Left Party MP expelled from German parliament for wearing Palestine t-shirt
-
Well, you almost sounded reasonable. If Muslims conquering Palestine and establishing a colony is not "occupation" in your eyes, but Jews conquering Palestine and establishing a colony is "occupation", then it seems like you're just back at antisemitism again. There is no such thing as a legitimate claim to land ownership; all such claims are backed by past acts of violence or the threat of future violence. The Muslims are no more legitimate occupiers of the land than the Jews are, but they are the ones to establish the precedent of conquering lands and taking them for themselves. If you're willing to condemn conquest and territorial occupation when it's done by Jews, but you're not willing to condemn conquest and territorial occupation when it's done by Muslims, then it's clear that your issue is not with conquest and occupation at all, but with Jews.
Lol, you really would love to put me in that pigeonhole, wouldn't you?
There are multiple historical and category errors in your paragraph, but I honestly don't have time to unpack them. Here's some AI slop:
This paragraph is riddled with historical inaccuracies and category errors. It's rhetorically forceful, but its logic collapses under scrutiny. Let’s take it apart piece by piece:
1. Historical Error: Claiming Muslims “established a colony” in Palestine
Why it’s wrong:
The use of the term “colony” to describe early Muslim rule in Palestine projects a modern, colonial framework onto a 7th-century geopolitical reality. Islam spread to Palestine in the 630s under the Rashidun Caliphate, not as a settler-colonial project like European colonization of the Americas or Africa, but through imperial conquest typical of the era (just like the Byzantines or Sassanids). The inhabitants—mostly Christian and Jewish—remained, and conversions were gradual and often voluntary over centuries.Key distinction: Colonization (especially settler colonialism) is a modern concept involving displacement and replacement of populations, not just conquest or rule. There is no evidence that early Muslim rulers displaced the existing population or claimed to have “discovered” the land.
2. Category Error: Equating Ancient Conquest with Modern Settler Colonialism
Why it’s wrong:
This is like comparing Alexander the Great’s campaigns to British imperialism in India. Conquest in the pre-modern world (Roman, Islamic, Ottoman) didn’t operate by the ideological or demographic logic of settler colonialism. The modern Zionist project, by contrast, involves organized immigration, settlement building, and a nation-state formation model derived from 19th–20th century European nationalism and colonialism.Bottom line: Not all conquest is settler colonialism. Equating all land acquisition through violence across time ignores the historical development of concepts like state sovereignty, nationalism, and colonization.
3. Historical Error: “Muslims...are the ones to establish the precedent of conquering lands”
Why it’s wrong:
Laughably ahistorical. The idea that Muslims invented conquest is absurd. The Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and countless others practiced conquest millennia before Islam existed. Empires rose and fell through conquest for thousands of years—it's as old as human civilization.This is like saying Apple invented the phone.
4. Category Error: Treating “Muslims” and “Jews” as Coherent, Timeless Political Actors
Why it’s wrong:
This is an essentialist flattening of history. “Muslims” aren’t a monolith across time any more than “Jews” are. Conflating religious identity with political actors across centuries obscures the real historical agents: empires, states, and specific movements. The Rashidun Caliphate is not equivalent to Hamas or Palestinian nationalism. Likewise, biblical Israelites are not interchangeable with the Zionist movement.Religious identity ≠ political continuity.
5. Philosophical/Political Error: “There is no such thing as a legitimate claim to land ownership”
Why it’s wrong:
This is an extreme Hobbesian or anarchist position—but the author then inconsistently tries to morally evaluate conquest, saying it’s hypocritical to oppose it only in one case. If all claims are illegitimate because they're rooted in violence, then none can be morally judged on differential grounds.You can’t reject the legitimacy of all land claims and then accuse someone of selective outrage about land ownership. That’s self-defeating.
6. False Dilemma and Accusation of Antisemitism
Why it’s wrong:
The final rhetorical move—accusing critics of Israel of antisemitism if they don’t also criticize 7th-century Islamic conquests—is both a category error and a false equivalence. It implies that modern political critique must be retroactively applied to ancient empires or it's invalid. That’s not how political ethics work.You can criticize modern settler colonialism without needing to condemn the Rashidun Caliphate. Just like you can oppose Putin's invasion of Ukraine without dragging in the Mongol Empire.
