Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

how come none of your posts are public

10

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

What exactly do you think my views are? Because it sounds like you still don’t have a clue based on this comment.

12

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 28w

Like again, you legitimately believe that Kamala Harris is a moderate conservative only because you heard it from other online champagne socialists and thought it sounded punchy. You guys aren’t talking about economics, markets, or state tax policy…you’re just repeating the lines and mantras from Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto like a street preacher yelling Matthew 4:17, telling others to repent and then peacing the fuck out when you feel like it.

-3

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

Harris is a moderate conservative because when you compare her politics to the country at large, they are 1) Pretty close to the middle of the road for Americans, and 2) Engineered to preserve America’s institutions, social structure, and economic status quo. Ergo, she is both moderate and conservative. That’s not a hot take, and all of my capitalist, Republican associates I’ve discussed this with are in agreement with me after I laid out my case. Your imaginary scenarios don’t trump real life

10

Anonymous #1 28w

Malicious actors abuse the automod system and brigade reports. It’s not meant to hide views for the sake of some Machiavellian purpose. I vehemently disagree with a lot of people on here, but I will always tell others no matter who they are to either stay anonymous OR turn their profile posts off and set it to private.

-3

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

oh that makes sense

1

Anonymous #1 28w

If you’re a YY degen like a lot of us emoji posters and know who people are, Perry used to do it a lot. It’s typically conservative types trying to ram reports through on everything in hopes to set it off by number of reports or by keywords that might be in more of a gray zone.

1

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

perry dm’d a 17 year old fun fact

8

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 28w

I could give a shit less about your anecdotal convincing of other morons who were probably incapable of giving any push back. Comparing her to the country at large IS the point 🤣 You guys use the same shit over and over again despite being wrong. You’ll use Europe as an example yet can’t even name serious “left wing” that are the norm. What you really mean to say is that she’s moderately conservative in reference to YOUR position, not the country and definitely not the world lol.

-3

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

The fact that I of all people respect Republicans capacity for thought more than you do is actually bonkers. Seek professional help dude.

10

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 28w

See? LOL! You just shut down 😭

-3

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

No, I critiqued the only part of your comment with any substance and ignored the parts that were just you projecting/making shit up.

13

I don’t agree with it. I think it’s optically bad(not necessarily the moral point, that’s just from a political strategy perspective) and morally bad. My views of the Israel/Palestine situation have progressively weakened against Israel over time. I’ve always been for a two-state solution because I believe it’s the most realistic and pragmatic. Anything else results in more death and unneeded slaughter.

-1

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 28w

I didn’t ignore it 🤣 You made the stupidest comment by saying Harris is middle of the road for most Americans. You not only misdiagnose party politics, but you also misdiagnose the actual political views of the American people.

-3

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

You either have no idea what Harris’ politics are like or have never spent time around normal Americans.

8

Comment Deleted

0

Again, realistic is the bigger keyword there. In order for that to exist, you’re essentially implying that the current Israeli government will have to be dismantled. There would be no single secular state without doing that mandatory step. You and I both know they wouldn’t step down so how else would you get rid of them? By force? A two state solution to me is more viable because it essentially allows the US and Arab partners who would have the interests of a successful Palestinian state….

-3

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

To step in and mediate long term. It would have to be a joint UN lead ground force that would have to act as the go-between force as to prevent the Israelis from acting out and to prevent Palestinians from seeking more vengeance for past grievances. It has to end. Fuck the past bullshit.

-3

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Do you really believe that though? There is ONE singular issue that pops up time and time again(because of conservatives by the way) and that’s trans women in sports. I will say it again, I’m a pragmatist who believes in incrementalism. I’m not trans, but I would happily give up the fight on the sports bullshit if it meant solidifying basic human rights and dignity for trans people in this country.

-3

Comment Deleted

0

Again, you’re not addressing anything I just said there as to why I’m a two state vs a single state. You’re not going to remove the Israeli government just like how you’re not going to remove the North Korean government or Russian government. You have to actually get to the next part of the conversation rather than just trying to speak it into existence. How do you plan to get rid of the Israeli government and create a single secular state without mass violence and preventing the same shit?

-3

I am highly aware of what is happening in certain states AND from the federal government on its assault on the rights of trans people….but again….those are Republicans, not Democrats. That conversation can definitely shift to blame Democrats for losing, and I’m not against that criticism from a strategic analysis. Yes, Democrats do need to change their messaging and probably their leadership in some regards, but to pretend like this level of loss means we need to move to socialism? Crazy.

-2

Comment Deleted

0

It’s not apathy. Again, I am asking you for an action plan here. How do you overhaul or dismantle the current Israeli government. I’m legitimately asking you this.

