Left Party MP expelled from German parliament for wearing Palestine t-shirt
-
if you feel the need to setup a flagpole in front of your house you want to make a (political) statement.
And that statement can only be a far right one?
I repeat myself again: If you pull up a German flag: Yes, because there simply is no culture around the german flag outside of sport events, government buildings and far right contexts.
If you pull up a gay pride flag that would be an unusual way to display (normaly they are just fixed to windows), but that I would let that fly 8pun not intended) as not being far right.
-
I repeat myself again: If you pull up a German flag: Yes, because there simply is no culture around the german flag outside of sport events, government buildings and far right contexts.
If you pull up a gay pride flag that would be an unusual way to display (normaly they are just fixed to windows), but that I would let that fly 8pun not intended) as not being far right.
Well I guess we won't agree.
If you don't want to pull up a German flag in front of your house or wherever, that's totally fine with me and I can understand why you wouldn't want to.
But to universally apply a label to whoever does something you don't want to and especially this label (far right) is sweeping judgement and simplifying the world into black and white. And I think we don't need any more of that today.
But that's just my opinion.
-
While the Bundestag does not have a detailed dress code, its rules require MPs and visitors to dress “in keeping with the prestige” of the institution.
So, there is no actual rule that she actually broke, unless we interpret the word "Palestine" to be not in keeping with the prestige of the Budestag. Are other country names or geographical regions also not in keeping with the prestige of the Bundestag? Like, when I visit can I not wear a shirt that says "Greece" on it? Or that says "Quebec" or "Antarctica"? Or is this is a special rule for country names that butthurt Germany's "staatsraison"?
if you, a tourist, would wear written clothing, nothing happens. It is for members of parliament that they can be expelled. Although we often times see politians dressed in light blue and yellow, to show solidarity with Ukraine. So why not for Palestine? That would be aNtisEmiTiSm
-
Left Party MP Cansin Köktürk was thrown out of a German parliament plenary chamber on Wednesday for wearing a t-shirt with the word "Palestine" printed on it, a move deemed a political statement by the parliamentary leadership.
Bundestag President Julia Klöckner intervened during the session, reminding MPs that political messages on clothing are not permitted in the chamber.
While the Bundestag does not have a detailed dress code, its rules require MPs and visitors to dress "in keeping with the prestige" of the institution. Enforcement of this standard is left to the discretion of the session chair.
Should have had a second person wearing an Israel shirt, and see who gets kicked out.
-
Lmao, Jesus Christ. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink.
Got it. You actually don't have any better arguments to support your bigoted writings.
-
Got it. You actually don't have any better arguments to support your bigoted writings.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Yeah, I guess verbatim quotations from Palestinian leadership isn't enough to establish what they think. Too bad I don't have your standards of just applying feelings without regard for the facts; you're wise not to let logic or human decency stand in the way of your antisemitism, you might accidentally develop some self awareness
-
Yeah, I guess verbatim quotations from Palestinian leadership isn't enough to establish what they think. Too bad I don't have your standards of just applying feelings without regard for the facts; you're wise not to let logic or human decency stand in the way of your antisemitism, you might accidentally develop some self awareness
wrote on last edited by [email protected]You are showing how Hamas are antisemitic. You are then elevating Hamas to all of Palestine. That's neither net logic or human decency, that's bait-and-switch.
But you know, we can play this game. Are you are ready to accept statements of Israeli top officials (from the freaking President, to the Prime Minister and his Ministers, to MKs and further down) as Israeli policy to exterminate Palestinians? Or is nuance only allowed for Israel and never allowed for Palestinians? Or is it that if we allow equal amounts of nuance to both sides, then that is antisemitism?
-
I get it: in your mind if it's "a rule" it's unchallengeable, always correct and must be followed.
It's the kind of mindset the NAZIs leveraged to make German people comply with and even defend what the NAZIs did because they were "the rules" - "Jews have to wear a yellow David star on their clothes because it's the rules".
In my mind rules are just orders created by people, not brought down from the gods fully formed and perfect, so they're subject to be analysed just like every other form by which people try and make other people do things - What does it achieve? What are its costs? Is it well defined and strictly enforced or it's vague, open to interpretation and its enforcement is arbitrary and down to somebody's choice?
So here's a rule that per the article is broad and vague, with an interpretation left to the person that chooses or not to enforce it, arbitrarily. (If you are German and ever worked in anything which is complex enough that it has a process I expect you would share my distaste for vague rules that can be applied one day but not the next at the discretion of somebody: there really is no better way to fuck up the effective work of a team than having something important have no clear boundaries of acceptability and wholly depend on somebody's arbitrary determination ).