The Bigger Picture:
This paragraph doesn’t just stumble over history. It weaponizes bad history and flawed logic to shut down critique. It uses false equivalences and essentialism to conflate ancient empires with modern states and religious groups with political projects. This isn't just poor reasoning—it’s ideologically loaded misdirection.
In short:
- It’s historically ignorant.
- Philosophically confused.
- Politically manipulative.
And ultimately, it tries to smear legitimate political critique under the guise of fighting antisemitism—ironically cheapening real struggles against actual antisemitism in the process.
-
Lol, you really would love to put me in that pigeonhole, wouldn't you?
There are multiple historical and category errors in your paragraph, but I honestly don't have time to unpack them. Here's some AI slop:
This paragraph is riddled with historical inaccuracies and category errors. It's rhetorically forceful, but its logic collapses under scrutiny. Let’s take it apart piece by piece:
1. Historical Error: Claiming Muslims “established a colony” in Palestine
Why it’s wrong:
The use of the term “colony” to describe early Muslim rule in Palestine projects a modern, colonial framework onto a 7th-century geopolitical reality. Islam spread to Palestine in the 630s under the Rashidun Caliphate, not as a settler-colonial project like European colonization of the Americas or Africa, but through imperial conquest typical of the era (just like the Byzantines or Sassanids). The inhabitants—mostly Christian and Jewish—remained, and conversions were gradual and often voluntary over centuries.Key distinction: Colonization (especially settler colonialism) is a modern concept involving displacement and replacement of populations, not just conquest or rule. There is no evidence that early Muslim rulers displaced the existing population or claimed to have “discovered” the land.
2. Category Error: Equating Ancient Conquest with Modern Settler Colonialism
Why it’s wrong:
This is like comparing Alexander the Great’s campaigns to British imperialism in India. Conquest in the pre-modern world (Roman, Islamic, Ottoman) didn’t operate by the ideological or demographic logic of settler colonialism. The modern Zionist project, by contrast, involves organized immigration, settlement building, and a nation-state formation model derived from 19th–20th century European nationalism and colonialism.Bottom line: Not all conquest is settler colonialism. Equating all land acquisition through violence across time ignores the historical development of concepts like state sovereignty, nationalism, and colonization.
3. Historical Error: “Muslims...are the ones to establish the precedent of conquering lands”
Why it’s wrong:
Laughably ahistorical. The idea that Muslims invented conquest is absurd. The Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and countless others practiced conquest millennia before Islam existed. Empires rose and fell through conquest for thousands of years—it's as old as human civilization.This is like saying Apple invented the phone.
4. Category Error: Treating “Muslims” and “Jews” as Coherent, Timeless Political Actors
Why it’s wrong:
This is an essentialist flattening of history. “Muslims” aren’t a monolith across time any more than “Jews” are. Conflating religious identity with political actors across centuries obscures the real historical agents: empires, states, and specific movements. The Rashidun Caliphate is not equivalent to Hamas or Palestinian nationalism. Likewise, biblical Israelites are not interchangeable with the Zionist movement.Religious identity ≠ political continuity.
5. Philosophical/Political Error: “There is no such thing as a legitimate claim to land ownership”
Why it’s wrong:
This is an extreme Hobbesian or anarchist position—but the author then inconsistently tries to morally evaluate conquest, saying it’s hypocritical to oppose it only in one case. If all claims are illegitimate because they're rooted in violence, then none can be morally judged on differential grounds.You can’t reject the legitimacy of all land claims and then accuse someone of selective outrage about land ownership. That’s self-defeating.
6. False Dilemma and Accusation of Antisemitism
Why it’s wrong:
The final rhetorical move—accusing critics of Israel of antisemitism if they don’t also criticize 7th-century Islamic conquests—is both a category error and a false equivalence. It implies that modern political critique must be retroactively applied to ancient empires or it's invalid. That’s not how political ethics work.You can criticize modern settler colonialism without needing to condemn the Rashidun Caliphate. Just like you can oppose Putin's invasion of Ukraine without dragging in the Mongol Empire.
