United Nations experts called on Thursday for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, saying time was running out for Palestinian people there who find themselves at "grave risk of genocide".
It’s a rhetorical tool. It’s not new. I’ve been familiar with it ever since I was cognizant of global news. Fascist governments like to conflate their populations with their ideology to make criticisms difficult.
If the facts are in your favor, you argue the facts
If morality is in your favor you argue morality
If historical precedent is in your favor, you argue historical precedent
And if nothing else, you argue about arguing. This is where the "if you’re not with me you’re against me " accusations of antisemitism exist… from my perspective. It’s a bullying rhetorical tactic. When you hear this, it means the other sides already conceding they can’t defend themselves, and they’re just relying on rhetoric to shut you up so that they can get their message out there.
I don’t blame people for using all the rhetorical tools available to them, I am sad that a lot of people don’t have the proper critical thinking skills to deal with empty rhetoric. That makes me sad.
(Insert “why would they do this” meme here.)
Hamas is evil, yes, but that doesn’t prevent the Israeli government from also being evil.
Are you supporting terrorism?
Supporting terrorism by…condemning Hamas and Israel?
Are you drunk? Where did I support anything except not killing civilians?
A common thing that seems to be going around lately is people claiming that any condemnation of Israel is support for Hamas
Edit: Funnily enough though I see way less of the opposite. It’s almost as if those people are poisoning the well for discussion on the matter.
I also see people saying that condemning Israel’s actions is antisemitism but I’ve been seeing less and less of that lately
It’s a rhetorical tool. It’s not new. I’ve been familiar with it ever since I was cognizant of global news. Fascist governments like to conflate their populations with their ideology to make criticisms difficult.
If the facts are in your favor, you argue the facts
If morality is in your favor you argue morality
If historical precedent is in your favor, you argue historical precedent
And if nothing else, you argue about arguing. This is where the "if you’re not with me you’re against me " accusations of antisemitism exist… from my perspective. It’s a bullying rhetorical tactic. When you hear this, it means the other sides already conceding they can’t defend themselves, and they’re just relying on rhetoric to shut you up so that they can get their message out there.
I don’t blame people for using all the rhetorical tools available to them, I am sad that a lot of people don’t have the proper critical thinking skills to deal with empty rhetoric. That makes me sad.
This parody account isn’t funny.
Couldn’t agree more