This is a genocidal statement that would result in systemic discrimination, incarceration, enslavement, and eventual killing off of all those with relative small face-to-head ratios. You are the next Hitler and must be stopped. Nothing short of your immediate arrest will suffice. I would relocate somewhere else if I were you. — Outlander

None of that is true.

Voting is good. Supporting institutions as well as we can in relation to our capacities and opportunities is good. — Paine

I have to admit I was mocking voting in this retort. Mostly at the individual level -- i.e. if you're organized then voting can make a difference in some circumstances, but we don't live in a country where voting has much influence if you're just an individual voting in practical terms. That it exists influences conversations, but it's also well managed so that it doesn't influence policy.

One way I look at it is that MAGA has to reproduce to become a force in the next generation. If they completely "own the libs" the environment of the first generations will lose their meaning. Becoming a victim of one's own success does happen to people.

I'd say that's already there. Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Rittenhouse -- the fascists have a multi-generational movement willing to utilize violence to purge the state of those unclean. That connections from the young to the old is part of why I say Trump has bloomed into full on fascism rather than the proto-fascism of yesteryears. They have enough people thinking like them that purifying the state with state powers are seen as legitimate uses of state power.

The illegals, the drug addicts, the unemployed, the disabled, the "antifa", the progressives, the atheists, the Muslims, the Jews, the anti-anythingTrumpsays-ers -- time to finally get rid of these dirty individuals so we can make ourselves great again.

But Adorno clearly says: "it can just as stringently be shown, however, why this objectively necessary consciousness is objectively false". — Metaphysician Undercover

I'd interpret this as it's the consciousness which is false rather than the necessary social law.

I'm interpreting Adorno as noting a performative contradiction in the relativist. The consciousness must adhere to the law of exchange, but if the entrepreneur were to do that then there is not an equality between labor-power and a wage unless the entrepreneur were to erase himself from the equation.

On one side we have the capitalist who sets the wage such that labor is reproduced and there is some surplus-value which said capitalist directs. On the other we have a worker who would set their wage equal to the value produced such that they keep their surplus value. Were the capitalist a true relativist then this social law could be mediated by people setting their own wages such that they retain their surplus-value.

But the capitalist is no relativist, after all -- there is only a very small part of thought which the capitalist relativizes, namely the Spirit and anything that has nothing to do with the productive process, such as the qualitative rather than the quantitative.


I could be wrong but that's how I understood that section, at least.

I'm sure if we register to vote this will all go away.

It's been ugly and getting uglier. I've admitted I didn't expect Trump 2.0 to go full fascist.

So what to do?

By "Marxist Interpretation" I'm referring to Karl Marx more than latter political movements -- here the "objective law" I'm thinking is as Marx describes it in Capital.

And I do not understand what he means by this. What is "the objective law of social production"? — Metaphysician Undercover

The way I'm understanding that paragraph:


"... must calculate so that
the unpaid part of the yield of alienated labor falls to him as a profit,
and must think that like for like – labor-power versus its cost of
reproduction – is thereby exchanged"

is the law so described. "Like for like" is exchanged -- so a wage is set such that labor-power is sustained and reproduced and the wage is below the value being produced.

Ideologically "A fair days labor for a fair days pay" -- a falsity because if it were true then there'd be no profit, and thereby no entrepreneur.

Yup. Including my own efforts.

I think Adorno would say social process is equivalent to ideology. In that way, it is most distinct from Hegel's Absolute Spirit because Absolute Spirit thinks itself to have achieved objectivity. Negative Dialectics, on the other hand, is not a peering into reality, it is not truth through dialectic, rather it is a revelation about the presuppositions that sustain the ideological system. — NotAristotle

That gets along with what I'm thinking regarding @Metaphysician Undercover's inquiry.

At least insofar that we understand "Ideology" as more than "that which is thought", but something enacted and unquestioned.

A general note:

Analogies to family dynamics aren't good ways of understanding geo-politics if that's where we end. If that's what we have to work with then OK that's what we work with.