The Bigger Picture:
This paragraph doesn’t just stumble over history. It weaponizes bad history and flawed logic to shut down critique. It uses false equivalences and essentialism to conflate ancient empires with modern states and religious groups with political projects. This isn't just poor reasoning—it’s ideologically loaded misdirection.
In short:
- It’s historically ignorant.
- Philosophically confused.
- Politically manipulative.
And ultimately, it tries to smear legitimate political critique under the guise of fighting antisemitism—ironically cheapening real struggles against actual antisemitism in the process.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Lmao, thanks ChatGPT, I'm glad you have a well-reasoned perspective you've investigated thoroughly and you're not just repeating what some machine has told you to think. You'd really love to draw the kinds of distinctions your AI has made for you, but they're similarly predicated on making arbitrary distinctions between identical concepts in order to denigrate the Jews. That's the kind of logical flaw a human might be able to recognize, if you take the time to think things though. At least have enough self respect to come up with your own thoughts next time; using AI to argue for you is intellectually dishonest, pathetically lazy, and only serves to reveal that you neither understand nor actually believe the nonsense you're parroting.
-
Lmao, thanks ChatGPT, I'm glad you have a well-reasoned perspective you've investigated thoroughly and you're not just repeating what some machine has told you to think. You'd really love to draw the kinds of distinctions your AI has made for you, but they're similarly predicated on making arbitrary distinctions between identical concepts in order to denigrate the Jews. That's the kind of logical flaw a human might be able to recognize, if you take the time to think things though. At least have enough self respect to come up with your own thoughts next time; using AI to argue for you is intellectually dishonest, pathetically lazy, and only serves to reveal that you neither understand nor actually believe the nonsense you're parroting.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I repeatedly responded to your snark with good faith argumentation and nuanced political distinctions. You responded with mockery, moving goalpoasts (somehow you started talking about the Arab conquests), personal insults, spurious accusations of antisemitism and zero engagement with the actual content of my writing. You repeatedly dismissed nuance, equated critique with bigotry, and refused to acknowledge basic historical distinctions. It is clear you aren't arguing in good faith, and all you're trying to do is validate your preconceived idea that anyone criticizing Israel has to "deep down" be an antisemite. AI slop is all the answer you deserve. Enjoy your echo chamber.
-
I repeatedly responded to your snark with good faith argumentation and nuanced political distinctions. You responded with mockery, moving goalpoasts (somehow you started talking about the Arab conquests), personal insults, spurious accusations of antisemitism and zero engagement with the actual content of my writing. You repeatedly dismissed nuance, equated critique with bigotry, and refused to acknowledge basic historical distinctions. It is clear you aren't arguing in good faith, and all you're trying to do is validate your preconceived idea that anyone criticizing Israel has to "deep down" be an antisemite. AI slop is all the answer you deserve. Enjoy your echo chamber.
As soon as you resorted to AI, it was clear that you were not interested in discussion or debate, you're only interested in pushing the same tired antisemitic narrative, and you're incredibly lazy about it. You have such little conviction in what you're saying that you had to resort to canned replies provided by some machine that thinks for you, not only undermining everything you say, but also revealing what a sad, desperate sort of person is actually fighting so fiercely from behind the safety of a keyboard. Now you're tucking tail and running, claiming that it's actually your opponent who's acting badly, when you have demonstrated repeatedly that you're not really a serious interlocutor. It's a classic fascist technique: avoid having to admit that your position is flawed by pretending that the game is unfair and rigged against you. Enjoy your sad little life, you pathetic little Nazi.
-
As soon as you resorted to AI, it was clear that you were not interested in discussion or debate, you're only interested in pushing the same tired antisemitic narrative, and you're incredibly lazy about it. You have such little conviction in what you're saying that you had to resort to canned replies provided by some machine that thinks for you, not only undermining everything you say, but also revealing what a sad, desperate sort of person is actually fighting so fiercely from behind the safety of a keyboard. Now you're tucking tail and running, claiming that it's actually your opponent who's acting badly, when you have demonstrated repeatedly that you're not really a serious interlocutor. It's a classic fascist technique: avoid having to admit that your position is flawed by pretending that the game is unfair and rigged against you. Enjoy your sad little life, you pathetic little Nazi.
