NYT GAZA
LIES DIES
DONT DEAD OPEN INSIDE
Wrong one, it's a NO SAFETY SMOKING FIRST:
Hmmm....yes. very wise.
Aight criticizing NYT staff for having "ties to Israel" is coming awfully close to just saying "NYT has too many Jews". You do know that service in the IDF is mandatory for all Israelis right? Having a lot of Jewish staff didn't stop them from bringing down Weinstein. Leftists hate identity politics except for this one particular instance.
Also, literally the NYT headline right now: Anger Over Starvation in Gaza Leaves Israel Increasingly Isolated
"Global outrage at the Netanyahu government’s actions has grown since the war began, and the suffering of children in the enclave has accelerated the disdain."
Jew != Israeli. Conflating the two is antisemitic.
Right, but having Israeli relatives (as a large portion of the American Jewish population does) doesn't make you an Israeli either, and it certainly doesn't make you a Zionist as the article above claims. How would you feel if someone labeled you an Imperialist or Fascist just because you're American?
Source?
Most American Jews moved here before the end of WW2, after the diaspora we lived all over Europe and elsewhere for centuries. Nearly half of all Jews live in America, and have for generations now - since before the state of Israel was created
We didn't come here from Israel, we don't have "family back home". I really doubt most of us have ties to Israel at all
Couldn't find any exact study, I guess it would depend on how you measure it, but everyone in this post says it's very common.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/comments/17z5q4s/is_it_common_for_jews_in_diaspora_to_have/
And yeah, very few Jewish people in America are from Israel but lots of people from the US moved there from after WW2.
Yeah... That's just a small collection of anacdotal evidence, and my anacdotal evidence totally contradicts it
Look at the subreddit name. Why would you be in that subreddit? Probably because you're invested in the religion side of our culture, which is totally optional. Or you're into our history. These are things that make you more likely to visit Israel, a place full of historical, religious, and cultural artifacts
You seem more genuinely ignorant than anything darker, so let me take this opportunity to lay it out
Israel has a promise to all of us - we will protect our own next time someone does a genocide. Because the Holocaust wasn't the first time we experienced ethnic cleansing... Were the ones who look like the people where we live, but are different. I like to say, "we're always second", because when they run out of gypsies or black people, the fascists will need a next enemy
Israel offers free trips to young adults. You fly over, see the sights, and get indoctrination against Palestinians. I tried to do this years back before I knew the details... But there's another natural requirement. You have to be an active part of a group that focuses on Jewish heritage - I showed up a few times, applied, but I'm an American first and foremost. You need to be an active member of a Jewish identity group to even get in... And this is my heritage, not all I am. So I was filtered, like most of us are
The Palestine issue was uncomfortable for a long time...I mean, it's was definitely uncomfortable, but it was a guaranteed safe harbor. I think this is how most of us felt... Conflicted
But then October 7th happened, and the response made it clear what this was. We had to confront what this was, and most of us are very upset about it, because our history is being on the other side of it
And now, they're coming for the Latinos. I know how this story ends, and I don't want to be deported to Israel. I know it sounds crazy now, but it's not. We're 2 years away from "putting the Jews back where they belong"
We are not Israeli. Those people are fucking crazy, don't put me in the same breath as them. Don't apologize for the IDF. Don't launder what is happening.
Make the difference clear in your mind and in your words.
No one is reading that
False
Thanks
Fine - then just don't make excuses for Jews being tied to Israel. We're not, we're Americans and citizens of where we've lived for generations
That's an ignorant and prejudiced take, not to mention dangerous
lots of people from the US moved there from after WW2.
Colonists
i would shut the fuck up and do something to stop the genocide and stop letting Israel use me as a justification for genocide
How would you feel if someone labeled you an Imperialist or Fascist just because you're American?
Not great. But would they be wrong more than 50% of the time? We did "elect" Mr. President for a 2nd time after all. And barely no one doubted the legitimacy of that election for more than a week. The fact he should've been disqualified? Apparently a non-sequitur.
So with around 50% of the voting population being MAGA idiots and the 33% non-voters their silent enablers, I'd take being called a fascist any day. It's well deserved.