But political conflict is not a family dynamic. There are no "older siblings" or "Daddys". There is no such thing as an "immature" country from the political perspective such that another country can "guide" it. When a more developed country "guides" another there is always a realpolitik motive. The family analogies aren't helpful in understanding these sorts of relationships.

Now the question is, what is the mentioned "objective law of social production". This appears to be the unifying principle of "social process", whereby the inspiration of commitment, causes the forfeiture of the distinct laws of the divergent perspectives, in favour of the objective law of "social production". — Metaphysician Undercover

I read that in a Marxist sense. So the entrepreneur must pay a wage which is below the value produced by the labor-power he employs, else he will not be an entrepreneur for long. "social process" I take it to mean "Capitalism" in the age he's writing in, but as Marx describes it. The "narrowness" of this relativism I took to mean that the bourgeois individualist who allows each of us to have our own truths is far more narrow than he presents -- the equality of labor to its wage is not questioned or relativized to the entrepreneur but is held as a truth that the laborer will have to follow whether they like it or not. So, in fact, we can't all just "have our own truth", at least in accord with this particular relativism, because there is one truth that we must insist upon -- which, more generally, I'd take from the Marxist notions to think about so the economic superstructure of some kind.

And yes -- I agree.

That seems part of the reflection, philosophically -- if you don't have a clear notion of both then how could you possibly choose?

Heh. OK, thanks. Yes, then.

I got confused, obviously.

We do not know what the killer had in mind. — Paine

Yes, and never will really -- I'm trying to make sense of things so posit various "motivations" that aren't really from evidence but an attempt to make sense of things.

The label "fascist" has been pinned to too many donkeys to form a shared idea.

I disagree in that I think it's a social phenomena worth identifying.

We have had experience of the MAGA version of our circumstances. Maybe they have been hoisted by their own petard. Maybe we will find out about that. Maybe not. — Paine

Yes, true.

What puzzles me about the MAGA message is to be told there is a war going on but also not a war. The absorption of 1/6 as a valid form of political expression versus preventing a hostile takeover by a particular cartel. — Paine

"Fascism" explains this, I'd say.

By contrast, I submit that John and Malcolm had a clear idea about the difference between war and peace. — Paine

John the Baptist? 4th book in the Bible?

The answer.

Yeah, but “how much violence we are already responsible for” is also a diversion. More fog. This is an easy one if you have any principles at all. — Fire Ologist

I did say that I don't believe he deserved what happened to him.

Charlie Kirk didn't deserve what happened to him in the sense that all he did made him worthy of punishment: But we're in a time when speakers of movements are legitimate targets for the propaganda by the deed. — Moliere

Now, granted, if all we're talking about is Charlie Kirk's assassination then it's a diversion.

I had a particular feeling in relation to his death, what he said, and our continued support for Israel.

And, ultimately, still feel fear at my own numbness.

Unless you really mean to ask: when should we be allowed to kill our political debate opponents?

No, not at all. I tend to see one-off assassinations as ineffective to what I want to achieve.

I'm asking after the justifications for political violence in a world where we condemn this sniper while living as we do. I genuinely don't get how Trump, for instance, can support Israel and condemn the sniper**.

**EDIT: I get it politically, but I mean the whole reaction that Trump joined in with: we condemn this random assassination as if we aren't supporting death on a mass scale elsewhere. In an ethical sense it shouldn't matter the laws, so much, as the deaths and how much they can be prevented. Sending weapons en masse without sanction isn't exactly on par with the reaction against this sniper.

We don’t get to bring a gun to a debate and have a debate. No one should celebrate what happened on any level. Charlie was as precious and loved as Malcom, and so many others.

That's the true Christian*** spirit I'm aware of.

I agree that no one should celebrate death -- that's the path to more death. It's part of why I'm disturbed at my own indifference, even though I can tell you why.

I've felt an absurd feeling I don't know how to describe succinctly since seeing that assassination and trying to contextualize it within what first came to mind. The thing that comes to mind for me is not only should we not celebrate, but we should pay attention to the death we're more directly involved in rather than continue the sensation. At least in light of the deaths we can prevent if we choose to act.