The gain of it is, per what the rule itself says, to keep up appearances (yeah, really, it's about the image of the German Parliament). Maybe it's me, but that's a very weak reason, with as shown here the exercising of the rule itself possibly causing damage to the image of the German Parliament: it's a bit of a hard call whether expelling a Parliamentary member from Parliament for wearing a T-shirt with the word "Palestine" and that ending up in the news makes the German Parliament look better that letting somebody wearing such a t-shirt stay and treat it like any other t-shirt.
The cost of the rule being exercised is that for a day hundreds of thousands of Germans will not be represented in Parliament. How costly is that depends on what that days session was all about - were there important votes or was it only discussions? It also depend on how strong your Democratic values are - people who have little in the way of Democratic values are fine with hundreds of thousands of Germans being deprived of their representation in Parliament so long as those people have different political opinions, people with strong Democratic values think that the only acceptable reasons to expel a member of Parliament are those related to the proper working of the Democratic process, for example if those people were stopping other members of Parliaments from properly representing their constituents by not letting others talk (and one logical interpretation of Julia Klöckner's chosing to to enforcing this rule is this time is "stopping other members of Parliaments from properly representing their constituents")
Something that boils down to one person deciding all by themselves and arbitrarily what "damages the image of the German Parliament" and use that to deprive hundreds of thousands of Germans of their parliamentary representation for a day for no gain other than said vague "image" (when the exercise of the rule itself as we see here can actually cause damage to the image of the German Parliament) whilst doing nothing for the good operation of Parliament (like, say, kicking somebody out for not letting others speak would do) isn't a good rule.
Just because that rule can be used against your political adversaries doesn't make it a good rule, quite the contrary - in Democracy it's the tools of Democracy that should win the political fight, not the exercise of force under the cover of a vaguely defined and arbitrarily enforced "rule" to deprive voters of their representation in lawmaking bodies and even the people whose opinions you profoundly disagree with are Democratically entitled to having their representatives in Parliament representing by them, not kicked on a vague rule that very overtly is about the image of Parliament not its good operation.
And yet here you are favoring the arbitrary expelling of representatives of hundreds of thousands of Germans from the place were laws are made using a vaguely defined rule whose enforcement is wholly arbitrary and which overtly is not about maintaining the good operation of Parliament (and hence of the Democratic process), and one of your reasons for suporting it is that it can be used against people you are against politically - as I said, the very opposite of Democracy.
She could’ve just not worn the shirt dude. She was told beforehand that it’s against the house rules of the Bundestag and she did it to create a scene, which worked. She was back the next day. It’s really not that deep, however I always enjoy Americans explaining European politics to locals, so I thank you wholeheartedly for the entertainment.
-
You are showing how Hamas are antisemitic. You are then elevating Hamas to all of Palestine. That's neither net logic or human decency, that's bait-and-switch.
But you know, we can play this game. Are you are ready to accept statements of Israeli top officials (from the freaking President, to the Prime Minister and his Ministers, to MKs and further down) as Israeli policy to exterminate Palestinians? Or is nuance only allowed for Israel and never allowed for Palestinians? Or is it that if we allow equal amounts of nuance to both sides, then that is antisemitism?
So what, you're saying that those statements are accurate, but you're willing to ignore them because Israel feels the same way about the Muslim occupation of Palestine as Muslims feel about Jewish occupation of Palestine? If you defend the one while condemning the other, it's hard to see how the distinction could be anything other than antisemitism.
-
Well I guess we won't agree.
If you don't want to pull up a German flag in front of your house or wherever, that's totally fine with me and I can understand why you wouldn't want to.
But to universally apply a label to whoever does something you don't want to and especially this label (far right) is sweeping judgement and simplifying the world into black and white. And I think we don't need any more of that today.
But that's just my opinion.
Note that I said far right not extrem right, i deliberatly left a graytone in there.
Also I didn't made that culture of mainly far right using the German flag, I'm just stating a fact. If you want you can try to establish a centrist or left wing german-flag-culture. I wouldn't be mad if you succed.
-
So what, you're saying that those statements are accurate, but you're willing to ignore them because Israel feels the same way about the Muslim occupation of Palestine as Muslims feel about Jewish occupation of Palestine? If you defend the one while condemning the other, it's hard to see how the distinction could be anything other than antisemitism.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I condemn both. Which is why I stand by the ICC decision to issue arrest warrants for both Hamas and Israeli government leaders.
