Did the people in the GDR vanish when the GDR didn't exist anymore? No, they didn't. So fuck off with this BS.

You made that comment with your interpretation, and someone agreed with that sentence on its own. How the fuck does this prove that "Death to X" can be interpreted as killing all people of X?

Die Verhinderung der Rettung von 5000 jüdischen Kindern und 80000 weiteren Jüd*innen aus Rumänien vor den Vernichtungslagern und die Aufstellung einer muslimischen SS-Division sind vollkommen verständliche antikoloniale Maßnahmen?

Davon rede ich doch gar nicht. Mir ging es erst mal um das opportunistische Verbünden mit den Achsenmächten an sich. Natürlich war er am Ende des Tages immer noch ein antisemitischer Vollidiot und seine spätere Rolle war nicht zu rechtfertigen, wie ich ja auch geschrieben habe (zugegeben, ich hätte diesen Punkt etwas deutlicher formulieren sollen).

Und ja, mir ist sehr klar dass du dich nur für die Zeit interessierst in der die Jüd*innen in die Lage gekommen sind sich zu wehren.

Ist doch auch logisch, dass ich mich für diese Zeit interessiere, da dies der relevante Zeitraum für den Konflikt mit den Palästinensern ist. Dass Juden in anderen Regionen der Welt unterdrückt wurden bestreite ich ja gar nicht und sich dagegen zu wehren ist ja auch absolut verständlich, aber das trifft eben nicht auf Palästinenser zu, die zu der Zeit seit Jahrhunderten kein wirkliches Problem mit den dort seit jeher lebenden und zugezogenen nicht-zionistischen Juden hatten. Wenn aber diese durch die Alijas immer mehr werdenden zugezogenen Menschen die lokale Bevölkerung im zionistischen Interesse eines exklusiv jüdischen Gebietes aus den Dörfern vertreiben und damit dieses Zusammenleben zunichte machen, ist es wenig verwunderlich, dass sie auf diese nicht gerade positiv zu sprechen sind. Für diesen historischen Kontext, der so ziemlich den Ursprung des aktuellen Konflikts darstellt, brauchen wir keinen wirklich größeren Zeitrahmen.

Die beiden Punkte wollte ich noch kurz klarstellen, dann können wir das Thema hier gerne auch wie gewünscht begraben.

Islamists may be fine with some civilian casualties, but I have no reason to believe that this is their main goal. Even the actual large scale attacks against the US so far (11-9) were directed towards the nation and its economy (WTC, pentagon, capitol) and not some random civilian hotspot. Then again, this wasn't simply a religiously motivated attack and not every Islamist is the same, some may be more extreme than others, but to me the past events and expressions that I know of have not shown a clear intent to kill all Americans. I don't think it's really an anarchist critique, just a critique against the countless atrocities committed by the American governments and a call for systematic change, as in "Tear America down, then rebuild it into something that can't just meddle in other countries politics and kill our people as it pleases".

The fact that "Deutschland verrecke" is coming from Germans doesn't change anything about the situation, because ironically this one is sometimes accompanied by a "Bomber Harris, do it again!", which actually is a call for killing civilians, coming from Germans themselves. But without the second slogan, I also wouldn't think that this is a call for killing all Germans, no matter if it's Germans or anyone else saying it.

I don't. And I'm in a lot of English subs.

Have you blocked some instances or communities? Because I know for a fact that discussions around this are a somewhat regular occurrence, even with the instances feddit.org is federated with, because I was able to see them as well when I was there. It may not discussed as much anymore as it was up to a year ago, but still occasionally flares up, IIRC it also came up again in the db0 thread about the vote for defederating feddit, but I may be wrong here.

The sentence could, for example, come straight from the neo-Nazi scene.

Unlikely. Neo-nazis may be against Jews, but they're generally very pro-Israel. Which is only logical, because ethno-nationalism is kinda their thing, and "better have the Jews over there than here with us". Just take a look at right-wing and literal Nazi Twitter accounts and take a shot every time you see an Israel flag in their name or bio. You'll probably pass out drunk in just 5-10 minutes.

However, Feddit.org is not a left-wing, but rather a general instance like lemmy.world. I am also relatively certain that the sentence would be moderated away on lemmy.world as well.

It still has an overwhelmingly left-leaning user base but yeah, fair point. And lemmy.world is the pinnacle of liberal garbage, so wouldn't surprise me. Still, there are a lot of instances that are general-purpose or focused on other non-political topics without misunderstanding this slogan.

Yes, your previous poster claims that deleting and prohibiting such posts is “policing anti-apartheid ethnostate press against a current active genocidal state.”

They're not wrong. Of course there are more objective ways to go about this, but that doesn't change the fact that moderating such posts is useless policing (hint: "policing" doesn't mean "not allowing one side to post at all") against a side objecting to genocide and the existence of settler-colonial ethnostates. And if you're so sure that it's not a zionist instance, you could try voicing the opinion on Feddit that Israel shouldn't and doesn't have the unquestionable right to exist. I'm very curious if this more neutral way of saying it with no ambiguity about the killing of civilians will get removed. If it will be, which I'm almost certain about, it's a zionist instance. But I'm open to be proven wrong.

And sorry for slightly leaving the discussion at hand here, but with a societal, online and media landscape that has basically no issue with supporting Israel and the IDF or even being in favor of supplying (more) weapons to Israel, which has the known implication of more bloodshed in the real world, happening right now where thousands of innocent civilians, many of them children, are dying every month, we're seriously making a fuzz about a slogan that simply calls for the dissolution of a state at best, and is ambiguous to the political illiterates at worst? This is insane, and I mean this in the literal way.