***EDIT: Given the circumstances I ought say the true Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist spirit, and really all life and freedom loving people, but I succumbed to rhetorical devices.

I'm liking the flipping actually.

Bingo.

It's the sort of logic that can lock one into a fight -- a tit-for-tat that lands on whichever side you want to favor. And usually adopted by the bully to try and confuse people as to who is really at fault.

In such a case we might look for an arbiter of some kind -- but I don't trust the United States in this matter.

I'd prefer the United Nation's ICC.

Jews lived alongside Hindus in peace for many centuries since neither group felt the need to convert or conquer the other — BitconnectCarlos

It would certainly be nice if those were the people we were talking about.

When one side refuses to accept the presence of the other, wars are launched, which lead to greater loss of land, more humiliation, and more victimization. It's a vicious cycle of victimhood.

After 10/7, Hamas lost its seat at the table. They shattered any prospective hope for peace. They acted like Nazis - summarily executing Israelis/Jews civilians and keeping Israelis/Jews in concentration camp-like conditions in captivity - and they deserve annihilation just like the Third Reich. Like the deaths of German civilians are ultimately the responsibility of the Third Reich, the deaths of Gazan civilians are on Hamas, as Israel takes considerable precautions to avoid disproportionate civilian deaths. — BitconnectCarlos

At least you aren't denying that it's a genocide -- you're just going about it saying that no matter what Israel does the presence of Hamas justifies everything that come.

I'm afraid that responsibility for death doesn't work that way, though. I'd welcome international trials once we disarm Israel -- but I'd put Israel on trial as the one responsible for the deaths of the people their army is killing, and not the dirty other that they must cleanse from the land.

As far as I'm concerned, it's Israel that has lost face in this exchange with their actions. It is they who have lost a seat at the table for free military aid: Look at what they do with it. They cry for people to remember Amulek, sow disinformation, speak duplicitously, and kill systematically such that they will destroy a people for voting for Hamas -- collective punishment -- and hopefully eliminate them from the land so they can take it for themselves.

But the United States isn't terribly concerned about the moral implications of all this -- they just want an airfield. So insofar that the elimination is contained to the Palestinians we'll continue sending military aid because almost no one in office opposes Israel, and people are punished for speaking up in favor of the Palestinian cause.

Which brings me back to my reflection on ballots and bullets: in the United States there is little the ballot will do regarding these matters. It is ineffective. What I see as peaceful means of opposition lies with BDS and the international community, though -- to use the bullet in the United States on this issue wouldn't be effective in spite of the lack of a ballot.

But for Hamas? Well, supposing you eliminate Hamas, given what's happened, were I to survive. . .

you cannot pass down hate and resentment about it from generation to generation. — BitconnectCarlos

This wouldn't be something you could shame me from. I'd be tempted to start Hamas 2.0 after seeing so many people slaughtered once you remove Hamas 1.0.

Which is why BDS strikes me as a moral giant. I don't think I'd have that restraint given what's happening. Hate and resentment will spread further and longer the further and longer the genocide continues. And just because Hamas was voted in that does not mean everyone within a territory gets to be killed because "they lost their seat at the table" for daring to fight back against apartheid.

I will try. I'm going to do a summary of each of the 5 paragraphs as I see it:

1. Dialectics is opposed to absolutism. Fundamental ontologists believe this is a relativism because of this, but ND is equally opposed to relativism as it is to absolutism. This attack on relativism is overdue because the previous retorts were unpersuasive enough that relativism could continue unabated. i.e. "Relativism presupposes an absolute" is a bad argument, and so relativism continues on, passing it over as an obvious palliative to the non-skeptical which doesn't consider the skeptics ability to negate without absolutes.

2. The first relativism is a bourgeois individualism: Everyone is endowed with rights, and thereby my truth is good for me and your truth is good for you given that we're all equal. This allows us all to keep our opinions to ourselves and go about the business of money and work: material relationships of the capitalist sort are preserved such that thought cannot broach them -- these are private, rather than public affairs, and everyone is free to think as they wish insofar that they work.

