Lmao wow that's so punk
If we limited our speech to what was legally permissible we wouldn't need opsec to begin with, genius.
"The safest way to use dissenting speech is to not" lol
anarchiddy
joined 6 months ago
And if you do such a bad job that it is easy to guess your sockpuppet accounts then that is really a failure in opsec on your side
Wouldn't be opsec at all if I kept more than one account active at a time or expressed the same views and opinions. You'd probably not have a risk of german prosecution if you and your moderators made use of a similar practice - which is why it's funny that you gave yourself that attribute
I have a hard time believing you care about opsec if you think rotating across accounts is a bannable offense.
Id suggest the same to you.
"From the river to the sea" isn't a slogan of genocide, it's a slogan of the type of liberation we've been discussing.
If you can't see the harm that law causes then I don't know what else to tell you.
Israel is by its very construction an entho-nationalist state. I don't simply advocate for freedom of religion, I advocate for the abolishing of all Jewish supremacist structures that makes up its government.
In my opinion it would no longer be recognizable as modern Israel, but they could keep the name if they'd like.
Then what is even the point of this rule? If historical Palestine becomes a single secular state with equal rights for all, and Israel ceases to exist as a Jewish state, then I'd be free to say 'fuck yea let's do that'?
by your logic if the only response to one genocide is another genocide, then yes that is also pro-genocide
Yea, see this is the antisemitic version of zionism. Advocating for the liberation of Palestine isn't the same as advocating for a genocide or expulsion of Jews in Israel. It would be like saying WWII was ultimately a genocide of germans, since they were violently resisted in their conquest of Europe.
Yes, the resistance against genocide will almost certainly involve violence - that doesn't mean that advocating for resistance isn't justified, or even that advocating for violent resistance isn't justified. WWII would have been really short if we had rhetorically 'opposed' the holocaust, but banned any speech that even implied violence against Germans (including violent liberation to stop an active genocide).
“Zionism is a settler-colonial ideology, and Israel should become a state that provides equal rights for Palestinians”
Except the moderation rule feddit has implemented does not allow for this statement, unless you specifically say that jews deserve equal rights in a single-state solution - which is similar to those who respond to 'black lives matter' by saying 'but all lives matter'. Saying 'Palestinians deserve equal rights' wouldn't be necessary if equal rights were already afforded them, and the point of making that statement is to draw attention to the fact that they currently aren't
This singular and persistent focus on the destruction of the (unfortunatly) already existing state of Israel, really makes it likely that many people rather use that as a dogwistle for antisemitism.
Nobody who is advocating for Palestinian liberation uses the word "destroy" or 'destruction' when referring to the dissolution of Israel - I only ever see those words used by people trying to make this inference between anti-zionism and antisemitism. The only people who take statements of liberation as a threat against Jews are people who are collaborating or benefiting from the oppression Israel conducts in their name.
How dare we ignore the trauma of those committing violent oppression?!
there is a very specific legal reason for that
A misguided or intentionally malicious reason, for what the effect of that law is. Codifying into law the conflation of Judaism/ethnic Jewish identity with zionism is itself antisemitic. Calling for the end of Zionism isn't the same as calling for the end of Jews or Judaism. What is the use of being allowed to criticize Zionism the ideology when you're not also allowed to advocate for its end?
"Zionism is a settler-colonial ideology." <- Ok "Zionism is a settler-colonial ideology, and Israel as a Zionist project should be dissolved in favor of a single-state that provides equal rights for Palestinians" <- Not ok, somehow?
The law as written only allows abstract and dissociated critique of Zionism, but forbids any criticism that comes too close to threatening Israel's existence as a ethno-nationalist state. That's a huge problem.
No, not when paired with zionist apologia. It would be like saying 'The nazis are committing genocide, but they still have a right to exist". The net outcome of the two statements is barely more than a finger wag.
Isreal must be stopped at all costs, including the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish state if necessary.