-2

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

It’s easy to be for stats quo incrementalism when it’s not your community on the chopping block. Also as far as Israel goes yes they are an an apartheid state committing a genocide. By your logic there was nothing we could have done about apartheid South Africa either. Israel unlike Russia & North Korea are funded & protected by us so it’s not even a close comparison

3

I’ve legit seen joker side with Fox News & Lura Loomer because they were 💩 on leftist & progressive in general.

4

Anonymous #4 28w

I’m sure you have.

-3

Comment Deleted

0

To address the Newsom stuff, I have no real love for Newsom so I’m not going to try and parse the meaning. He wouldn’t be my primary pick, but I’d vote for him in the general vs any Republican. All of that being said, “normal” is sloppy language. Something can be uncommon demographically without being socially illegitimate. Politicians should know the difference.

-2

You’re legitimately having a conversation with ME right now and you’re letting other people try and work you up 😕 If I strike you as someone who would lie to save face so I don’t get mean comments, then you have severely misread my positions.

-2

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

You 1,000% strike me as someone who would lie to save face. You love to decry illiberalism but bend the knee to fascists every chance you get when it comes to the actual issues — hell, sometimes even by name! You’re dishonest to the point that productive conversation is impossible, and your ego is your god.

8

I’m legitimately not LOL I’m having a conversation with you and I’m addressing everything you’ve directly asked me. I told you why I said a two state was more realistic and possible and resulted in LESS DEATH than a single secular state. All you’ve done is “ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?” when I ask you to give an action plan as to how you would get a single state. You said that the Israeli government either needed to be reformed or dismantled. I asked you how you would do that and you refuse to answer it.

-2

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 28w

Oh fuck off. You see my ass on here all the fucking time and I defend my positions more than any of you losers. You just fucking run away because you can’t stand that you’re a dogshit communicator for your position and have no clue on what the fuck you’re talking about. Now run away and go back to your bubble.

-3

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

1. You LITERALLY didn’t answer any of my accusations, you hypocritical clown. 2. When have you ever seen me do that?

10

I’m having 4 conversations at once here, you’ll have to give me a bit of leeway if I literally miss questions. I legitimately just saw the WW2 question before amethyst tried to dogpile

-1

That’s a legitimate question that you won’t answer. I’ll ask it more direct then. For a singular secular state to exist, the current Israeli government and the IDF must be reformed or dismantled. Do you support the United States sending in ground troops to dismantle their government, yes or no.

-3

Comment Deleted

0

To answer your WW2 question? That’s more complicated than you think. Would I support going in then what I know now? Of course. Back then, if it’s pre-Pearl Harbor? I don’t know. Just coming off of WW1 and losing a lot of men. Europe wasn’t like how it was now, they were still very much in their imperialist era so there was no European Union type cooperation like there is today.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Yeah. By force is more death and destruction. The UN, which is still just a fancy way of saying “US led”. You’re willing to keep troops there much like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan and be peace keepers for an untold amount of time until a unified government hopefully comes about?

0

To assume you would be some big anti-fascist pro-interventionalist in 1930 is such a morally privileged position. You and I have neither fucking clue what we’d be back then. Using hindsight as your main moral compass is moronic as fuck.

-2

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Which again, leads to more needless death on both sides. It’s why I said a two state solution is less death and leads to full autonomy for both sides. I’m not apathetic, I just accept that neither side wants to work with one another. They HATE each other.

-2

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

It’s only a privileged position if you’re a loser. Otherwise, you can know pretty safely whether you would be or not by assessing your behavior in the present world. I know what my stances toward Nazi Germany would have been back then because I’m standing against the same kinds of people today.

10

No, you say that because you want to be bombastic and you’re being emotional as fuck right now lol. You’re using hindsight as a means to guide your opinions, which means you just have the right correct opinion all the time as a past version of yourself. You wanna know what I’d do if I was born in the Middle Ages? I’d show them how to boil water and electricity. It’s that level of stupid that you’re trying to make me engage with.

-2

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 28w

It is a privileged fucking position. How the fuck do any of you know what you’d fucking believe in 1930?

-3

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 28w

Holy fucking performative grandstanding

-1

Comment Deleted

0

You have no idea who you would be back then. It’s pathetic you would even assume you would know that.

-2

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

No it’s not. You’re the one looking like a fool right now.

8

“Some people died in liberation struggles” is not a defense of mass deaths caused by authoritarian governance. Completely different causal frameworks.

