• 6 Posts
  • 3.91K Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 22nd, 2023

help-circle
  • man there is so much reading material here you could literally write a PHD dissertation on it.

    So from the skim reading i’ve done, it seems that the early “israel” state as it exists today (it has historical roots as well, if you go back into religion the area that is referred to as “palestine” is also israel, so there’s that) but going back to the very beginning, it seems that they initially purchased land from the ottoman empire, which would’ve been a thing at that time. And probably shortly after that i would imagine, tensions rose and conflict started to become a problem, basically up until 1948 it seems there was constant conflict between palestine and israel. So that’s a thing. Unfortunately i’m not a history scholar with a PHD on the history and conflict between these two nations so i can’t really pin anything down here.

    But just based off of what wikipedia is telling me, this is probably “colonization spurred by conflict” although more arguably “convenient colonization”

    Idk as far as colonization goes i just consider war and conflict to be a constant within humanity, and therefore colonization follows in suit, the loser gets colonized. It’d be bad military strategy to kill an entire population, demolish their productive base, and then just, fucking leave. As well as bad for the society, colonized or not. Obviously the alternative here is not doing a war, but good luck with one.

    It’d be nice if animals stopped killing each other over territorial disputes, but that’s just how the animal kingdom works, and i think this is basically just an extension of that for humans. Anyway, i think this is also sort of a defective argument, because depending on how “pure” your stance on colonization is, humanity should literally just roll back every modern society until nothing is left except for like, 12 people. Because i’m almost certain that war and colonization is such an influential part of human history, that it would basically end up producing a constant chain of colonization.

    There are also other examples of colonization as well, russia invading ukraine for example, the annexation of crimea, although people cope by saying that the “public voted for it” which sure, but, idk about that one tbh. And of course theres the territory that only russia recognizes to be “russian” when it’s globally considered to be ukrainian. You also get into weird places like ownership over the sea floor, russia is especially pushing hard for this one, there has long been a massive contest on whoever owns parts of the artic circle for example. Would this be considered colonization by extension?

    What about shit like uninhabited islands, theres snake island, there’s a few near korea, there’s also contests over who owns ocean territory and airspace (although these are more of a meme) china being a prominent example, pushing really aggressive stances on military power staging in the south china sea, claiming they own more than they do. And the classic meme of “leave the airspace immediately” “this is international airspace”

    I feel like you could basically talk without end on this topic if you really tried, and i’m not really convinced it has productive value. Like i said in my previous comment, i would rather talk about specifics, than generics that don’t really make sense, or apply in the first place.

    For some reason tankies like to do this, using big fancy words in places they really shouldn’t, i guess it makes them look more read up when in reality they still know almost nothing. Fascists do something tangential, they just make shit up instead though. Tankies are unique in this case for some reason.


  • Because I want these atrocities to stop. And you know what I’m not given? That option. Trump has been a scourge to Palestinians and the Middle East as a whole, but Kamala Harris is spewing the same violent, bullshit rhetoric as the very man who was walked out on, that this thread is about.

    ok so, is this because atrocities are bad? Are we concerned because this is an ongoing atrocity? If we’re talking about atrocity we can talk about human history, nearly every corner of human history has numerous atrocities throughout it. So it’s probably not that, and if it’s the fact that it’s ongoing, then what about other problems like lack of education access, lack of access to clean drinkable water, food security, security in general (there are a number of places like haiti under the control of military law under a gang/cartel right now) I mean there are hundreds of millions, possibly even a billion people that are undergoing what could easily be considered an atrocity.

    Especially when we consider the current situation in Palestine, which is a long running military dispute with lots of history, the only scenario in which this is truly a terrible thing (to the degree that would be needed) is the position in which you consider colonization to be the ultimate evil, and that undoing it at all costs must be progressed towards. Which to me seems like a really reductionist take on moderns society, considering that basically every country ever has some level of colonization in it’s history somewhere.

    I’m not trying to discount the palestine problem either, it literally has global attention, palestine could not be in a better situation right now aside from the fact that maybe israel could stop blowing them up. That’s LITERALLY the only problem here. Palestine is the GLOBAL target of humanitarian aid right now. It’s the global center of the geo political issues problem right now. They quite literally, could not be a better optics position right now, they couldn’t have any more support, and they couldn’t possibly be more equipped to deal with this, like i said, unless maybe israel stopped bombing them, that would be the only thing that could get better right now.