You are too close but too far.
I would feel as if I had finally found a friend
Do you know how many mass resignations have occurred at the NYT, since the invention of the terrorist state of Israel, because of their blatant misrepresentation —and often complete cover-ups— of massacres and crimes against humanity perpetrated by it?
As a tool for manufacturing consent, the NYT is second to none
You do know that service in the IDF is mandatory for all Israelis right?
I was just following orders didn’t work for the nazi’s. It shouldn’t work for Israeli’s.
Frequency and tone matters. Like the BBC it might cover Palestine opinion partially (probably when there is back lash or denying it is hard even when governments that support Israel acknowledge it) but if it is turning a blind eye 90% of the time then it is denial:
"Having too many Jews" is problematic if you fired all the arabs.
Ask old Jewish man Bernie Sanders how race can be different from views/actions! It's not a difficult concept...
But having family members who served in the IDF is a fair indicator of political views?
A racists only weakness!
Don't dead. Open inside.
Hmmm...no. Not very wise.
I mean, literally not? The meme about Don't Dead Open Inside was that the words went top to bottom then left to right. This is the opposite. It reads left to right, top to bottom.
This is some activism I can get behind.
The red paint visually goes so hard and really gets the message across.
Fun stuff.
Pigs eat & dish out the bullshit. Sad. Genocide. Hush hush war. People lack care.
Nice. They need to be held to account.
Why is it easier for Americans, even the left, to police the world instead of fixing their own damn country. It’s a dumpster fire but Americans just wanna fix the issues of other countries instead. Not surprised really after what they did to my country and people
Well Gaza is directly Americas fault and problem to fix so it's a bit different than just butting into random countries and fucking things up
Israel is bombing Gaza with American bombs dropped from American Jets using American surveillance.
Israel is blowing up houses with American anti-tank mines and bulldozing others with American bulldozers.
Israel is protected from UN security council decisions thanks to American vetos.
Israel is financed significantly by rich Americans and encourages Americans to help in ethnic cleansing and land stealing in Palestine, with about a third of the settlers in the Westbank being American citizens.
Israeli lobby groups are telling American politicans what to do and what not to do, being a tolerated form of direct foreign influence and Israeli intelligence is likely involved in American elites raping American children around Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, to blackmail said elites to do the bidding of Israel.
...
capitalist pigs
it's more common to portray jews as rats. like i get where you're coming from, but i think they picked what they picked to avoid the antisemitic dog whistle. that's just my read though as a dude with curly hair, a big nose, and sensitivity to "is this person hating me for my jewish ancestry"
for sure. that's like… kind of a genuine challenge with looking for and understanding antisemitism is that how it presents itself changes through the eras. but in our current age, i think people are more likely to associate pigs with capitalism and anti-jewishness than with jews. like. i think it's important and good that we're having these conversations so we can understand the current status of anti semitism especially as israeli backed organizations water down these things by applying the term antisemitism to too many things.
and as you say, there's a major aspect of regionality. antisemitism looks different depending on the place
this stops the famine in Gaza and Palestinian babies getting decapitated by Israeli bombs how?
lemmy lacks all sense of nuance
https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1165443
Ah yes now is the time to be nuanced and cautious /s
removing nuance helps not a single palestinian and isolates people who are experiencing hate against them to the only side that says there is hate, and that's a group that brandishes that hate to perpetuate more hate. jews who are focused on doikyat need to be able to talk to their peers who are scared about what they are scared of in order to direct them to help the oppressed people of palestine and understand that zionism will fuel that hate against them rather than protect them. that is a delicate conversation and denying that only helps the zionist. it may be simple for you because you do not require deprogramming, but for us we have to assess things and pull apart how the media like the new york times and the bbc manipulates us based on the fears we fear. we have to understand the dog whistles of the zionists and the anti-semites and deconstruct them. the reason for this is that anti-semites and zionists preach the same message: there is no place for jews here. by creating a black and white binary view of the influences on our outlook we create a situation where one persons binary doesn't match another binary. these have been the tools of division for 20k years. the real way forward is to make clear that what you want is a world safe for all who live on it, and what you are against is hate based ideologies. when a jew says they are experiencing a rise in hatred in their day to day life take a moment to acknowlege that this is real and that it's israel who's driving this fear and benefits from it.
