Political Memes

North Korea claims the same.

this is actually not true, like at all.

They're called the "democratic peoples republic of korea" Likewise, the "PRC" is "peoples republic of china" which is, closer to being true, but not true.

Israel is called "israel" hmmm. Yeah no this one doesn't follow. If we're arguing semantic technicalities here, yeah sure it's a republic, and not a democratic system, but that's just a democratic system with one extra step

“I’m reiterating that I can’t address any of the proof of Israel massacring children, torturing and raping people, because I’d make my dad angry. But despite me denying the torture, rape, child massacre, forced transfer, etc, I’m actually not denying any reality at all.”

hmm, funny, i dont remember saying that, point me to where i said that specifically?

So you don’t think Israel massacres children or rapes and tortures people?

bro literally every country in the world does this, even by fucking proxy. Serial killers live everywhere

Even fucking japan. Just look back at ww2 history and see what they were up to at the time.

You won’t be able to take a side, on anything.

you really shouldn't take a side on anything. Taking a side on everything is a sign of weakness and societal conformance.

. You do. You can’t engage with it, because you know what the truth of the situation is. You know that I have dozens of links to UN high office reports and the only thing you can actually answer with is “b-b-b-b-b-but Hamas!”

I don't and cool mischaracterization of my quote btw. Very slimy. Again, i have nothing to say regarding the material, because it's all fucking legal paperwork, none of which says much of anything regarding substance in relation to the conflict here. I have yet to find a single fucking case, of anything you've linked directly corroborating what you've said.

You say something, and then link a block quote as a source, and it doesn't even fucking backup what you're saying.

Have you heard about “whataboutism”?

my friend from the city under water. You have literally accused me of denying genocide, and derided me from the very first fucking comment i made. With every fucking comment you've said you started with "you genocide defending fucks make me sick to my stomach"

Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood.

Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation

oops.

I would not suggest such a thing were it not for the Whatabouts. These are the people who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the "enemy", and therefore the justice of the Provisionals' cause: "What about Bloody Sunday, internment, torture, force-feeding, army intimidation?". Every call to stop is answered in the same way: "What about the Treaty of Limerick; the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921; Lenadoon?". Neither is the Church immune: "The Catholic Church has never supported the national cause. What about Papal sanction for the Norman invasion; condemnation of the Fenians by Moriarty; Parnell?"

oh no, even the relevant quote literally supports what i fucking say. I have not once said that hamas is worse than israel, or that israel is worse than hamas.

In 1978, Australian journalist Michael Bernard wrote a column in The Age applying the term whataboutism to the Soviet Union's tactics of deflecting any criticism of its human rights abuses. Merriam-Webster details that "the association of whataboutism with the Soviet Union began during the Cold War. As the regimes of [Joseph] Stalin and his successors were criticized by the West for human rights atrocities, the Soviet propaganda machine would be ready with a comeback alleging atrocities of equal reprehensibility for which the West was guilty."

oh no, yet another proper example of a whataboutism.

then reiterate what they say

i already have, they say that there is reasonable grounds for israel to have been, or to commit genocide. Likewise, there is supporting evidence of "war crimes" being committed.

You won’t though, because you’re a genocide denier and actually admitting any of those criteria of genocide is just something you’re not capable of doing. Utterly brainwashed.

oops you did the thing you werent supposed to.

Oh you’re denying that Israel is guilty of anything, just alleged to have been doing naughty things? I’m shocked. Yeah, that’s exactly the point of this whole thread. You’re a pathetic defender of crimes against humanity because you’re too much of a pussy to take the stand you know is the moral one, because you have relationships with people whom you’re not brave enough to disagree with.

you: "i believe that the sky is blue"

me: "yeah but it depends on how we define believe, and how we define blue, along with how we classify the concept of "seeing" color."

you: "well you're just a fucking retard who doesn't understand how perception works, you must be denying the concept of blue existing in its entirety"

i'm disagreeing with the shitty way you word your statements, and then reconstructing them to provide my answer to what that question realistically should be.

And to be clear here, you very subtly diverged from using the term "war crimes" and transitioned into using "crimes against humanity" Which are two VERY different things. We agree that there are war crimes taking place. You keep trying to semantically undermine my statements and arguments so that you can say "i agree with you" even though it makes me look hypocritical, specifically through the mechanism of silent semantic corrections. Arguably this is equivocation, because you're subtly stating that war crimes = crimes against humanity.

There’s not enough money in this world for me to go and read the brainfarts of a person like you.

yet you've done it, again, and again, and again, and again. For some reason you keep fucking responding to me, even though you just keep digging yourself a deeper hole for me to classify your argumentative mechanisms into.

you also keep (amusingly) accusing me of being too frail to simply, make my own decision, even though literally all you do is (incorrectly) reiterate what other people have said. Have you been to gaza? Or israel? No? That's weird.