Volkerball posted:

It's not legitimate to suggest Hitler was wrong?

illrepute posted:

I don't think you understand the power that Western sanctions had on influencing South African policy and pushing them toward accepting majority rule.

Kaal posted:

Your position here is absurd. It's like asking if the American Civil War was wrong, or whether WWII was wrong. Those aren't legitimate questions. So go ahead and call me a fascist or whatever for disagreeing with you, but realize that you can't reduce a conflict to yes/no right/wrong black/white.

Cool Bear posted:

illrepute posted:

I don't think it's cool to bring up Zionist Conspiracies, even if it's just in name.

Nonsense posted:

There weren't Palestinians on lawn chairs chugging mountain dew celebrating the loss of some warehouse you loving monster.

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

Sitting in lawn chairs and laughing at bombs going off is not a healthy human response you goddamn psychopath.

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

Kaal brought the thread past the point of no return it's all poo poo and we're going to fester in it until Israel decides it's time for a ground invasion again.

tatankatonk posted:

As the machine guns fire into the crowd of Indians at Wounded Knee, a Lakota mother pleads with the US cavalry commander to have mercy. "Your position here is absurd," replies the 7th Cavalry colonel. "How am I supposed to judge the morality of this situation. It's like asking if the Israeli occupation of Palestine is wrong"

Kaal posted:

Oh I agree that it isn't a tolerable existence, but that still isn't going to make them Israeli citizens. History is pretty clear about life not being fair. Which is again why Palestinians need to seek out a peace process, and it's also why there's little support amongst the Palestinian population for further violence.

illrepute posted:

I hope the thread isn't closed if Israel actually does go into Gaza, because it actually would provide a lot of stuff to talk about considering the implications and what this means for the future of the region (considering the current wars).

If any mods are reading this (I'm getting on my knees and pleading you don't probate me), consider this proposal: turn this thread into a thunderdome for as long as hostilities in Gaza persist. It'll be like d&d fight club, and a good way to blow off steam.

JeffersonClay posted:

A common symptom of PTSD is risk-seeking behavior, so this might not be a healthy response, but it sure is a human one.

Cool Bear posted:

I forget his name but one of the first famous authors to popularize the term Zionism as the desire to create a Jewish homeland somewhere said they should do it in argentina in some place geographically similar to ancient israel because people already lived in palestine at that time, the late 1800s, and it would end up with rude things happening to them.

Kaal posted:

If you think those are yes/no questions, then you lack the political awareness to be talking about conflict.

XK posted:

Sitting in lawn chairs watching people get bombed in the distance is not risk seeking behavior.

JeffersonClay posted:

And before someone makes another fireworks comparison, a threat need only be perceived to be real in order to potentially cause PTSD.

Cool Bear posted:

I forget his name but one of the first famous authors to popularize the term Zionism as the desire to create a Jewish homeland somewhere said they should do it in argentina in some place geographically similar to ancient israel because people already lived in palestine at that time, the late 1800s, and it would end up with rude things happening to them.

JeffersonClay posted:

And similarly, a risk need only be perceived to be real to become the target of risk-seeking behavior.

illrepute posted:

The Soviets created a Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Siberia, the Americans came close to putting one in the Inside Passage of Alaska. Not great locations, but I'd certainly take Siberia over the war-torn ruins of Gaza.

computer parts posted:

It's not even that desolate, it's the same latitude as Paris.

Cool Bear posted:

Palestinian people: These landlords are a pain in my rear end and I read this book by Marx it's going to- wait shh the landlords

Ottoman empire: People, we have a great opportunity to attack our greatest old enemy, Russia. Let's join their weird dumb war for our gain

Palestinian people: Ugh

*millions die*

British: Righto chap well we mustnt have these belligerent war-starters continuing to exist. I say let's create new countries and agree on their borders and such and go from there.

Several distant wealthy nations holding all the worlds power: Sounds good whatever

International Zionist Conspiracy: Yoink no takebacks lol *immediately oppresses ethnic locals economically and violently*

Nearby Arabs: *eyes widen with rage*

Legitimate Israeli state: What is your problem wtf

United States: We need a reliable strategic presence there, let's see what thousands of deadly explosions can accomplish

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

There's this thing called the jet stream, it's kinda a big deal.

JeffersonClay posted:

A common symptom of PTSD is risk-seeking behavior, so this might not be a healthy response, but it sure is a human one.

And before someone makes another fireworks comparison, a threat need only be percieved to be real in order to potentially cause PTSD.

Volkerball posted:

It's not legitimate to suggest Hitler was wrong?

Kaal posted:

Similarly, trying to paint the entire Israeli occupation as wrong or right, which could go back 100 years in some people's minds, is a meaningless exercise in point-scoring.

Kaal posted:

That's a different question. It's specific and direct and leads to some kind of meaningful conversation. Asking if WWII as an entire concept is wrong is a different thing entirely - it's just too broad to reduce to wrong or right. It had elements of both. Similarly, trying to paint the entire Israeli occupation as wrong or right, which could go back 100 years in some people's minds, is a meaningless exercise in point-scoring. It's precisely the kind of terrible team-spirit rah-rahing that these threads have such a tendency toward. Even trying to narrow it down to specific events is problematic. Was Cast Lead right or wrong? Was the Second Intifada right or wrong? They clearly have elements of both. Trying to cast super broad concepts in yes and no terms is argumentative reductionism, and only leads to people adopting extremely narrow perspectives.