- It's not a war.
- Some nationality should really shut up given the fact their country are making bank out of the genocide
Why is germany still sending weapons to genociders?
Ah but the government you did vote for do exactly as you want, don't it?
Tell me one party in the German parliament right now that even calls what’s happening in Gaza what it is - a genocide.
And at the same time die „Linke“ calls for stopping support of Ukraine which is the only way to stop the russian genocide at least in this part of the world.
If you did, would you then know why they are sending weapons to Israel?
You seem more upset with a fictional possibility of an antisemitic symbol than with the actual genocide that’s currently being perpetrated by the Zionists
Because even jews should be digusted with zionists.
There's a few non-antisemitic takes. First off, it's a depiction of NYT specifically. We should not immediately conflate this with Zionists in general.
First is 'capitalist pigs'. Israel as a project might be Zion to Zionists, but to organizations it's a way to grab property and develop more speculative goods.
The other can be from the perspective of NYT as a news org 'pumping out cartloads of shit'.
A final one I can think of is the pigs from Orwell's Animal Farm. The pigs in it used manipulative rhetoric to get the other animals to both obey them and included standing by as their friends were executed for 'the greater good'. At the End of the book, the pigs are no different than the humans the farm animals drove out to secure their freedom, dressing in human clothes, walking on two legs, living in the farmer's house, and making deals with the farmers. It was a critique by Orwell of communist movements being hijacked to only benefit their vangaurds rather than the prolateriat as a whole, but I can see how the metaphor can fit for a news org siding with Zionists instead of writing truthfully about the Gaza genocide.
Actual delusional vandalism. The sole reason this movement is frowned upon so much
Lol, no, "the movement" is frowned upon by some because they want to finish up their genocide in peace.
America will soon be the only country in the security council not to recognize Palestine. This is America's genocide, not only Israel's. So of course some folks in America will be a bit touchy about people criticizing it.
Some red paint on a building is pretty mild compared to, I don't know, genocide? Whoever is more upset by this than by every single truck refused entry to or bomb dropped in Gaza needs to take a long hard look at themselves.
You can pretend NYT has no influence on popular opinion and therefore politics, and ignore their misrepresentation of the genocide if you wish, but that doesn't cause your argument to magically become valid.
I like how this bot or user call it a conflict.
Not a bot, thanks tho. I DO think Israel is committing genocide by the way, but that's a loaded term that not everyone agrees with, and anyways it only covers part of the conflict as a whole, which also includes an awful lot of Israeli civillians being killed. Sorry if that's too much nuance for you guys.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1165443
Yeah NOW is the time to be nuanced and precautions /s
Saying this genocide is a matter of prespective is like denying the holocust
No it would be like calling WW2 "the holocaust". Sure, it was genocide and sure it was terrible but it is just one part of the conflict as a whole
What a bunch of bs. Zionists are the new nazis commiting genocide and palestinians like the jews are the one being genocided.
Israeli colonists are not civilians, they are a vital part of IDF operations.
That is such a lazy take. All Israeli citizens are fair game to be killed because they are "a vital part of IDF operations"... first of all that's so vague it doesn't even mean anything. Farmers were a vital part of US military operations in WW2 but that doesn't mean they were a valid military target. So were nurses, diplomats, and lots of other people you're not allowed to kill.
Israel is a state recognized by like 90% of the UN (everyone except for the middle east), but because you personally don't think they have a right to exist you are applying blanket amnesty to Hamas or anyone else that wants to kill Isrseli women and children.
I was referring to the "civilians" living in "settlements" that keep stealing Palestinian land and killing Palestinian people, but feel free to misinterpret what I said to fit your narrative. We both know you aren't here in good faith
I promise you I am here in good faith.