3. This can only be maintained in a sort of silence -- once consciousness comes to believe it has a truth thought no longer has a subjective contingency. I.e. relativism is undermined by our shared social reality of which we can cognize truths about. The individual thoughts could not come about without the objective conditions of society which found an individualistic society. "The strata-specific bounds of of objectivity..." are laid down by this sociology of knowledge. And the bourgeois individualistic relativist reveals themselves an objectivist in the sense that there is only one important thing: Where you fall in the pecking order of work, a truth that allows the individual to think their individual thoughts as long as they adhere to these economic forms.

4. Divergent perspectives have their truth in the social whole -- by cognizing this preestablished whole divergent perspectives lose what is non-committal. The capitalist must, lest he be eliminated in the social process, obtain a profit from his workers and treat the exchange of money for labor as an equality. So the individualistic relativism of the bourgeois entrepreneur can be revealed as objectively false, given the equality between wage and labor-power that he must assume, so he follows the objective process that follows from the private ownership of the means of production -- thus is revealed how narrow this skepticism is.

5. "The Perennial hostility to the spirit" I take to be referring relativism, but throughout all time rather than the bourgeois variety. It occurs because the concept of reason within existing relationships of production must fear that the trajectory of the emancipation of the concept of reason will disintegrate those very existing relationships of production -- we can live without the fetters of Church in our state, but not without the fetters of the private ownership of the means of production. "Here thought goes too far!" says our perennial relativist who depends upon Spirit being something outside of this relationship, something where my truth is mine and your truth is yours and we can get back to work.

This critique of relativism is a paradigm of determinant negation (in ND)



Yup that makes sense to me.

How can the Civil War be a war to you? The North didn't recognize the South as an independent country. — BitconnectCarlos

Does it matter? If you won't accept South Africa as an analogue, then ought I to accept the civil war?

I told you the differences I saw. I used South Africa because it's another colonial project.

With the States you have two colonial governments fighting. If I were to analogize something in the United States I'd say it's how we treated the Native Americans and Blacks rather than the Civil War. They were less than second class citizens, for the most part.

Tell that to the Israeli Arab muslims who serve in Parliament and as judges and professors with full rights. — BitconnectCarlos

What about the ones that don't have full rights?

Consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_citizenship_law#Status_of_Palestinian_Arabs

They were forced from their land and required to apply for citizenship with Israel and if they couldn't -- which most didn't -- they lost their property.

Technically speaking they're not citizens so it's not a "second class citizen" de jure -- but it is de facto.

I'm not entertaining this because Israel is not South Africa, nor has Israel begun bombing its own neighborhoods. Gaza is not an Israeli neighborhood or region. It is a territory possessed by an enemy political group. — BitconnectCarlos

Here's the part where Israel gets duplicitous. Prior to Oct 7th they wouldn't recognize their statehood. After Oct 7th they still won't recognize statehood, but they'll declare war on them as if they are a state. In times of peace they are controlled by the Israeli government, in times of war they're a fully independent nation.

Under apartheid they slowly drive out Palestinians with expansions of colonies. Under war they kill indiscriminately while holding a siege to keep people in an area where they can be slowly eliminated. This is all part of a history of slowly expanding and taking over Palestinian lands by any means necessary.

Drop the analogy if you wish. It was thinly veiled. The part that sticks, from my perspective, is that Israel effectively treats the Palestinian territories as an open air prison in "peace times", and a kill zone in "war times".

Keep in mind that over 10,000 rockets have been fired indiscriminately into Israel from Gaza since 10/7 and that 10-20% of these misfire and end up landing in Gaza itself. — BitconnectCarlos

... you realize that this comparison isn't in Israel's favor, yes?

In any case, whether we call it a war or a protracted conflict doesn't matter much to me... although near 1,000 Israeli soldiers have been killed since 10/7 but ultimately 'war' or 'protracted conflict' both fit.