I also refuse to accord to Hamas the title of "Palestine". The political entity recognized as Palestine by 147 countries has as its president Mahmoud Abbas.. So when you talk about "the fact that Palestine has repeatedly called for the extermination of all Jews" you are delegitimizing the legitimate government of Palestinians in favour of a terror group, to justify repression of Palestinians in whole, as a nation. Which is of course, unacceptable.
-
I condemn both. Which is why I stand by the ICC decision to issue arrest warrants for both Hamas and Israeli government leaders.
I also refuse to accord to Hamas the title of "Palestine". The political entity recognized as Palestine by 147 countries has as its president Mahmoud Abbas.. So when you talk about "the fact that Palestine has repeatedly called for the extermination of all Jews" you are delegitimizing the legitimate government of Palestinians in favour of a terror group, to justify repression of Palestinians in whole, as a nation. Which is of course, unacceptable.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Well, at least you're willing to acknowledge that the Muslim colonial occupation of Palestine is illegitimate. Both the Jews and the Muslims have acted atrociously in Palestine, but people so often claim that the Muslims have a "right" to the land simply because their colonialist conquest happened a long time ago, so it's nice for you to acknowledge that their occupation there is just as illegitimate as the state of Israel.
-
She could’ve just not worn the shirt dude. She was told beforehand that it’s against the house rules of the Bundestag and she did it to create a scene, which worked. She was back the next day. It’s really not that deep, however I always enjoy Americans explaining European politics to locals, so I thank you wholeheartedly for the entertainment.
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.
-
Well, at least you're willing to acknowledge that the Muslim colonial occupation of Palestine is illegitimate. Both the Jews and the Muslims have acted atrociously in Palestine, but people so often claim that the Muslims have a "right" to the land simply because their colonialist conquest happened a long time ago, so it's nice for you to acknowledge that their occupation there is just as illegitimate as the state of Israel.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I am referring to crimes and exterminationist rhetoric.
In this discussion we have not at all touched on the topic of colonialism and indigeneity as a basis of legitimacy. I reject outright the notion that Palestinians "occupy" Palestine. It is factual matter that Israel is an occupying power in the lands it conquered after the 1967 Six Day war (West Bank, Gaza, Golan).
Historically, Arab Muslims, Arab Jews, Arab Christians and others have for very long lived in the area outlined by Israel and Palestine, but all that in reality matters very little. Given the current multi-generational mess of the last 80 years, all people have equal claim to the land. Through the building of the settlements, Israel has created facts on the ground that make the Two State Solution impossible, so the only realistic scenarios out of the present are either some kind of ethnic cleansing, which is of course completely unacceptable, or a bi-/pluri- national post-apartheid democratic successor state with equal rights for all confessions and ethnic groups, that is decidedly an Israeli homeland and at the same time a Palestinian homeland. The same principle of joint sovereignty as applies to places like Belgium, Bosnia, Cyprus, Quebec, etc.
-
I am referring to crimes and exterminationist rhetoric.
In this discussion we have not at all touched on the topic of colonialism and indigeneity as a basis of legitimacy. I reject outright the notion that Palestinians "occupy" Palestine. It is factual matter that Israel is an occupying power in the lands it conquered after the 1967 Six Day war (West Bank, Gaza, Golan).
Historically, Arab Muslims, Arab Jews, Arab Christians and others have for very long lived in the area outlined by Israel and Palestine, but all that in reality matters very little. Given the current multi-generational mess of the last 80 years, all people have equal claim to the land. Through the building of the settlements, Israel has created facts on the ground that make the Two State Solution impossible, so the only realistic scenarios out of the present are either some kind of ethnic cleansing, which is of course completely unacceptable, or a bi-/pluri- national post-apartheid democratic successor state with equal rights for all confessions and ethnic groups, that is decidedly an Israeli homeland and at the same time a Palestinian homeland. The same principle of joint sovereignty as applies to places like Belgium, Bosnia, Cyprus, Quebec, etc.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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.
-
Yes, but will you be removed for wearing that shirt?
If it's established precedent like OP said, then yes. Germany is still a strong liberal democracy with rules that mean something.
You know for a fact they would feel more awkward about that one, though. They're still very sorry.
-
Why would you make that assumption? Its completely baseless and most likely untrue.
I wouldn't say baseless. It sounds like it might be untrue, though, and that this is an old rule.
-
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.