In context, saying you were only referring to colonists in settlements doesn't really make sense, since I was talking about the Israel-Palestine conflict in general and the civilians who have died (most of whom have not been involved in any ilegal settlements)Also, it's not like it's a strawman argument - I have heard the argument that all Israelis are fair game many times here on Lemmy.
"oh no those poor buildings" okay but you think child murder is fine lmao
Not just the children, but the women and men, too
And shooting kids jn the head on purpose...... my breath hitches every time the thought crosses my mind.
Never said that, never implied that. Simply stating that two wrongs dont make it right.
Should be common sense
The wrong of genocide far outweighs the "wrong" of some minor vandalism. It's justified when peaceful protests already happened and it still continues.
Frankly it's sick that you put these 2 things next to each other as if they are equal.
Absolute morality is not common sense, it's fucking stupid.
You should do some reading. Start here.
I disagree with him?
Lmao. MLK isn't a Messiah. He also got things wrong. Such as this.
Edit: I thought MLK advocated for vandalism given this context. I was wrong. He did not, actually. Which only proves why vandalism isnt activism
Ah yes. Thanks to your enlightened and superior views on political activism you've surely achieved enlightened and superior results to MLK...
No? Just defending genocide and attacking those who oppose it?
Weird....
You can use the same logic by far right racists back in MLK day:
"Thanks to your enlightened and superior views on political activism you've surely achieved enlightened and superior results to Jesus, right MLK?"
And that argument is just as retarded back in that day.
Lastly, talking about 'weird'. I find it odd that you put words in my mouth. Never have I stated that I defend said genocide, nor do I attack them? I simply state a fairly common opinion: dont destroy things.
yeah, yeah, genocide is terrible and all but won't someone please think of the minor property damage! This doesn't help your cause.
signed, someone who can barely be bothered to give a shit about the cause.
Is this you?
I don't think that comparison is in good faith. That being said Jesus and MLK DID achieve results, which proves their views on activism are both effective.
You argue your views on activism are valid, and even superior to MLK's views and yet you have nothing to show for it. Your unqualified armchair quarterback opinions aren't worth the storage space they use up.
The activists are fighting for something they believe in, they're doing it in a way that's effective enough that you're here commenting about it. I'm not going to sit here and criticize their efforts while doing nothing. That's just supporting the status quo which, in case you haven't noticed, is genocide.
Let’s cut to the chase. Comparing vandalism to the activism of MLK and Jesus is a false equivalence. Their activism was rooted in peaceful protest, not destruction. You claim vandalism works, so show me the results. How has breaking stuff actually helped the cause?
And let’s talk about your accusation that I’m supporting genocide. That’s a serious claim. I haven’t said anything close to that. Criticizing methods isn’t the same as opposing the movement. I simply believe, nay, KNOW that smashing windows isn’t the way to win hearts and minds. Just look at Just Stop Oil in the UK. Everybody fucking hates them.
You call me an 'armchair quarterback', but where’s your playbook? What are your strategies beyond just causing chaos? If we’re talking about effective activism, let’s see some constructive actions. Vandalism might make noise, but does it make change? I doubt it.
Let’s hear your constructive ideas for change instead of defending destruction. What’s your plan beyond breaking things? Because whining like a child might've worked when you were young. But we're adults now.
Christ I despise radicals
Lol!
You're the one who juxtaposed the activists, MLK, and Jesus, not me. I even said you weren't doing it in good faith. Don't try to flip your own bullshit on me.
I never criticized anyone working hard to shed light on injustice. I have neither claims on what is "the right way" to do activism, nor accolades for my wondrous successes. I'm not whining or complaining about anyone doing actual work or trying their best to achieve actual results.
Your calls for me to prove what I never claimed ring hollow, but your silence on the proven effectiveness of your superior and enlightened methods screams loudly and reverberates far.
Almost as far as the chasm between your claim that you don't support genocide and your actions which appear to consist entirely of chastising anyone who takes steps to fight against genocide because "they're doing it wrong"
The only wrong way to fight fascism and genocide is not to fight at all. But you're going even further, you fight against those who do fight. Which is to say, you fight on the side of those who are committing genocide.