My thought is that this is not a war, but a systematic erasure of another people for the purpose of obtaining land and punishing them en masse for voting for Hamas. I.e. a genocide.

Even if the Nazis were evil they kept Germany after the fact. Heidegger even got to stay a part of the party until it was legally dissolved.

So this genocide (oh, sorry, I mean ethnic cleansing) has nearly succeeded. A few thousand more dead babies (oops, I mean Hamas combatants) and destroyed buildings should do the trick over the next few years. All with the weapons and support of the US. — Mikie

Oh, I disagree there. It can still be stopped. There is still resistance.

That is different than hunting down and killing Hamas. I have no problem eliminating Hamas if it can be done without collateral damage or without the goal of stealing land. — RogueAI

Ehhh... given what we see right now, it really isn't possible to do that. This is what the Israeli government is pursuing in the name of routing out Hamas.

I often wonder how the normalization of violence figures into this sort of messaging. There is a blatant political device in particular instances such as pardoning all of the participants in 1/6. But that does not add up to a possible future. The whole theater is oddly barren. — Paine

I get the sense that the 4chaners et. al. just want to agitate people to kill others in order to cause a sense of terrorism. I don't think they care which side does it; what they care about is the terror, and the lack of culpability for themselves. They want to inspire others to carry out random acts of violence.

This is functionally speaking -- the ideology is hard to decipher, but that's on purpose. This is part of why I think of it as a fascist underground: fascists purposefully use duplicitous messaging with the intent of destroying social bonds with the state such that they can take over the state without a real political program other than hatred for the other, a desire for punishment, and the willingness to utilize the powers of state to carry out that mission.

Fascism is a cult that worships death for its own sake as a means to purify the population.


At least, that's my perception. It's terribly hard to track details on the actual people -- this is just what the part of the internet looks like that looks similar to what thus far this assassin at hand.

Meaning, both people would gladly perform the same acts upon one another, given the opportunity. It simply happens to be one who is able to instead of the other right now. — Outlander

While a penchant for violence is a part of human nature I do not think that people are sitting around waiting for their turn at the genocide stick. That's an entirely cynical view whereby we can dismiss any genocide on the basis that "Well, if the people who are being killed now had the opportunity, they'd be the genocidaires. So what's the difference? Let the genocide go on"

So the Civil War wasn't a war? Or the Revolutionary War, for that matter. — BitconnectCarlos

Naw, that's dumb.

There are significant differences between those and what's happening here, though, such that the "war" designation isn't exactly apparent to me.

Suppose South African Apartheid.

I see that situation as much closer to the situation in Israel -- Israel offers different rights to Jews than to non-News. Palestinians are segregated into different locations within the state of Israel. This is largely due to a desire for an ethno-state -- i.e. Arabs over there and Jews over here.

Suppose that South Africa, in response to a political act of terrorism on white people, set up artillery and began to systematically eliminate the Black neighborhoods in retaliation. Further suppose that they continued to bombard the schools, hospitals, journalists, civilian living quarters, universities, places of worship, etc. in the name of defeating the political group responsible -- how many non-combatants and places unrelated to combat can be purposefully annihilated before this stops being a "war" and starts being a "genocide"?



Part of me is also hesitant to describe this as a war on the sheer basis of firepower. If you hold a firing line to keep people within a place where you're going to bombard them regardless of their political orientation are we really engaging in war? Or is this Dresden extended over a longer period of time? Gaza is under siege while being bombarded. Part of the tools being used here are starvation to inflict mass punishment.


There are other means of genocide in play here too: if one targets people who have knowledge, such as doctors, journalists, teachers, scholars, holy persons, and legal authorities then it will be harder for the genocidaires to be persecuted -- if you destroy the evidence and the knowledge of a people then you can tell the story as you want. Consider "Go West Young Man" as a result of the United States' genocide.



So my theory of war needs refinement, but I don't see an apt comparison to either the United States' civil war or its revolutionary war.

