I did not call anyone “uppity”, you did.
I appreciate that, and thought that was probably true–I just didn’t want to miss a chance to dunk on another certain South African who is shitting all over our government.
Okay, so you don’t understand.
You, bizarrely and offensively, called @MrDibble “Trumpy”. @crowmanyclouds was implying that (with a winky emoji and an apology to MrDibble and everything, how’d you miss that?) if you want to be bizarre and offensive, you could just go full throttle and call him “uppity.” HE WASN’T SUGGESTING THAT SERIOUSLY, HE WAS SAYING YOU WERE BEING BIZARRE AND OFFENSIVE AGAIN.
There are no different rules, unless you mean that there are different rules for different words, which obviously there are.
In a thread where MrDibble has been called an anti-Semite, with no evidence at all, the thing that’s really offensive is me making that call-back???
I got an alert that this is a response to me, but in no other way is it a response to me. Did you maybe misunderstand what I said? I did not say that your call-back was offensive.
Used the wrong reply button.
Okay, got it! I was starting to question my basic communication skills.
You are, literally, the only person in this thread to use the word “anti-Semite” to this moment.
What do you call this?
Or do ya think you can be in favor of “hunting Jews” without also being an anti-Semite?
While the level of historical ignorance and bigotry displayed in this thread and elsewhere on the Dope is dispiriting, it’s still nowhere near what used to be tolerated here.
I can recall past threads where posters enthusiastically defended the proposition that “Jews control Hollywood” (for their own suspicious purposes, natch) and questioned whether American Jews served their country in WWII. We also had flaming bigots like orion, free_willy and Aldebaran roaming the boards until their eventual flameouts.
So the board is a better place now (and much less tolerant of bigotry in general).
I just wish that it didn’t sometimes remind me of the level of discourse on Twitter.
Or, even more directly, this:
The thing is, there is a poster in this forum who said something along the lines that he himself was in the Israeli army and, based on his experience, they would not participate in murder and genocide and so on. I do not believe he is lying, but that means that they are not uncontrollable loose cannons. The disturbing implication is, therefore, that if they are shooting kids in the head it is absolutely with the tacit approval of their commanders.
It’s not genocide anti-Semitism! It’s just ethnic cleansing hatred for Jews!
Was that before or after Oct 7? Because I think that particular event gave the IOF thugs all kinds of license to openly be what they may have not been open about, when that poster was in the service.
And I’m definitely not saying every IOF serviceperson is like that. That’s not really possible with a conscript army. Just, on available evidence, quite a lot of them. It’s not one sniper killing all those kids and grandmas, after all. “A few bad apples” arguments aren’t going to wash given the scale of the killing and destruction (not that you were making that).
Oh, they definitely have at least that, given the absolute dearth of any punishments for it.
The overwhelming majority of soldiers in Vietnam were great guys . . . and yet somehow “Zippo raids” and Lt. William L. Calley Jr. still happened.
There’s questioning the credibility of whether people are outright lying (which people “reporting” on Gaza do all the time) and there’s simply pointing out that even if you believe stories at face value, the conclusions do not make sense.
A doctor in a hospital who sees a gunshot victim brought in cannot possibly look at the wound and somehow know, from a physical examination of the injury, who shot the person and under what circumstances. Taking the testimony of the “Gaza doctors” at its word, that is what they claim to be doing, and it’s absurd.
Not everyone who is willing to believe the constant stream of implausible nonsense from Gaza is an anti-Semite. There are lots of reasons people choose to be gullible. I think people who, simultaneously, advocate believing everything Hamas and the “Gaza doctors” say no matter how unfounded or inherently ridiculous, and argue that it’s good for Arab Muslims in Amsterdam to roam the streets in a Jew Hunt, probably are racists against Jews in most cases.
A good test for whether people are “Anti-Zionist Not Anti-Semitic Just Doing Legitimate Criticism Of Israeli Policy I Swear!!!” is whether they do, in fact, limit their criticism to Israeli policies, as opposed to rejecting wholesale the notion that Jews on the Asian landmass have any right to self-defense at all, or justifying a Jew Hunt that looks for anyone wearing a black hat in Amsterdam or Antwerp to beat.
I definitely think that if the sort of attitude displayed towards Jewish civilians in Europe (aka the “the people who eagerly weaponize their own victimhood”) by MrDibble was directed at any other group, there would be no debate whatsoever about whether it constituted racism.
You mean the Israeli soccer hooligans committing assaults and then playing the racism card when retaliated against? Those “Jewish civilians”?
I mean, I don’t know how it helps your argument to link to a post where more of your side’s lies were exposed, but hey, they’re your own syphilitic nuts, if you want to kick yourself in them, I’m not going to stop you.
No, I mean the Jewish civilians all over Amsterdam and Antwerp, including children, members of sects that believe sports fandom is religiously forbidden, and all sorts of others, who were attacked by Moroccan Muslims in a pre-planned Jew Hunt that had nothing to do with the soccer game, who you are lying and pretending were all “soccer hooligans committing assault” despite being shown repeatedly that this was not the case, because you are a racist who supports unpunished racial violence against Jews and has no problem lying to advance that agenda.
Has anyone on this board espoused that view? Because I’m pretty sure I missed that if someone did.
So, people I haven’t said anything about, other than this:
Although now that you bring these innocent bystanders up, I’ll just point out the hypocrisy of trying to use their innocence to attempt to score debate points, when “innocent bystander” apparently isn’t something your IOF heroes ever think exists, given the eagerness with which they’ll slaughter entire families down to the last baby, to get one alleged Hamas member.
Yes, when it is conclusively shown that what happened was Moroccan Muslims organizing a Jew Hunt against every Jew in Amsterdam (and then in Antwerp), days in advance of the soccer game, and that police were standing down and refusing to intervene (except in the case of the two police who actually participated in the Jew Hunt), to continue to maintain that it was “soccer hooliganism” is support of the events. Just like “Holocaust deniers” are not actually historians interested in examining the evidence of what took place in the 1940s, they are people who know full well the Holocaust took place who are celebrating it by mocking Jews.
You know full well that there was a Jew Hunt, not a soccer riot, and so does MrDibble, and you are signalling your support of it by knowingly lying about whether it took place for no reason but to taunt Jews.