Your argument suffers from a fundamental failure to distinguish between the critique of activist methods and the opposition to the causes those activists champion. By conflating criticism of vandalism with support for genocide, you commit a straw man fallacy that betrays a lack of nuance and intellectual honesty.
Your comparison of modern activism to the nonviolent resistance of Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus is a false equivalence that ignores the moral and strategic distinctions between peaceful protest and destructive behavior. MLK’s activism was grounded in the belief that nonviolence exposes injustice and appeals to conscience, whereas vandalism risks alienating allies and undermining community trust.
Your justification of any action against genocide, regardless of method, is ethically untenable. It violates Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which demands that actions be guided by universalizable maxims. Condoning destruction as a means to oppose genocide risks moral decay and social fragmentation, as history and ethical theory demonstrate.
Moreover, your reliance on whataboutism and tu quoque fallacies reveals an attempt to deflect substantive critique by attacking the critic rather than the argument. This rhetorical strategy is intellectually dishonest and undermines the possibility of meaningful dialogue.
In sum, your position fails to meet the standards of logical consistency, ethical integrity, and strategic effectiveness.
You did an awful lot of arguing to demonstrate that you still didn't really read it, and by read I mean digest it, nor fathom why I suggested you start there.
Because you are defensively pearl clutching about entirely different things than the most relevant bit to your arguments here, which is how ridiculous and harmful it is for those in a position of privilege to clutch their pearls about whether the protest actions of those being actively harmed and killed might not be convenient in their timing or execution.
And when you reach the point of recognizing why such pearl clutching is actively harmful to others, instead of reflexively insisting it's not what you are doing, or insisting that it isn't harmful, quite a lot of other things will fall in place.
Good day.
Alright. In the fog of war, here is my entire take:
I must firmly disagree with your justification of vandalism as a legitimate form of activism. My position is grounded in fundamental moral and ethical principles, as well as historical and social analyses, which I will elaborate below.
At the core of my argument is the Kantian ethical framework, which posits that moral actions must be universally applicable and respect the dignity of all individuals. Vandalism, defined as the willful destruction or defacement of property, inherently violates this principle. It treats the property and rights of others as mere means to an end rather than as ends in themselves, which is a clear contravention of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. This moral law is unconditional and applies to all rational agents, meaning that vandalism cannot be justified by appealing to the supposed nobility of its cause or the privilege of those who criticize it
Vandalism involves an act of destruction that disrespects the rights of property owners and the broader community. It is an illegal act that undermines social cohesion and trust, which are essential for any functioning society. The fact that vandalism is often motivated by frustration or a desire to draw attention to an issue does not absolve it of its moral wrongness. Instead, it highlights the need for more constructive and respectful forms of activism.
Read here for more info:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moralhttps://iep.utm.edu/kantview https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-ethics/chapter/kantian-deontologyhttps://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/esg/kantian-ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics
You suggest that criticizing vandalism is a form of "pearl-clutching" or a sign of privilege. I strongly disagree. Ethical criticism of vandalism is not about privilege or moral superiority but about upholding universal moral principles that apply to all people, regardless of their social position. Privilege does not invalidate the ethical critique of harmful actions; rather, it is the responsibility of all individuals, especially those with privilege, to critically examine their own biases and the implications of their actions.
The coin model of privilege and critical allyship emphasizes that focusing solely on the needs of privileged individuals can marginalize oppressed groups. However, this does not mean that privileged individuals cannot or should not critique harmful behaviors, including vandalism. On the contrary, it is through education, self-reflection, and dialogue that individuals can understand their privilege and work toward justice without resorting to destructive actions
Read here for more info: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373175555_Understanding_Privilege_and_Engaging_in_Activism_Elevating_Social_Justice_in_Social_Workhttps://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7884-9 https://www.dpag.ox.ac.uk/work-with-us/equality-diversity-inclusion/anti-racism-working-group/anti-racism-resources-march-2023-intersectionality-of-privilege
A fundamental ethical principle is that the morality of an action cannot be determined solely by its ends. Vandalism, even when committed in the name of a noble cause, involves illegal and destructive means that harm individuals and communities. The psychological and social effects of vandalism include increased fear, insecurity, and erosion of trust within communities. These consequences undermine the very social fabric that activists often seek to strengthen.