If the destruction of Nazi Germany is genocide then nothing is genocide. — RogueAI

That's not what happened. There was a war between different powers and people were tried after a government surrendered. The destruction of "Nazi Germany" is not the same as the systematic hunting down of anyone associated with "Hamas" to the point that it's OK to kill unarmed civilians and topple down Hospitals or civilian living quarters or stop aid from coming in to starve out anyone that might be associated in order to take over the land.

Hamas isn't the fascist in this scenario -- they're not really a "liberal democracy", but they're not "Nazi Germany" -- not even close.

There's one thing here that I think is important to distinguish: this is not a war.

A war is between two countries that recognize one another.

Israel uses the UN definition to declare war on Hamas, but when they controlled the occupied territories they applied two levels of citizenship and deeply controlled who got in or out of the West Bank or Gaza.

It's not like Hamas just decided to be evil. There are reasons for why they were voted for that lead up to Oct 7th.

So as long as they "obey" the restrictions that continued to expand settlements they would not be bombed, but they weren't citizens of Israel as much as an apartheid.

When a Hamas terrorist dies, the world is improved. — BitconnectCarlos

I disagree.

That'd count as an example of "genocide": MW: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

Hamas is a political group.

Something like "When a Republican dies the world is improved" would fit here.

Or even "When a Nazi dies the world is improved"

Only the Nazis did the genocide, so it is false to lament the death of a Nazi.

Whereas here we have the IDF carrying out the deliberate and systematic destruction of Hamas while killing anyone that gets in their way.

They don't use nukes because they want the land, not because they have restraint.

They don't use airpower because the land is close enough that artillery does the job.

It's not restraint -- it's systematic.

My apologies for the confusion. I only read a couple posts on the last page. I wasn’t aware there was a longer conversation there. — NOS4A2

S'all good.

I do disagree because I do not believe the good and the bad can be found in thoughts, only actions. For instance, the assassin may have had the most beautiful thoughts ever conceived. Perhaps they were so good that he opposed fascism and the spreading of hate. Kirk, on the other hand, wanted to bring back the death penalty, and probably believes you or I will go to heaven and hell. Those are bad thoughts, in my view. But from the stories of Kirk I’ve been reading the last couple days, he was very kind. As far as I know he never hurt anyone, and gave a platform to opposing views. The shooter, who apparently opposed fascism, murdered someone in cold blood. So who is good or bad?

Yearp. That's the question -- less with respect to these individuals that sparked my feelings, but more with respect to ourselves: Who is good or bad? How do I agree or disagree with either response? Celebration because he spread hate, or condemnation because we're guilty of way more violence, in the big picture?

In some sense, to take the gun-control side, we could argue that we're all guilty for not regulating weapons well enough that a young boy hopped up on propaganda would not be able to shoot a celebrity for funzies.

But that's the sub-plot I'm asking for -- the main plot I'm asking is "Where and when?", but more with a reflection towards an uncomfortable aporia

In my view there is an increasing conflation between words and deeds in Western moral literature and it leads directly to these sorts of acts.

I don't think the thoughts are what does it as much as the material conditions.

Words/Deeds have been a question since at least 1900 in "Western moral literature".

The increase in random gun violence predates those questions -- whereas the proliferation of firearms coupled with a society that is actively engaging with violence (and thereby must find justifications for violence) leads to an every once-and-again one-off murder, especially when bifurcation alienates people through class divisions, and the internet spreads not news but propaganda to incite feelings that young men often aren't good at handling.

Yeah -- I've seen other reports too I've been sticking to the "conservative" ones because the topic is controversial, and really even the small counts were enough to my mind to justify my sorrow.

You're falling into a false argument. Why do people cut off their genitals? Because they feel socially-ostracized. Have you ever been a child once in a modern day school with low-income people? Even having any sense of morality gets you called a "snitch" or a "girl", and basically physically harmed IF you're smaller than the person. It's a cycle of useless people fornicating because they have no self control, often the largest "Strongest" what they call alpha, despite having the brains of rocks and no real purpose since 800 B.C. when the lever and pulley was invented. They can't cope with society. They were made to be slaves. To work, to use their size to lift heavy rocks under the command of a king. They have no purpose in modern society. They don't know how to raise kids. They get pleasure from seeing people, anyone, random strangers, suffer. It gives them "purpose," The things that bring an intellect joy and a sense of harmony, give them anger. The things that give us a sense of disgust and horror, bring a smile to their face. They are incompatible with modern society. — Outlander

I think this is a bit much.

