I very patiently and politely tried steer the conversation beyond the counterproductive space of your singlemindedly trying to prove yourself right.
There, I’ve added one more comment, so it is no longer necessary that the last one is on a sour note.
I feel like it presents leftists as being as smug and snobbish as reactionaries.
You’re an insufferable child, completely irresponsible and locked in narrow loops of self importance.
The discussion now completely lacks any chance of becoming constructive.
You can take your animosity elsewhere.
You know what you wrote. Stop being obstinate.
I stand by my characterizations, regarding the allegations you repeated, as well as regarding issues more personal.
The truth is we don’t know what happened, and you find it hard to accept a world with uncertainty and nuance.
You find it hard to accept that there is not always a clear path to proving yourself right and proving someone else wrong.
Respecting the October 7 attacks, limited details are reliably known.
It is known that both Hamas and Israeli combatants perpetrated attacks, and it is known that many people were killed, including many Israelis.
It is known that Hamas taking hostages was planned as a important component of the mission, and that it was successful.
The claims of sexual assault have now been almost completely dismissed, many as completely lacking credibility, others as not supported adequately by evidence. Israel’s dishonest and obstructive conduct has obscured the truth, probably irredeemably.
Even generously accepting some of the evidence offered for sexual assault, it would remain unknown whether such acts were spontaneous choices by individuals, or ordered by higher tiers of command.
Furthermore, it is unknown how many of the Israelis who were killed died as a consequence of Israeli fire.
Regardless of your sense of intention, I feel it is right that you were called out for acting as mouthpiece of Israel and Zionism.
What is it you want to prove for yourself?
You seem to be searching for some straightforward and unambiguous proof that you are right, whereas I consider it completely right that you were called out for acting as a mouthpiece of Israel and Zionism.
It would be best for you to let go of your need for the world to be explained in terms that are black and while.
At least one thing really is simple, though. If you want not to be called a mouthpiece of Israel, then you should stop acting as one.
Something is either debunked, or it isn’t. That’s simply not a complex issue.
The actual events, and ascertaining them reliably, obviously are very complicated.
The simplest way to address your question is still relatively simple, but less simple than you pretend.
The question you insist is simple conflates two different things. One is the fact of fatalities occurring during conflict, and the other is the Israeli narrative as parroted uncritically.
One is accepted fact, which no one contests, and one is debunked propaganda.
You should be adequately thoughtful and sincere to acknowledge the distinction.
Because if you did, you’d have to decide whether to go with… I wonder which it is.
You should stop wondering, and start acknowledging that you have constructed a rather absurd false dichotomy.
It says a lot about you that I addressed your question directly and appropriately, several times now in succession, yet you still act too dense to understand.
Simple question.
There’s your problem. You’re trying to discuss complex political issues with massively absurd oversimplifications.
I answered your question. If you don’t accept the answer, that’s on you.
Your “gotcha” questioning isn’t the own you think.
You blundered, by uncritically parroting Israeli propaganda used to justify Israel’s atrocities.
Instead you should learn about the serious problems with the Israeli narrative. and then reevaluate your own perspective. Until then, your discussing the subject is not productive.
To people not dwelling in a rabbit hole of Zionist propaganda, my characterization is not misleading.
If someone says a Tale of Two Cities is fiction, are they lying because Old Bailey and the Bastille are real?
Hasbara is Israeli propaganda.
No one claims that no one was killed, only that Israel’s account of events is deeply inaccurate. Arguing against the claim that no one was killed is, in the most charitable case, misconstruing the controversy.
For example, we do know that many of the Israeli deaths were directly attributable to fire from Israeli gunships.
Continuing as you do, either you are poorly informed, or deliberately dishonest.
No one claims, to my knowledge not one person ever, that the massive death toll for Hamas’s surprise attack “didn’t happen”.
Please stop attacking such an absurd straw man.
It is essential to acknowledge, however, that Israel’s account of events is not credible.
You’re batting one thousand.
Dumb and dumberer.
The irony I see is that you inadvertently demonstrate the pointlessness of attempting a discussion with a Zionist.
Nothing comes of it except deflections, obfuscations, and lies.
Gazans perpetrating a surprise attack on Israel is, despite the irony, unsurprising.
Further, Netanyahu has benefited from it personally and politically.
Netanyahu arranging or ordering the attacks, however, would require a conspiracy, for which there is absolutely not one shred of evidence. The likelihood is vanishingly small.
Bye, troll.
Wut?
ICE is not resisting a colonial aggressor. ICE is not fighting an antagonist perpetrating atrocities. ICE is not representing a people who have lived under siege their whole lives.
Keep trying.
Also note, ICE operates concentration camps and perpetrates forced disappearances
“Border security” is a sham, because freer borders would present no genuine threat.
You wrote, “I got banned for criticizing Venezuela”, whereas from the mod log it appears most likely that the reason is not related to any mention of Venezuela. The comments still available for review make no mention of Venezuela or anything related to Venezuela.
Regardless, at issue is not whether the assumption is false, that you are transphobic, but simply, as a fact, that you are more likely to be banned or censored by leftists if you are found posting such content.
If your content in one case attracts concern from a moderator, then they are likely to consider the information available, including your post history, to predict whether you would likely act as a constructive participant in their community. Someone who feels concerned enough to post about what is underneath the clothes of trans people has willfully provided an indication of being someone they would not welcome.
As for whether you are transphobic, I of course lack any direct knowledge about you. Perhaps you have an agreeable motive for asking the question, but the plain observation is that you are thinking and acting as someone transphobic. You may think you are still not transphobic, but I remind you of the duck test, and also the trope, “I am not racist but…”.
Claiming not to be transphobic is only meaningful if you act not as transphobic instead of acting as a transphobic.
Finally, in the ML community, you chose to act as an anti-communist troll, you were banned for acting as an anti-communist troll, and then you complained for being banned as an anti-communist troll, pretending that the ban serves as evidence that you were treated inappropriately or unfairly, that you were right and others were wrong.
If you resent someone else restricting your anti-communist trolling in a leftist community, then you are not meaningfully a leftist, despite your claims. Alternatively, if you agree with the action, then your complaint is absurd on its face.
Generally, it appears to me that you insist on claims about yourself that contradict your actions, while blaming others and avoiding responsibility. Whatever problems are caused by some authoritarian leftists, your example is no better than of the ones you have been found to have directly criticized.
You are harming the narrative that Canada is categorically friendly and peaceful.
One redeeming feature of the history is that refugees of slavery in the US were able to find protection in Canada, though it was often quite difficult for them to reach.