this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
858 points (90.6% liked)

Political Memes

5444 readers
3576 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's a tough needle to thread

It really isn't as long as both parties are arguing in good faith and refraining from strawman arguments or other logical fallacies.

Sadly, even that is usually too much to ask for, as evidenced by your apparently good faith post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy of assuming that you can't argue that genocide of Palestinians is a bad thing without people agreeing with you by arguing that genocide of Israeli people would be super neat.

Of course, claiming that what other people say apart from agreeing with you that Palestinians shouldn't be murdered is the responsibility of you for some reason is in itself an association fallacy.

Come to think of it, ARE you arguing in good faith or are you just taking this chance to apply guilt by association without appearing to? 🤔

Anyway: NO it's NOT difficult to defend Palestinians without being antisemitic and benignly doing so does NOT make you responsible for antisemites agreeing with what you're saying and then adding a lot that you did NOT say.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It really isn't as long as both parties are arguing in good faith and refraining from strawman arguments or other logical fallacies.

How would you know? That's really my point. Antisemites are using this moment to inject their bigotey into the political discussion.

Come to think of it, ARE you arguing in good faith or are you just taking this chance to apply guilt by association without appearing to? 🤔

Case in point. I've called what Israel has been foing a genocide from the beginning. I think Netanyahu has committed crimes against humanity and should be deposed.

I also think Israel has a right to defend itself from Hamas, and a right to prosecute and root out terrorists.

For this, I have been called a bigot from both sides. And I completely understand, because you don't know if I'm a secret bigot trying to sound reasonable.

I'm not at all suggesting that it makes me responsible for the statements of bigots, nor am I suggesting that anyone else should feel guilty by association as ling as they are challenging the bigotry. If you march shoulder to shoulder with them then yes you are guilty by association. If you tap into their hatred to achieve your political goals, however benign your goals are, you are guilty by association.

And that's the hard part. I'm not suggesting it's hard not to be a bigot. It's hard to tell who is who from the sidelines.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Ok, that's true and fair. Glad to meet someone reasonable 😁