Kaal posted:

That's a different question. It's specific and direct and leads to some kind of meaningful conversation. Asking if WWII as an entire concept is wrong is a different thing entirely - it's just too broad to reduce to wrong or right. It had elements of both. Similarly, trying to paint the entire Israeli occupation as wrong or right, which could go back 100 years in some people's minds, is a meaningless exercise in point-scoring. It's precisely the kind of terrible team-spirit rah-rahing that these threads have such a tendency toward. Even trying to narrow it down to specific events is problematic. Was Cast Lead right or wrong? Was the Second Intifada right or wrong? They clearly have elements of both. Trying to cast super broad concepts in yes and no terms is argumentative reductionism, and only leads to people adopting extremely narrow perspectives.

Kaal posted:

That's a different question. It's specific and direct and leads to some kind of meaningful conversation. Asking if WWII as an entire concept is wrong is a different thing entirely - it's just too broad to reduce to wrong or right. It had elements of both. And you can see that in how the alternate questions people have tried to pose have been much more specific and pointed. FourLeaf didn't ask, "Was American expansionism wrong", he instead preferred, "Was the American quest to exterminate Native Americans wrong". Totally different question (though probably equally uninformative due to its simplicity).

Similarly, trying to paint the entire Israeli occupation as wrong or right, which could go back 100 years in some people's minds, is a meaningless exercise in point-scoring. It's precisely the kind of terrible team-spirit rah-rahing that these threads have such a tendency toward. Even trying to narrow it down to specific events is problematic. Was Cast Lead right or wrong? Was the Second Intifada right or wrong? They clearly have elements of both. Trying to cast super broad concepts in yes and no terms is argumentative reductionism, and only leads to people adopting extremely narrow perspectives.

quote:

"Was American expansionism wrong"

quote:

"Was the American quest to exterminate Native Americans wrong"

quote:

Was Cast Lead right or wrong?

quote:

Was the Second Intifada right or wrong?

Kaal posted:

Similarly, trying to paint the entire Israeli occupation as wrong or right, which could go back 100 years in some people's minds, is a meaningless exercise in point-scoring. It's precisely the kind of terrible team-spirit rah-rahing that these threads have such a tendency toward. Even trying to narrow it down to specific events is problematic. Was Cast Lead right or wrong? Was the Second Intifada right or wrong? They clearly have elements of both. Trying to cast super broad concepts in yes and no terms is argumentative reductionism, and only leads to people adopting extremely narrow perspectives.

Kaal posted:

That's a different question. It's specific and direct and leads to some kind of meaningful conversation. And even then, I don't think that you'd get much value out of reducing Hitler to a yes/no question. Asking if WWII as an entire concept is wrong is a different thing entirely - it's just too broad to reduce to wrong or right. It had elements of both. And you can see that in how the alternate questions people have tried to pose have been much more specific and pointed. FourLeaf didn't ask, "Was American expansionism wrong", he instead preferred, "Was the American quest to exterminate Native Americans wrong". Totally different question (though probably equally uninformative due to its simplicity).

Similarly, trying to paint the entire Israeli occupation as wrong or right, which could go back 100 years in some people's minds, is a meaningless exercise in point-scoring. It's precisely the kind of terrible team-spirit rah-rahing that these threads have such a tendency toward. Even trying to narrow it down to specific events is problematic. Was Cast Lead right or wrong? Was the Second Intifada right or wrong? They clearly have elements of both. Trying to cast super broad concepts in yes and no terms is argumentative reductionism, and only leads to people adopting extremely narrow perspectives.

tatankatonk posted:

Additionally, I'd love to hear your complexities that make the American quest to exterminate Indians even halfway Right, Kaal.

tatankatonk posted:

Additionally, I'd love to hear your complexities that make the American quest to exterminate Indians even halfway Right, Kaal.

Kaal posted:

That's a different question. It's specific and direct and leads to some kind of meaningful conversation. And even then, I don't think that you'd get much value out of reducing Hitler to a yes/no question. Asking if WWII as an entire concept is wrong is a different thing entirely - it's just too broad to reduce to wrong or right. It had elements of both. And you can see that in how the alternate questions people have tried to pose have been much more specific and pointed. FourLeaf didn't ask, "Was American expansionism wrong", he instead preferred, "Was the American quest to exterminate Native Americans wrong". Totally different question (though probably equally uninformative due to its simplicity).

Similarly, trying to paint the entire Israeli occupation as wrong or right, which could go back 100 years in some people's minds, is a meaningless exercise in point-scoring. It's precisely the kind of terrible team-spirit rah-rahing that these threads have such a tendency toward. Even trying to narrow it down to specific events is problematic. Was Cast Lead right or wrong? Was the Second Intifada right or wrong? They clearly have elements of both. Trying to cast super broad concepts in yes and no terms is argumentative reductionism, and only leads to people adopting extremely narrow perspectives.