IttihadChe

I haven't been arguing against new slogans, I've been arguing in defense of existing slogans and pointing out that the slogans themselves aren't as flawed as you perceive, but that your perception of their flaws is a result of circumstances that would exist even if we changed the slogans.

From the River to the Sea being "essentially the same as 'destroy Israel'", is a perfect example of the attacks not ceasing if you get rid of "no right to defend itself" style language, it's possibly one of the most targeted slogans, but it says nothing in the negative of Israel/Israeli existence, only the positive of freedom for Palestine/Palestinians. The negative connotation is entirely fabricated away from the slogan and the same would happen to any other phrase created trying to tow the line.

If something can be improved by being phrased better it should be. I cannot see how anyone would consider making a slogan more precise to be failing somehow

I'm not against it as a 100% firm principle. I asked for your alternatives which fit your view for a reason, not just rhetorically. These slogans have been around for decades. Masses of people have rallied around these slogans in protest against Israel, they work. I'm arguing that a simple change of slogans will not win anyone over. The problem isn't these slogans, but it the institutional stance against what the slogans represent.

How did you get from “we should improve the slogan to be clearer” to “let’s fit inside the existing narrative”?

Because a slogan will always have enough ambiguity for them to propagandize against it, and they will do so, rendering that slogan now a "radical" slogan in the same vein as the current ones. The established powers will always work faster to discredit and muddy the slogan than you can clarify/clear it.

"Decolonize Palestine" would be met with the exact same arguments as "Israel has no right to exist".

"Free Palestine" is already treated as an "anti-Semitic dog whistle".

Ultimately: If you want to propose new, sanitized/clear slogans, absolutely feel free to so, do it here and if I find them compelling I might use them. Do it at a meeting of any action group you are a apart of and I'm sure they will do the same and/or also think of new slogans along those lines. If you are right and these new slogans are more effective, I'm sure they will grow. Otherwise, this isn't something that will be solved here. We are going to talk in circles.

Because the month is bigger and provides more context on it's own. You figure out the month first then place yourself within that scale.

Example:

"It's May (immediately tells us the context of 31days, spring, etc.) It is the 30th, so there's one day left in May"

Vs

"It's the 30th (provides no context except that it's not February). it's may, so there's one day left in May"

So both lead to the same conclusion, the first way just gives the limiting parameter/most context first.

Similar reasoning why the month is the primary separation on calendars.

Another example that follow this same principle, you tell time HH/mm to provide the larger context first, not mm/HH.

"nobody tells me what to do" - me when I look at a "ReadMe" file which perfectly explains the cause of the problem I end up having and having to try and fix

What is the alternative which wouldn't be warped by Zionist propaganda? They literally frame everything as a call for their destruction, the OP is them framing calls to stop directly arming their genocide as such.

"BLM" was met with "white lives don't matter?"

"Defund the police" was met with "so you want crime to run rampant?"

"Abolish ice" is met with "so you want open borders?"

"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is met with "so you want to genocide the Jews".

You don't combat this by simply switching language as your new choice will also be attacked in the same vein. Conceding on these fronts only serves to legitimize the framing Of the original message as extreme.

If we constantly shift to avoid their criticism, we will inevitably end at "all lives matter" and something like "Israel has a right to defend itself...but so does Palestine" (and even this would be ruthlessly attacked by Zionist propaganda).

Our goal is to transform/counter the narrative pushed from authority towards the masses (that Israel has the right to defend itself and what we are seeing is them enacting that right, the might just be going a little too far), towards what we believe (that settler colonial regimes have no such rights as they are inherently the aggressor and Palestinians deserve to live not under the boot of their oppression) not to fit inside of it.

We are to be "the vanguard", leading the masses towards a future of our making, not "the rearguard" focussed on following the masses towards wherever they march as led by borgious propaganda.

We do this by standing firm in our principles and making access to our way of understanding readily available to any who question from a position of good faith.

TLDR: They will attack and warp anything we say. We don't avoid this by constantly switching to something less radical, we fight against it via educating those willing to listen.

It doesn't sound like that to me at all? What about that phrase signals anything about the destruction of anything except the entity of Israel? Outside of the way it's propagandized against which would happen to any phrase.

Trump thought it stood for "Never Blue America" Youngboy

Hon hon hon itz tiem for de guillotine, zey took Mon cigarette

We don't have a lack of housing. We have a distribution problem. We can't just build infinitely, we need to redistribute.

Standard Linux mint is is Ubuntu based, LMDE is debian based. Completely different depending on the issues they had.

Edit: but also plenty of other Debian based distros, including Debian itself would avoid direct Ubuntu (Canonical) and Fedora (RedHat) influence.

There is a vast difference between a community driven project like Debian taking small contributions from people who happen to be in Israel/incorporating some things from RedHat after lots of vetting and diluting and Fedora being a direct upstream testing ground for RedHat who are the primary contributors and maintainers.

No, this type of approach will not lead to you throwing your PC in the trash, it will simply lead to you being more aware of your software and how it functions,what it contributes to, and what contributes to it. Which is a good thing imo.

For example, I use LMDE. Yes, there are most definitely contributions from redhat in my machine. the difference is between

RedHat engineers -> Fedora.

And

RedHat engineers -> Fedora -> Upstream Project acceptance-> Debian -> LMDE.

I'm not saying you need to stop using Fedora. But everyone draws a line somewhere and I'm simply making my knowledge on this known for people who's line may be in a similar place to mine.