palestinians “animals,” for one.

Shirley also posted some meme like “why is mooslims the source of all the world’s problems!?!”

Tho I guess Shirley added a note like, *some