    It can go even farther even if we consider the warcrimes that are almost certainly being committed right now, as well as things like the settlements, There are tons of bad things happening, but i just can’t help but feel like this is a major misdirection of attention on problems.

    but i’ve waffled enough here.

    Where is my option to vote for the end of this suffering?There are plenty of reasons to hate the US Government.

    there is none, because this is literally issues voting, and if you’re issues voting you’re going to be shit out of luck everytime, unless literal fascists get in power because they thrive on issues voting, but even then they may or may not agree with you, and if they don’t may god save your soul in that situation.

    There is no political party for “stopping the conflict in palestine” because that party would be disbanded immediately after going into power because their entire singular goal would’ve been completed. Either that or they’re going to fumble constantly through the government trying to fix that one problem, only to not manage that, and then lose power because they did literally nothing.

    This just isn’t how politics works, you never get a perfect solution to your issue, and if you are issues voting, well then i hope it works out well for you, it won’t but i sincerely hope it does.

    like i don’t know what to tell you here, i have a lot of problems, but my biggest problem is probably the general societal actions towards certain modes of behaviors, but i’m not going to vote specifically to absolve that one issue, in fact i’m not going to vote at all over that, because that’s not even politically relevant since this isn’t a great example. Politically my biggest problem right now is probably trump and the right wing, but again, you don’t see me pushing for the “anti trump” party, i’m pushing for anti trump rhetoric, anti trump actions, and the general push towards securing our governmental institution from this problem happening again (hopefully)

    And that’s just the topic of today. I could go on and on about how the the constitution allows for slavery as we speak, and it’s the reason we have so many prisoners per capita.

    this is true, and the constitution also says that slavery is legal. The 3/5ths compromise is literally ingrained in it as well, however it’s superseded by a more recent amendment, but to give credit to your state, slavery is technically allowed under the guise of imprisonment. I.E. force labor in prisons, although most of the time, i don’t think it’s actually forced? I’m not sure if it’s even forced at all, we just don’t pay them fuck all.

    Or how Hitler idolized America for its genocide of the native Americans and chattel slavery.

    didn’t hitler also say that the jews “Created the big lie” and then proceeded to use the big lie in order to kill a bunch of jews? That guys opinion is not very citable. He’s also praised eugenicists as well so. Like being mentioned by hitler is pretty bad, but in our defense, we literally don’t do that anymore.

    Or how women were only allowed to have bank accounts in the last 50 years.

    Isn’t this a pretty common thing among recent history? Also that’s not a factually true point of time, that happened in 1971 proper, which is more than fifty years ago. 53 to be exact. It’s been a wacky four years so you should probably update that one lol.

    Or the many, many governments we have overthrown or couped, only to install disgusting violent monsters who commit atrocity after atrocity.

    to my knowledge, in most cases it was only common for us to support the extremists groups, and then wait until they get into power, and then use them to do some bidding of our own, but i’m not well read on the comprehensive history of the US and it’s foreign military affairs so i don’t know much about that one either. I’m not sure anybody really knows anything about it either to be honest.

    Or how we created ISIS and Al Quada. I could go on forever.

    i don’t see anything about how we created Al-Qaeda, Again for ISIS, i’m not seeing anything stating how we literally created them, but i am seeing things about how we supported them.

    There are plenty of reasons to hate the US Government.

    sure, but there are also plenty of reasons to like it as well, for example you’re allowed to say this shit without getting shot in the head. That’s pretty cool, you’re allowed to protest about this stuff, you’re allowed to hate the US government, and evidently to some capacity, you’re allowed to do a fascist takeover, though i disagree with that one on fundamental principles since fascism is objectively bad.

    Another pretty cool reason, is that we literally helped stop the nazis. i could go on forever frankly.



  • i mean, have you ever tried killing an animal? They sort of tend to uh. Move around.

    Like you would need to essentially pay thousands of people over the period of years to cull the population of bison, and they did.

    And to be clear, they didn’t even really kill them for meat, im sure some did, but a lot of it was just to kill them.




  • zoe bee recently posted a really good bit on media literacy, worth a watch if you have the time.

