Pro-Palestinian does not equal anti-Semitism; your thoughts?

[Lexi of the Dawn]

"I already said I do"

He's referring to something he said before. What he said before was that he doesn't support their actions. Lack of support isn't condemnation.

I dunno, it's pretty clear to me that the implication of this quote

You can be pro Palestinian and condemn Hamas at the same time. Its not that wild of an idea.

coupled with his earlier statement is that this is his take, i.e. he condemns Hamas but supports Palestine and acknowledges that there are different layers to the stances on this. We're all discussing the nuance of what different elements make up the idea of "condemnation" but you seem to have this idea that it's some kind of black or white "do you condemn or do you not" thing.

Is it the phrasing of it as "you can" that's tripping you up? Like would it be clearer to you if he had said "I can be pro Palestinian and condemn Hamas at the same time"?

[Lucem Ferre]

I don't think you understand what condemnation means mate.

Okay.

Do you condemn Ukraine?

[jimmy jazz]

You're assuming that's his position and it could well be but it isn't what he said.

[Lucem Ferre]

You're assuming that's his position and it could well be but it isn't what he said.

Yes. Everybody but you is wrong here.

[Lexi of the Dawn]

I think he did say it, he just used the phrasing he did to emphasize the nuance. I dunno if it's a huge ask to read between the lines.

[Lucem Ferre]

Do you condemn Insane Clown Posse?

[jimmy jazz]

I think he did say it, he just used the phrasing he did to emphasize the nuance. I dunno if it's a huge ask to read between the lines.

You're assuming it though. He said it's possible to do both not that he himself holds both positions. I already know it's possible to do both. That wasn't the question I was asking.

The whole thing could have just been done if he'd have answered clearly like when I made my position on Israel clear after he hinted yet again that I'm a Zionist.

Would you honestly say I've condemned Trump if you asked me to condemn him and I replied that I didn't support policy x or policy y? Would that be enough for you?

[Lucem Ferre]

You're assuming it though. He said it's possible to do both not that he himself holds both positions. I already know it's possible to do both. That wasn't the question I was asking.

The whole thing could have just been done if he'd have answered clearly like when I made my position on Israel clear after he hinted yet again that I'm a Zionist.

Would you honestly say I've condemned Trump if you asked me to condemn him and I replied that I didn't support policy x or policy y? Would that be enough for you?

He didn't say that. He said he didn't support their actions as a whole.

It's like saying "I don't support Trump's actions" rather than "I don't support these specific actions Trump did".

The first statement is a fair thing to infer they don't support Trump from especially when they follow up with a "I already said I condemn Trump".

It's fairly clear to me.

But what is not clear is whether or not you condemn Insane Clown Posse.

[Auroras In Ice]

DJ said he thinks it was a staged attack to claim Palestine protestors are pro-Hamas so I thought I'd ask him if he condemns Hamas.

Not sure what's wrong with that.

You're using the exact same bad faith convoluted rhetorical games that Piers Morgan uses to twist appropriately nuanced views on the role of Hamas as a resistance group to say "well that doesn't sound like a strong enough condemnation to me" that carries an implied accusation that someone is actually aligned with a big scary terrorist group or not sufficiently distinguishing themselves apart in order to cast suspicion. While this tactic may unfortunately work for media figures like Piers Morgan playing for his audience, nobody really gives a damn about meeting your personal standard of what constitutes an appropriate level of "condemnation", especially when it eschews any sort of nuanced consideration and shoehorns everything into this or that box. While 1:1 analogues don't really exist, this game can be played with damned near any resistance group.

Let's flip this game around for a sec. You've said you 100% condemn Israel as an occupying force committing a genocide, yet you seem to be preoccupied with denouncing the only group militantly resisting these atrocities. The use of militant resistance to a belligerent occupying force from the oppressed party is both sanctioned and encouraged under international law. Hrrrmmmm, to me it doesn't sound like you really oppose Israel's occupation and genocide and by not supporting militant resistance to Israel's occupation and genocide you don't support international law enough to me. Suspicious! Do I actually believe this? No, I take you at your word on your views on Israel's occupation and assume there's some level of nuance behind your reasoning. 

[jimmy jazz]

Well no, you take me at my word because that is what I said. The scenario you gave isn't even close to being the same.

[Buck_Mulligan]

A circular firing squad, going round in circles. No good can come from it.

[Auroras In Ice]

Well no, you take me at my word because that is what I said. The scenario you gave isn't even close to being the same.

That's exactly my point, though. It doesn't have to be the same scenario. It's the same bad faith rhetorical tactics you're using on others, only flipped around to twist your own words around against you and cast false doubt on what you said.

[jimmy jazz]

That's exactly my point, though. It doesn't have to be the same scenario. It's the same bad faith rhetorical tactics you're using on others, only flipped around to twist your own words around against you and cast false doubt on what you said.

It isn't the same and it isn't 'bad faith', you just want it to be that and are overcomplicating it.

I'm not assuming DJ supports Hamas. I don't think he does. I would bet a lot of money that he doesn't. But the question was whether he said he condemned them or not and he didn't, he just said he doesn't "support their actions".

If I said I didn't support the actions of the KKK, would you say I've condemned the KKK? If I were asked to condemn the UVF or the UDA (I am also a Unionist) I would say I 100% unequivocally and entirely condemn them.

[DJChameleon]

You're assuming it though. He said it's possible to do both not that he himself holds both positions. I already know it's possible to do both. That wasn't the question I was asking.

The whole thing could have just been done if he'd have answered clearly like when I made my position on Israel clear after he hinted yet again that I'm a Zionist.

Would you honestly say I've condemned Trump if you asked me to condemn him and I replied that I didn't support policy x or policy y? Would that be enough for you?

You are arguing semantics and being disingenuous as usual. You also know that I didn't call you a Zionist. I said you are parroting their talking points. We already cleared this up months ago that you aren't a zio but you still use their talking points consistently as if it makes your argument stronger.

You know this is a nuanced topic. How did everyone else understand but you?

[Lucem Ferre]

Do you condemn Hamas?

Do you condemn Insane Clown Posse?