-1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 28w

Says the person who only decided to engage AFTER 3 starting losing their shit over my answering their questions, of which now they’ve gone back to assuming my position rather than just taking my words at face value lol

-2

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

I think a good test would be what was your stance after 10/7. You said yourself that your support for Israel has weekend over time so it’s probably safe to assume you’d have supported the Nazis early but as things worsen found yourself having less & less support although I can’t say for sure

3

Israel killing women, children, and just civilians in general is by definition “needless death”. I can’t be more plan than that. Leading a UN led coalition to essentially invade Israel to dismantle its government in favor of a single secular state would also lead to a massive amount of needless death on the Israeli civilian population, the peacekeepers of the UN led coalition, and probably more Palestinians who the IDF would probably strike much like the SS did to finality of WW2.

-1

That’s also not to mention the bringing up of Israel’s nuclear arms, of which they would most likely be launched at any target they know would be a 100% strike as their death knell.

-1

So when you ask me about needless death, I’d say yeah…that’s what I mean by needless death.

-1

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

1. You’re not allowed to complain to me about people assuming your position. This whole thread started BECAUSE you did that to me. 2. They’re not assuming your position, they’re critiquing the words you’ve actually said so far. 3. Did it occur to you that maybe I had better things to do for a few minutes? Or that #3 was doing fine and I had nothing to contribute? Or that I don’t look a fool for my conduct anyway, so this doesn’t help your point at all?

8

Anonymous #4 28w

Also you talk about Israel as is it’s Russia or North Korea when again it’s not. The only reason that Israel has been able to do the vast majority of the evil bs they do is because our government is not only complacent but in full support of Israel’s actions. Realistically needed to invade Israel is unlikely when we could simply stop funding them & arming them

8

A two state solution would have less likely chances due to a coalition being the wedge while offering an off ramp to Israel so that it wouldn’t come to an apocalyptic war.

-2

Anonymous #4 28w

We didn’t need to invade apartheid South Africa who was also a nuclear power. Instead after years of supporting them we finally divested & boycotted them which helped lead to many other countries doing the same

9

Keep in mind the hard right wing WANTS to decouple itself from United States backing and influence so they can take the gloves off with the Palestinians

-2

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 28w

Yeah, it’s why I tell you my assumptions, you comment with your beliefs…of which I was correct on…

-3

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

You literally weren’t though. You started yapping about government authoritarianism and shit and when I asked what you think I believe in you went quiet.

12

Anonymous #4 28w

South Africa is a weak analogy. Different conflict structure, different regional threats, and Israel is a nuclear state. Historical comparisons aren’t policy blueprints. I don’t disagree with conceptually stopping arms and funds going to Israel, but that’s a moral action, not a preventive one. That might wash our hands of being involved, but Israel would still keep doing what they’re doing, just with different backers. Europe? They’d most likely follow suit with us so not them.

-3

Anonymous #4 28w

Russia? Hard to say on their backing due to the war in Ukraine draining their resources. China is a more than likely backer of Israel possibly in regard to funds and small arms, but their approach is different than ours. I’m thinking geopolitics here, not simplying arguing on the definitions of whether this fits a genocide and if we’re complicit. I’m being a pragmatic consequentialist here.

-2

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

Again Apartheid South Africa was a nuclear power. Also how would Israel keep doing it & why would any large European power back them? The main reason that European powers back Israel is because they’re seen as an extension of U.S. so to go against Israelis to go against the U.S. If Israel is no longer an extension of the U.S. then they will lose support from most governments as well. Again same thing happened to apartheid South Africa many countries followed our lead

3

Anonymous #4 28w

Trying to be a pragmatic consequentialist for an apartheid country doing a genocide is insane work. Although the truly pragmatic approach is the one I mentioned before.

9

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 28w

I said the path to communism ALWAYS leads to authoritarian state-mandated socialism and was implying it never leaves that stage. You disagreed but never actually proved otherwise, which makes me think that in reality you’re someone who support a uniparty socialist government in practice. I don’t care about your utopian view on everyone being equal and not having any needs ever. I asked you to talk about the economics and conceptual policies of your ideology and you ran away.

-3

Anonymous #4 28w

Moral certainty is easy when you never have to account for consequences.

-3

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

What are the dire consequences of no longer financially & military aiding & protecting the apartheid state doing a genocide that I’m somehow over looking? Like what is the argument to keep aiding them?

12

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

No you didn’t though. You alleged, without basis, that I am a communist or support the “end state of communism” and called it good. I asked you to elaborate and you refused.

8

Anonymous #4 28w

Again, I said that the stoppage of arms and funding to Israel was fine, but wouldn’t STOP anything. The argument isn’t the aid. I’m not arguing to keep aid, I’m arguing that your point of stopping aid and funding would see the Israeli state collapse just like South Africa, of which wouldn’t require ground forces to go in. South Africa and Israel aren’t comparable. Yes, there were sanctions, but more importantly there were internal negotiations and a regime that was willing to bargain.