Historical and contemporary evidence shows that extreme protest tactics, including vandalism, often reduce public support for movements and provoke backlash. For instance, the Just Stop Oil movement’s vandalism of artworks and historic sites has been widely criticized and has led to negative public opinion, with surveys showing only 18% support for such actions. This alienation of the public and potential allies weakens the movement’s effectiveness and undermines its goals
Read here for more info: https://unherd.com/newsroom/just-stop-oils-activism-is-turning-into-blackmail/?lang=ushttps://impactnottingham.com/2022/10/just-stop-oil-is-vandalism-the-way-to-save-the-planet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Stop_Oilhttps://www.opendemocracy.net/en/just-stop-oil-extinction-rebellion-climate-protest https://blogs.qub.ac.uk/pb-happ/2024/04/22/are-the-just-stop-oil-protests-disruptive-or-democratic
The history of social movements, particularly the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., demonstrates the power of nonviolent resistance. King’s philosophy of nonviolence was grounded in love, understanding, and a commitment to justice that sought to win the friendship of opponents rather than humiliate them. This approach not only achieved significant policy changes but also garnered widespread public support and moral authority. Which is wat I actually gathered from your source
Nonviolent resistance is far more effective in effecting social and political change than violent or destructive tactics. It attracts broad support, fosters trust, and builds lasting alliances. Modern activism that prioritizes shock value and media attention over constructive engagement risks alienating potential supporters and diluting the moral integrity of the cause
Read here for more infor: https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/civil-rights-leaders/martin-luther-kinghttps://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/nonviolence https://time.com/5101740/martin-luther-king-peaceful-protests-lessons/https://www.loc.gov/collections/civil-rights-history-project/articles-and-essays/nonviolent-philosophy-and-self-defense/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-changehttps://mshistorynow.mdah.ms.gov/issue/the-civil-rights-movement-in-mississippi-on-violence-and-nonviolence https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=honorshttps://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/us-civil-rights-movement-1942-1968 https://jcls.org/2022/01/18/mlk-jr-s-nonviolent-but-disruptive-activismhttps://southern.libguides.com/civilrights/nonviolentprotest https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/nonviolent-resistance-racial-relations
In closing, I want to reiterate my respect for the causes that vandalism often aims to support—such as climate justice or social equity. These are vital issues that demand attention and action. However, my disapproval of vandalism as a method is unwavering because it is wrong, harmful, and counterproductive. Vandalism undermines the moral fabric of society, alienates potential supporters, and distracts from the substantive goals of activism.
I urge a reconsideration of the justification of vandalism in favor of more constructive, morally sound, and effective forms of activism that respect human dignity and social cohesion. This is not only a matter of ethical principle but also of strategic efficacy in achieving meaningful change.
So I truly hope you are happy now given my extensive paragraph defending something that should be common sense. But alas, here it is.
Enjoy the rest of your day. Because this is plain stupid, and thank God I am not American
thank God I am not American
And by the way, the French are the ones who know how to get shit done. We've probably started too late to stop the slide before it gets really bad over here.
The activists defaced the building of a group directly contributing to the genocide. Genocide is violence, and violence can ethically be fought through violence.
Peaceful protest is a good, ethical, and proven method. So is fighting fascists and their supporters directly.
Violently fighting fascists is always good, Kant agrees too, so does MLK and Jesus.
Let me try one more time.
Do you think Angela Davis dodges this question, or do you feel she thoroughly, satisfyingly, answers it? It's not a long clip.
Because as best as I can tell, you will again decide that you decide how those being actively harmed should respond and what is an acceptable response from those people, and again characterize her response as advocating violence, rather than recognize how such a viewpoint does nothing but empower those who seek to oppress.
Every word she speaks is in support of her summation at the end.
... you DO realize Jesus literally "vandalized" a market, right?
like, Jesus actually did use property damage to make his point, when he trashed merchants property they had set up for sale in a temple.
soooo....maybe fuck off with this houlier-than-thou bullshit?