    Calling back to my original post, saying that people shouldn’t have opinions, it’s a bit of a shitpost and highly satirical, but i think it would be generally productive for society if we started pushing for people to disavow opinions more generally. An opinion is more akin to a bet than anything else, it’s just a statement that you make based on preconceived reasoning. There are things opinions should exist for, shit like “i like the color blue” is a really good example.

    But when you start getting to shit like “i think the jews control the world banking system” i think it’s probably good to take a step back and consider the point of an opinion in the first place.

    Personally i like wacky opinions, i have a bunch, but they’re inconsequential, it’s shit like “i like linux and think that windows is bad” there’s a point where it’s not just an opinion anymore, and we should stop referring to them as such. Having a different worldview is not an opinion, it’s a worldview, and that worldview is probably based on pseudofact in a lot of places.

    I feel like we’ve sort of conflated the idea of an opinion with an “idea” which is wrong.




  • The settlements are colonial. Resistance against already existing settlements and settlers is decolonial. Preventing more settlements is anticolonial.

    i mean i guess in that context it would be, but then wouldn’t this be an anti/de colonial resistance? Since there are most definitely both going on.

    They’re both relevant in the Palestinian context, I just focused on decolonisation because it recognizes the already existing colonization. I guess it probably should be anticolonial/decolonial to recognize both.

    yeah this was pretty much my thinking.

    I think if you wanted to recognize the colonial aspects it’s probably better to just mention the outposts and settlements lol. Sometimes demonstrating a concept is more powerful than the concept itself.


  • yeah. There are so many problems with so many things in so many ways.

    It really doesn’t help that people like to grasp onto the “ultimate” truth when it comes to this stuff. Even when there are good arguments for things people will fall head over heels down a mountain just to make a bad argument.

    and it just pains me, i’m not mad (ok i might be a little mad, or maybe a lot) but i’m (also) disappointed in them as well, because we can collectively do better as a species, but we just, choose not to.

    i mean, for the love of god shitpost as much as you want, i love shitposting, it’s the best, but just, read my posts on eudaimonia if you have to. It’s worth the effort, and it will greatly improve your life. (maybe not my posts, but stop being silly, please.)









  • The grounds of conflict are colonial! It’s not a religious conflict, it’s Europeans invading Palestine and ethnically cleansing the land of Palestinians.

    i didn’t say it was religious, if i did point me to it so i can fix that lol.

    Also they aren’t europeans, they’re jews? Who historically inhabit the same lands that palestine sits on, that’s why israel was put where it was originally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

    Zionists around the turn of the 1900s openly called it colonialism when they were discussing it and in their writings.

    what you think nobody lived in palestine prior to this? That’s literally how making new countries works. People are everywhere, the governments around them change, the bodies around them change, colonization is a thing that has happened throughout all of human history. Not trying to defend colonialism, but it’s just something that has existed throughout history, it’s been done now, if palestine were to “decolonize” israel, that would also be colonization. You might be able to justify it in your mind, but at the end of the day everything pretty much just boils down to colonization.

    Thinking that you can’t learn from historical examples because everybody is too different to ever compare anything is nonsense.

    do you think i’m talking about the conflict specifically? I’m not, i don’t think i did once. If you think i do you’re either wrong or misreading something. Or you’re trying to deflect from the point i was making in order to bait me into a line of reasoning i didn’t intend on getting into.

    Did i ever say that you can’t learn from historical examples? It sounds to me like you’re just making shit up here, but maybe i’m wrong and went into a fugue state and wrote a three hundred page report on this. I’m so baffled as to why you’re trying to tell me this right now.


  • how are those significantly different?

    Anti colonialism would be against colonialism as you said. Presumably to stop encroaching colonialism, to stop existing colonialism, or to gain independence.

    decolonialism just seems like a really weird specific to use here since normally context would provide that. Also if we’re talking about palestine, wouldn’t israel be actively colonizing palestine, instead of having already colonized it? Like you can’t just start making outposts in a region that you haven’t already colonized. You can’t just make settlements in a place that isn’t already colonized.

    They wouldn’t be settlements/outposts if they weren’t colonial by nature. Like surely it can’t already be colonized if hamas exists. The end game of colonization is literally integration and assimilation. A decolonial struggle would be something like hawaii being brought back to the ownership and independence of the natives.