Oh for the love of god! What they’re saying that you’re not understanding is that if-
Providing arms to Israel = 1
Being a rapist = 2
Having 34 felony convictions = 3
“Dictator for a day” = 4
“Help Israel “finish the job” = 5
Project 2025 = 6
Abolishing body autonomy for women = 7
Abolishing the rights of the LGBTQ + = 8
Attacking American citizens with their own military = 9
And being able to execute people that he doesn’t like = 10
I have no confusion on the issue at all. I have understood that that was the point of the comparison from the start, but what I’ve been very clear on is that I’m not talking about the point of the comparison, I am talking about the appropriateness of comparing mass slaughter to getting “gently poked in the ribs” for any reason to make any point. Talking about the point of the comparison is the derailment.
Why don’t you try listening to what I’m saying instead of making assumptions about my criticism that have nothing to do with anything I said, and then condescending to me about how I’m “confused” and “failing to understand?” I have absolutely no confusion about the point, which again I understood from the beginning, but regardless of the point, comparing genocide to getting gently poked in the ribs is minimizing genocide. I don’t see how anyone could possibly disagree with that.
The person I responded to directly made that comparison, and at no point has even denied that they have. I have not “purposefully missed the point” I have been very clear about the nature of my criticism from the start, including the fact that it has nothing to do with the point of the comparison, only the comparison itself.
If you want to ban me for saying that an ongoing genocide shouldn’t ever be compared to getting gently poked in the ribs, if you think that position is “trolling” then go right ahead. All you’ll be doing is making an absolute mockery of yourself.
They explained their point to you many times. I stepped in to explain it to you as well. Yet you continue to argue even after you say you understood their point and that the intent isn’t to minimize the suffering in Palestine.
And I’ve explained to both you and them many times that the point is irrelevant. And you are completely ignoring that and continue talking about the point of the comparison, which is again, completely irrelevant to my actual criticism.
I wasn’t aware that saying it’s wrong to compare genocide to getting gently poked in the ribs was a bannable offense but I’ll be happy to spread the word for you if that’s the case. Do it or don’t, your threats mean nothing to me, because I’m obviously in the right and any reasonable person would agree the comparison is distasteful.
Imagine if you just lost your father, and I came up to you and said, “Hey, y’know, compared to the Holocaust, your dad dying is a walk in the park.” Regardless of whether the point of that comparison is valid or not, it is still clearly minimizing your loss in a way that is extremely disrespectful and inappropriate. There are Palestinians who are losing their loved ones every day, and it’s completely possible that some of them could be on Lemmy, seeing their loss getting compared to “getting gently poked in the ribs.” It’s bad enough that you think that comparison is acceptable, but to suggest that disagreeing with the appropriateness of that comparison is “trolling” and so unacceptable that it should be removed is completely beyond the pale.
Oh for the love of god! What they’re saying that you’re not understanding is that if-
Providing arms to Israel = 1
Being a rapist = 2
Having 34 felony convictions = 3
“Dictator for a day” = 4
“Help Israel “finish the job” = 5
Project 2025 = 6
Abolishing body autonomy for women = 7 Abolishing the rights of the LGBTQ + = 8
Attacking American citizens with their own military = 9
And being able to execute people that he doesn’t like = 10
…. Then:
• Harris = 1
• Trump = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
THIS IN NO WAY MINIMIZES ANYTHING.
Hopefully this can end your confusion and settle this derailment of the topic.
I have no confusion on the issue at all. I have understood that that was the point of the comparison from the start, but what I’ve been very clear on is that I’m not talking about the point of the comparison, I am talking about the appropriateness of comparing mass slaughter to getting “gently poked in the ribs” for any reason to make any point. Talking about the point of the comparison is the derailment.
Why don’t you try listening to what I’m saying instead of making assumptions about my criticism that have nothing to do with anything I said, and then condescending to me about how I’m “confused” and “failing to understand?” I have absolutely no confusion about the point, which again I understood from the beginning, but regardless of the point, comparing genocide to getting gently poked in the ribs is minimizing genocide. I don’t see how anyone could possibly disagree with that.
No one is comparing mass slaughter to being poked in the ribs. This has been explained to you.
Purposefully missing the point is a form of trolling. And it’s ends now.
The person I responded to directly made that comparison, and at no point has even denied that they have. I have not “purposefully missed the point” I have been very clear about the nature of my criticism from the start, including the fact that it has nothing to do with the point of the comparison, only the comparison itself.
If you want to ban me for saying that an ongoing genocide shouldn’t ever be compared to getting gently poked in the ribs, if you think that position is “trolling” then go right ahead. All you’ll be doing is making an absolute mockery of yourself.
They explained their point to you many times. I stepped in to explain it to you as well. Yet you continue to argue even after you say you understood their point and that the intent isn’t to minimize the suffering in Palestine.
This ends NOW.
And I’ve explained to both you and them many times that the point is irrelevant. And you are completely ignoring that and continue talking about the point of the comparison, which is again, completely irrelevant to my actual criticism.
I wasn’t aware that saying it’s wrong to compare genocide to getting gently poked in the ribs was a bannable offense but I’ll be happy to spread the word for you if that’s the case. Do it or don’t, your threats mean nothing to me, because I’m obviously in the right and any reasonable person would agree the comparison is distasteful.
Imagine if you just lost your father, and I came up to you and said, “Hey, y’know, compared to the Holocaust, your dad dying is a walk in the park.” Regardless of whether the point of that comparison is valid or not, it is still clearly minimizing your loss in a way that is extremely disrespectful and inappropriate. There are Palestinians who are losing their loved ones every day, and it’s completely possible that some of them could be on Lemmy, seeing their loss getting compared to “getting gently poked in the ribs.” It’s bad enough that you think that comparison is acceptable, but to suggest that disagreeing with the appropriateness of that comparison is “trolling” and so unacceptable that it should be removed is completely beyond the pale.