Hmmmm.....no. Not very wise.
A small price that nyp must pay for being a voice for genocide. Nobody was hurt
No this is called a real protest. Protests that are quiet and don't bother anyone happen every day - and are ignored every day.
Here we are, talking about this one, like the rest of the nation.
if this is delusion then I don't wanna be sane. if opposing genocide means I'm insane then I don't wanna live in your reality.
may your blood-soaked hands eternally haunt you as you wake up from your nightmares every day and you can't tell the difference between dream and your "civilized" reality
Opposing genocide you can rightly do, I share that sentiment.
And never have I defended the genocide in Gaza.
Christ.
Is it really. REALLY that difficult to think: "Oh, genocide is bad. But we also shouldn't use vandalism"
we also shouldn’t use vandalism
Why?
WILL SOMEONE THINK OF THE PROPERTY
Well then what the fuck should we use? Violence?
Your voices? Your money? Your attention?
Please consider those before you start going apeshit, thanks.
This isn't apeshit... Apeshit is wanton destruction. This is a calculated protest using red paint and thought-out messaging.
Also, why do we care about defacing a building when the same action has meaningfully called attention to complicit US media? NYC is cleanable; dead children in Gaza are non-recoverable.
The pearl-clutching over some relatively minor vandalism in response to the mass murder of tens of thousands of civilians is really out of touch.
Since people seem so fucking concerned about property damage, maybe we need to start discussing the "vandalism" of all the homes and other buildings in Gaza. Actually, I'm not even sure I would be comfortable doing that ironically as it would feel very disrespectful to the human victims.
i think all the anti-vandalism advocates should personally pay reparations to Palestinians so they can rebuild everything the Israelis vandalized
We’ve been doing that for literally a generation now.
Lmay maybe we can sing them a song and send flowers /s
BDS exists for a decade and they're murdering people harder than ever. Honestly, recommending useless solution to a genocide is being complicit at this point
My suggestion since early 2024 has been to birthstrike: no more births in the U.S. and other complicit western nations until the children of Gaza are safe and Israel has been held accountable for their heinous acts.
This is especially relevant because younger people are the ones who are: most angry about this, the most politically disenfranchised, most applicable to a birthstrike due to biology.
People shit on me and my 100% legal, non-violent / non-destructive recommendation. To the point where I've had posts and comments removed and even faced bans. So I've simply stopped recommending it.
that would easily devolve into eugenics. that's most likely why people weren't comfortable with it
Eugenics is something that is imposed, not self-selected.
I don't generally see the "quiverfull" people, or governments all over the world encouraging their people to have more kids (including financial incentives), getting labeled as eugenics.
imposed vs self-selected is a false dichotomy. if you ask a random tradwife whether she chose her lifestyle she'll emphatically reply yes. had she not been raised in a patriarchal cult, most likely not.
you're not following the right people if you don't see it. creating a white ethno state by turning women into incubators is textbook eugenics. so is antinatalism because it promotes toxic individualism and blames societal problems on individual choices.
so is antinatalism
Maybe so, but that's not what I'm talking about here. A labor strike isn't a call for people to become permanent NEETs. It has a set of conditions for an endpoint.
the US can't even do a general strike, you're telling me you'll convince hundreds of millions not to fuck? yeah, right
says who? Israel? you're a collaborationist spreading Zionist propaganda for free
How is it "delusional"?
I can’t imagine seeing people protesting genocide and calling it a “movement.”
WWII certainly had big “movement” energy in that case, but it was mostly millions of troops moving on a nation that was also committing genocide, it was just bigger and more aggressive at that point
there are zero troops moving on Israel
If fucking only.
Actually the reason is government repression and concerted media efforts. People have been protesting peacefully for decades to demand human and international rights to be upheld for the Palestinian people. People have been seeking nonviolent means such as boycott and divestment, only to be met with campaigns accusing that of being "antisemitic".
You do not attack media outlets. That's it. Don't defend it.
Vandalism > genocide to you, huh?