Ah and there it is. You've been itching all along to call me that. Reported.
-
Ah and there it is. You've been itching all along to call me that. Reported.
Since you seem to be the one trolling me with your GPT replies, I guess I'll report you too?
-
Since you seem to be the one trolling me with your GPT replies, I guess I'll report you too?
Nice attempt to reframe what happened. First you repeatedly flooded the zone with historical misrepresentations. I would need to either spend the rest of my day answering your increasingly snarky and bad faith comments, or, as I did, let AI show you at least the ways that you are wrong. But that didn't even register to you, at no point did you actually engage with the even basic arguments I made, you just kept flooding the zone with more and more bullshit. There is one troll in this discussion and it is not me.
-
Nice attempt to reframe what happened. First you repeatedly flooded the zone with historical misrepresentations. I would need to either spend the rest of my day answering your increasingly snarky and bad faith comments, or, as I did, let AI show you at least the ways that you are wrong. But that didn't even register to you, at no point did you actually engage with the even basic arguments I made, you just kept flooding the zone with more and more bullshit. There is one troll in this discussion and it is not me.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Such a weak attempt at trolling. Stop harassing me and go spread your hateful ideology elsewhere.
-
That's a logic totally anchored on the idea that "all rules are unchallengeable and undisputable", hence from that point of view people must simply follow the rules and if they don't it's their fault, never that of the rules.
As I said, NAZI Germany relied on exactly that mindset to get Germans to meekly accepted what the NAZIs were doing because "it's the rules and all people have to do is obbey them". In fact, "people must obbey the rules and if they don't and they get punished it's their fault" is a general way of thinking of Fascists in general.
My entire point is that rules are no such thing - they're made by humans, are meant to achieve certain goals and have certain costs. In a Democracy rules should be examined, evaluated and changed if they're not more or a gain than a loss. This is even more important for rules around democratic processes such as lawmaking.
What this legislator managed to do was show the anti-Democratic nature of some of German processes, which was probably her intention.
Oh, and I'm European, not American, which is why nowadays I think Germany is a fucking disgrace (an opinion which is almost the opposite of what I thought about it a mere 5 years ago): it's exactly because I come from a country which has Modern European Humanist values and which itself overthrew a Fascists dictatorship and transformed into a Democracy 50 years ago, that I have actual Democratic Values and am sorely dissapointed every time I find yet another way the country which had the worst version of Fascism in Human History, instead of being the strictest practicioner of Democratic Values possible, is instead doing things like civil society surveillance, supporting a massive Genocide very openly because of the ethnicity of the aggressors and their victims, trying to bypass the Rule Of Law to silence dissent, practicing overtly Discriminatory treatment of people depending on their ethnicity and as in this case suppressing free speech in the actual Bundestag by using an ill-defined rule about "protecting the image of Parliament" to override the ability of a Parliamentarian to represent their voters when there in Democracy there are very few things more important than that.
If I was from the land of Donald Trump, First Pass The Post and voting for the Lesser Evil because voting for Good instead of Evil is not a realistic option, the German Bundestag suppressing a parliamentarian's ability to represent their voters because that parliamentarian is taking a political stand that the majority disagrees with through a perfectly legal means, with just the word "Palestine", would seem miniscule and irrelevant in comparison.
It's exactly when you're used to real Democracy that the kind of shit going on in Germany really stands out as bit-by-bit continued reversion of Democracy in favor or surveillance, force and even racial selectivity in the exercise of Power.
Lmfao okay dude
-
Such a weak attempt at trolling. Stop harassing me and go spread your hateful ideology elsewhere.
Your submission in "Left Party MP expelled from German parliament for wearing Palestine t-shirt" was removed for trolling & ad-hominem & misinfo. You are now banned from !europe for 30 days.