You may not recognize it as transphobia, but you're talking the points up front while ending with classist points.

Sorry, my point being, no person who was not bullied or exposed to the idea that "oh you might be a girl, since you act like one" has ever once considered the idea that they were not born into the right body. Not a single one. — Outlander

And yet this is false.

Unless you can read minds?

Still -- this isn't the question at all.

I noticed there was an uptick in propaganda trying to tie Utah boy to "Trans influence" -- but I'd interpret that as yet another attempt to demonize a minority group and not take responsibility. Or divert it somehow to something to be angry about rather than think it through.

Just look around. Why are all the "transgenders" skinny, awkward people who just didn't fit in. It's not a coincidence. It's psychological bullying and deformation of the human mind by physical and emotional trauma. How can you not see that? How can anyone not see that? — Outlander

No more "transgenders" talk from here out, please.

It's a propaganda point in the sensationalist murder. Trans people are afraid because they're getting demonized again -- but they ought not be grouped with a person who shot someone for funzies.

As you noted -- "We aren't going to agree here"

And that's OK for the purposes of this discussion. Since I get my information from people from Gaza it's very likely that my information is "very biased" in my favor. Almost like that's why I believe what I do.

I don't want to judicate the boundaries because I don't have a personal stake in terms of which where etc., and I'm not even close to being worthy of negotiating that.

These events are important to me for the reasons outlined -- I'm not going to pretend to be the guy who can speak on every legal thing, but I will honestly answer your questions with respect to why I'm saying what I'm saying (and noting when I'm out of my depth)

The ongoing genocide in relation to the sensationalist murder is what causes the feeling of the absurd in me.

Where the lines get drawn after the genocide stops is less my interest, and stopping the weapons from continuing that is more my interest -- but these are moments in a reflection on political violence.

When and where?

Suppose 100,000 of your people were indiscriminately killed and you still lived.

Time to register to vote?

I should clarify I don't think anyone here is celebrating in that manner.

Including you.

There are memes out there in the wild that are.

Gaza is a region. "Palestine" you will find nowhere on a map. When you say "Palestine is an occupied territory," I'm not sure which geographic boundaries you have in mind. What is "Palestine" to you? — BitconnectCarlos

The wiki on Palestine defines this well enough for me. "Palestine, officially the State of Palestine, is a country in West Asia. Recognized by 147 of the UN's 193 member states, it encompasses the Israeli-occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, collectively known as the occupied Palestinian territories. "

The reason it wasn't on a map is because it was still controlled by a colonial government, not because the people didn't live there.

Part of the absurdity I feel is the celebration I see. Not really people directly around me, but just generally on the internet and through the media and all that.

When the Healthcare CEO was gunned down I didn't feel so absurd -- he was directly responsible for many deaths. Anyone whose had someone live with chronic pain or die or any such travesty due to the cruelty of healthcare insurance company policies would naturally feel better in the sense of a kind of revenge-by-proxy.

Here the man spread hate, by all means. But it never feels right to me to outright jump for joy for the death of one random person that won't make a difference in how we live.

But then I could tell I didn't feel much care for him given what he said. And I said before when I saw him being lionized and the shooter shamed I couldn't help but think about how much death we already have on our hands -- on what basis do we condemn the shooter?

There's a sense in which all of this isn't even of concern -- there are sides and when your side "wins" one of these terrible games you celebrate, and vice versa. Which strikes me as a good way to lose our humanity in the process of feeling like we're winners.

Between these two extremes is where I felt, and further couldn't help but wish the kind of media given to his death was also given to the deaths we are still causing: it results in a numbly uncertain feeling about the world that I couldn't express easily.

