Prunebutt @ Prunebutt @slrpnk.net

Posts

62

Comments

2,877

Joined

2 yr. ago

Zig

Is this loss?

but the degree to which it furthers society is difficult to quantise.

That's because "furthering of society" doesn't have a well defined metric.

... so why quantise it at all?

No where here did we make it facist saying "you did not come from here, get out." That is not our argument.

I disagree. I think that's a core assumend premise of the video. Otherwise, the statement that Bibi's from Poland doesn't make any coherent sense as an argument.

I disagree with the complete "blood and soil" premise that zionism is based on. But I critisize bs logic, no matter which camp it stated.

I don't know what else to tell you. "People don't belong in places were their ancestors aren't from" is the literal opinion of current real-world racists.

I don't really adhere to the logic that anargument loses it's characteristics if you're unable to enforce it.

If I'm exclaiming "death to all jews", it's still antisemitic if I'm unable to hurt a single person.

I really don't want to downplay the suffering that indigenous peoples are still enduring due to colonization. But the "your ancestors are from xyz, so you don't belong in abc" is the core statement of ethnopluralism. It doesn't get better if you're being an ethnonationalist/ethnopluralist in favour of the "right" peoples.

How is this argument different from ethnopluralism?

What I'm saying is that native people's deserve recognition of their status as the original inhabitants of a land in opposition to settler-colonialism.

I agree. That's not what OP was stating. OP's video said that Bibi Netanyahu doesn't belong there because his ancestors were polish. That's an ethnopluralist standpoint.

It's ridiculous to "both sides" that issue.

I agree. That's not what I'm doing, though. Israel's justifications are ridiculous. That's why you shouldn't use their kind of justification. Even if it's pro palestine.

So you're saying that if a culture has been in a land for a long time, that's okay?

Then what's ok? Genuine question. I don't follow.

Indigenous Australians have been on this land for 60,000 years, they have one of the oldest extant cultures on earth. I personally think they get to say "this land is ours".

I agree. I also agree that Palestine belongs to the palestinians. But there's a diffenence between stating that a people has inhabited a land for a long time, resulting in a claim for the land and claiming that some individual person doesn't belong here, because their family is from someplace else.

Also, you shouldn't use Israel's line of reasoning. Let me give you an example of what I mean:

Let's say you wanted to debunk a real NSDAP Nazi from 1940s Germany. Would you agree with them that different races are stronger than the others and that the strongest must dominate the latter, pointing the out that Germany will lose the war, therefore the German "race" can't be superior... or will you not give credit to that whole premise outright?

Disengage.

Edit: I wrote why I wanted to disengaged which could have been interpreted as further antagonization.

Do you feel the same about First Nations rights?

Yes. All the racism BS vanishes if you argue with culture instead of genetics.

One of the big false claims is that Palestinians are solely from the Arabian peninsula when that’s just unequivocally false. They’re indigenous to the Levant and it’s an important distinction to fight Zionist propoganda. Palestinians have the right to argue against being ethnically cleansed by stating their multigenerational ties to their home. Just like any First Nations people or other nationality.

I agree. Still not a genetic argument.

You’re concerned about weaponization of ethnonationalist rhetoric in a context where the power dynamics simply do not support such a concept.

Can you explain that to me? I don't follow.

Where?

Please educate yourself before spewing BS like that. There was no holocaust in 1896 when Herzl talked about forcing a state own Palestinians the local population or during the Belfour declaration .

Israel wasn't established until 1948. Herzl also proposed Argentinia. The Holocaust was the main trigger that led the UN to greenlight the project Israel.

Even if it was true that it was because of the holocaust it's still BS because a genocide committing by German do not justify stealing lands from people who has nothing to do with the holocust

International politics rarely/never happens because of notionsof justice or fairness, but always out of expedience of the actors involved. It was expedient for the west to establish Israel. Especially for post-war Germany. Look up what Adenauer said about Israel.

It's not BS to say that Palestinians the local population who are also descendent of the Canaanites and never left that land in response to Zionists advocating that all Palestinians should be kicked out because they claim that they Arab colonizers

Where in that argument does genetics come into play?

Surely you can explain why, instead of calling me names. Create a proper argument, please.

If they use a Fascist talking point for colonization it needs to be addressed and debunked.

You're not debunking it by accepting the premise. You're validating it, in fact.

Don't play the fascist's games.They'll drag you down to their level.

The motivation is irrelevant if the result of that chain of thought is ethnopluralism.

exactly the main justification of Zionists forcing a state on the local Palestinians population.

IDK. That's at least not the full story, since one main reason that Israel exists is the holocaust. But I don't want to argue over those details.

Many Zionists claim that they had has the right to create an ethnostate because of 2000 years old Jewish kingdom and continuous presence in the land while at the same time saying Palestinians are just Arab colonizers that should be transferred to other Arab countries while Israel take all the historical Palestine

Just because zionists argue with bullshit doesn't make it any better if you use that bullshit argumentation the other way around. Critizise the bullshit by pointing out that it is in fact bullshit. Not by steeping to the bullshitter's level.

I agree. But you can critizise them without arguing with genetics.

we also can't dismiss the fact that historically Europeans felt very justified in forcefully going and settling lands where other people already lived because they felt they should just do so, and in the process exterminating the indigenous people and cultures. It's a more nuanced discussion that can be done in a few sentences, but I don't think it deserves a ban.

I wholeheartedly agree. But again: bringing genetics into this is racist-pilled.

Again: you fail to point out what genetics has to do with this. Don't use fascist talking points. Period.