-1

Anonymous #4 28w

So if you think that it’s comparable to South Africa, the question is do you think the current Israeli government is willing to have internal negotiations and will bargain with the Palestinians?

-2

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

I obviously can’t say for 100% what the current government would do but I think taking away all of their support & protections would probably force them to negotiate like it helped force apartheid South Africa. Granted I guess you could argue that their leadership is suicidal but with 0 support & protections that’s what non negotiation would be

7

Anonymous #4 28w

That’s essentially what I’m trying to drive at and why South Africa isn’t like Israel. If you believe that Israel is a Zionist controlled state, then you have to wrap your head around what that means. It’s not just ethno-nationalism or fascism or whatever you want to call it….its belief. South Africa fell because it was in the truest sense a colonial project. Iran and Israel are conceptually similar nations because of their fanatical beliefs, not for any founding father or constituion.

-2

Anonymous #4 28w

I do appreciate you saying you’re not 100% though. It shows that you’re at least good enough faith that you understand the alternatives if what you believe doesn’t work despite disagreeing with me. I like a two-state solution because I believe it is the most likely to be achieved with the minimal amount of death but again…likely isn’t sure.

-1

Anonymous #4 28w

Apartheid South Africa primarily fought to preserve a racialized power structure and material privilege. Israel, rightly or wrongly, contains many actors who see the state itself as existential refuge, identity continuity, and collective survival. Those motivational structures are different, so the conflicts are not directly comparable.

-1

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

No problem & thank you. I try to remain good faith in my argument & understand that I can’t read minds or predict the future so it would be foolish of me to say something like certain actions by a foreign government is 100% guaranteed. Although we can use history & self preservation to make an educated guess. Although I don’t really get your point. I’ve so far have only advocated to completely abandon Israel which it seems you agree with. Yet you claimed my advocacy to 100% decouple from Israel

3

Anonymous #4 28w

Is a moral one that ignores huge consequences, yet again you said you agree on the actions I’m advocating for even if you disagree on the reasoning. You claiming make it seem like Israel’s leadership would be suicidal & prefer complete destruction of Israel rather than negotiating & giving the Palestinians fair & equal treatment. While I disagree agree with you on that although I could always be wrong & maybe they are at that place ideologically I’m not sure what the consensus would be to people

5

Anonymous #4 28w

Simply decoupling from Israel is only a moral victory to those who want nothing to do with it. From an American perspective, think America First types. They want to decouple from Israel not because they’re committing a genocide but because they’re isolationists and want nothing to do with Israel. They don’t care about Palestinians. My point is that decoupling doesn’t really stop the issue. A better comparison might be when Japan invaded China and we cut their oil off. It didn’t stop Japan.

-1

Anonymous #4 28w

Here in the United States. If Israel decides they would rather destroy themselves than extend fair & equal treatment to the Palestinians, I genuinely don’t see the negative consequences of U.S. not funding them & stopping the genocide they’re commenting

4

Anonymous #4 28w

Japan still had allies & wasn’t almost completely reliant on the U.S. so I don’t think we can compare Israel to imperial Japan

5

Anonymous #4 28w

My argument isn’t really that Israel would destroy itself if we cut off support, it’s that it would just simply find another backer like China or Russia. If we tried to intervene in a plan like what #3 wanted, which was a secular single state and had to dismantle their government by force,THEN that’s where what I was saying about Israel being suicidal would come into play.

-1

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

I really can’t see China or Russia taking our place as far is Israel is concerned. It would make 0 logic sense. Also I think a true 2 state solution would require an insane amount of blood shed more than a 1 state. Although you could argue that we currently have a 2 state solution

5

Anonymous #4 28w

I think the if we don’t do it China or Russia would is a non realistic & bad argument for a lot of the stuff we do

5

Anonymous #4 28w

We don’t really have one. Israel more or less enforces Gaza and the West Bank. True autonomy would be a true state. This is why I stated earlier that it would require both the US and Arab nations to jointly police the divide to ensure stability on both sides. I use China and Russia for the sake of argument. What I’m arguing is power vacuum/patron substitution. Someone fills the void and the genocide continues.

-1

Anonymous ___joker__ 28w

Yeah I know it’s not a true 2 state solution like I said that would require a lot of blood shed mainly Israeli blood. I believe 1 state would be better long term. Also support of Israel doesn’t really benefit China or Russia at this point hell it doesn’t even benefit us anymore. So I can’t see China or Russia just acting like us when it comes to Israel.

4