I simply don't see it as a genocide. — BitconnectCarlos

What is a genocide, in your view?

I wouldn't say that Israel is "holding back", but that's a vague criteria.

I'd go with Merriam-Webster:

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Now if you're killing combatants that's one thing -- but Palestine isn't even a state. It's an occupied territory where we have stories of people shooting Palestinians where they excuse their shot by "I just didn't understand why he cared about that body" -- drawing a literal line in the sand for when to kill.

Differentiate away. How is this not that?

Anyway, I'm not still not sure what exactly is occupied in your view. Is it Gaza? Is west Jerusalem or Tel Aviv "occupied" by Israel? It's this lack of clarity that bothers me and it'll differ depending on who you ask. Complaining about "occupation" is can be cover for simply complaining about Israel's existence. — BitconnectCarlos

There's a sense in which complaining about its existence is like complaining about the United States' existence -- both are colony's that took other people's land. The US just has more years and more kills than Israel.

In this sense I complain about the United States' existence. It is a colonialist state with moral debts.

But that's where I live.

The part that I know is that I'm in the United States and we give weapons to Israel -- where the line gets drawn eventually or if it's a one-state solution all that, right now, is so far out of scope due to how long the genocide has been going on.

If you're asking if I'm for the genocide of Israelis on behalf of Arabs then no I am not -- but I think this is a line of propaganda more than a reality.

I’m not sure what your conversation was about, because I didn’t read it. It doesn’t even appear that you’re involved at all. — NOS4A2

Eh, fair. I've been reading along and thinking here.

Do you want me to quote exactly which sentences I’m referring to? Because it is all there above, unless there is some formatting issue that I am unaware of.

For instance, I read the accusation “He's part of the same side that spread hate, calls for violence, and for dividing people into us vs them.”

In the paragraph after I read this. — NOS4A2

I think it's a "reader comprehension" issue on my part. I'm wondering what you mean because I felt what you said applied more to myself than Chris.

Not that he can't defend himself, of course -- I guess I just felt defensive because I thought you ought to be attacking me from what I read from you lol -- but I obviously could be wrong.

I've liked @Christoffer's contributions to this thread as a more hopeful perspective than I have.

In the paragraph after I read this.

The point being, we could actually divide the world into two sides of legitimate good and bad. The good stands for respecting human rights and rejecting the concept of an individual as a means to an end. Those who argues for equality, the respect of each individual, respect for another group than them etc. ...and the other argues in opposition to that. — NOS4A2

I feel like that's an optimistic way of putting what we should go towards.

Do you disagree?

It didn't make sense to me how what you said connected to @Christoffer

Note here the charge of “spreading hate”, and the making of a threadbare connection between the act of holding and espousing one’s belief and being evil, as if Kirk’s brain state and the combination of sounds that came from his mouth is all it takes to make such an accusation. On the one hand Kirk committed the sin of dividing people into Us vs Them, but on the other Kirk resided on the wrong side of the Good and the Evil, those who speak like us and those who speak like them.

The problem is there is not even a string of chewing gum between the premise and the conclusion, between one duplicitous phrase and the next. It is no strange wonder that the assassin himself accused Charlie of such evil, for “spreading hate”, days before killing him.

This sort of piffle can be read all over social media and presents a window into the empty logic of the censors among us. — NOS4A2

Chris did not make a connection between the act of holding and espousing one's belief and being evil -- I'm the one using "evil" in this conversation, but I also didn't connect that to "Kirk's brain state..."

On one hand he divided, and on the other he was on the wrong side of the divide -- that's closer to my perspective than @Christoffer

I find it a strange wonder that the assassin accused Charlie Kirk so far -- and I'm confused about "not even a string of chewing gum between the premise and the conclusion"; which premise? Who said it? Which conclusion?

That's basically an accusation of a non sequiter inference, but what is the set of premises that you're talking about?

In another way a slave revolt is horrifying -- and it's a direct result of having been enslaved, and so is liberation.