Die größeren systemischen Vertreibungen der Juden fanden vor ~2000 bis ~1000 Jahren hauptsächlich durch die Römer statt, und sind damit für die heutige Zeit nicht wirklich relevant und auch nicht direkt den Palästinensern zuzuschreiben. Spätestens seit der aus der Schlacht von Mardsch Dabiq 1516 resultierenden Übernahme des Gebietes durch das osmanische Reich haben zudem alle wieder relativ friedlich zusammenleben können, und das funktionierte so auch für mindestens 400 Jahre, natürlich nur so lange bis die Europäer (im Speziellen Franzosen und hauptsächlich Briten) diesen Fortschritt wieder zunichte machten.

Chefs (ich vermute du meinst al-Husseini) und die allgemeine palästinensische Unterstützung für die Axenmächte war demnach eine erst einmal verständliche, wenn auch nicht völlig zu rechtfertigende opportunistische Folge im Widerstand gegen britische Kolonialherrschaft. Damit die Vertreibung der Palästinenser auch nur im Ansatz zu begründen ist sehr gewagt. Nach der Logik hätten die Palästinenser jetzt auch jedes Recht dazu, sich Teile Großbritanniens einzuverleiben.

Mir geht es wie gesagt um die für diesen Konflikt relevanten letzten ~100 Jahre, da muss man nichts bis zum heute irrelevanten Jerusalemer Tempel zurückspielen.

Wenn man jedes kleinste historische Ereignis bis in die Antike analysieren möchte mag es viel komplizierter wirken, für den heutigen Konflikt ist es das aber in Wirklichkeit nicht.

It's not a good sign for a political slogan if you have to read the fine print to get the right interpretation.

Do you read the fine print for "Deutschland verrecke" or "Death to America" as well, or does that only apply when it comes to Israel?

You're also overestimating how many people are actually confronted with something like this. That's why very few people will have heard about the clarification of this slogan.

We're on Lemmy, which means unless you limit yourself to just the local feddit.org feed (and I know for a fact that the typical zionists on feddit don't), you get confronted with this on a fairly regular basis. And you wouldn't need any clarification if you knew how to fucking read. Israel ≠ Israelis, it's literally that simple.

I can understand why the mods delete such content tbh.

I can't. We're on a federated platform with an international community, which made it clear countless times that "Death to Israel" does not refer to killing all the Israelis/Jews in the world, often even explicitly speaking out against this. Considering that most Feddit users are proficient in English, especially admins/mods and those I've seen to misinterpret this slogan, I refuse to believe that they don't know this by now. And somehow this (along with the absolute clusterfuck of Anti-Germans) is almost an exclusively German issue, because the rest of the international Left understands just fine what this slogan means.

If you think that the only way to speak out against a current active genocidal state is to write “Death to Israel,” then that's not just pathetic, it's childish.

Nobody claims that this is the only way, but considering that the existence of Israel as its own state to this day prevents and more than likely will continue to prevent peaceful coexistence, it's a justified one. Is it pathetic and childish? Maybe, but much less so than misinterpreting it to fit your narrative.

Unless you forget to bind your torrent client to the VPN interface. Found that out the hard way and had to pay 600 € for like 10 seconds of accidental seeding, and that was after negotiating with the law firm, else it would have been around 1k €. So yeah, the commenter above was not kidding with torrenting in Germany being dangerous, even the slightest error in your setup can be pretty expensive. Now I only use i2p torrents to be on the really safe side, and also because I want to see the network grow.

And that's why I was wondering if the question was asked verbatim. Stallman doesn't seem to know what the word means either.

I don't get what's supposed to be so controversial about the first part, though. Many countries already have their age of consent somewhere around 14, often including Romeo and Juliet laws (i.e. not indiscriminately), so not really an unpopular take, and I can't say I disagree with him there.

"We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing." [...] When a person on the email chain noted that the girl was 17 at the time, and that sex with a minor is statutory rape, Stallman replied, "I think it is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17."

Seems logical. The real issue in her case was human trafficking, which is illegal irrespective of age.

edit: jeez, that's a lot of pedophiles we have here on lemmy. you sick f.cks carefully choose fraction of the quotes i presented and try to spin it and you are not good at it.

Funny how you criticised ad hominem attacks in another comment, while resorting to the same tactic. And yeah, pedophiles are everywhere, including Lemmy, so what? Then again, I don't see any around here.

he also uses term "voluntarily pedophilia", pedophilia is when adult person is attacted to kid.

Correct. Though "voluntary pedophilia" is a nonsensical term.

and there is no such thing as vuluntary pedophilia because the kid cannot give informed consent.

Incorrect. There is no such thing as voluntary pedophilia because pedophilia only refers to the attraction, which not a choice. What you mean is simply "there is no such thing as (voluntary) consent by children".

whatever is in your heads guys, please know it is not acceptable for adult man to fuck a kid younger than 14 years, under any circumstances.

I don't see anyone here making the claim that it is.

Precisely what I meant, thank you. People seem to have troubles differentiating between thoughts and actions when it comes to paraphilias.

You're going beyond the meaning of the word. Pedophilia is just the attraction itself, there can't be anything okay or not okay with it, it just is. That's like asking "Is psychopathy okay?". There's no answer for asking if the state of something is okay or not okay, because like I said, it just is.

To be fair, the question (if it was asked verbatim) doesn't even make sense. Pedophilia can't really be okay or not okay, it just is.

A Roadmap for a modern Plasma Login Manager