You're viewing a single thread.
Hamas is worth critical support. "I support Palestine but not Hamas" is a bad take, but so is "Hamas is actually good, though."
Hamas is worth critical support
Of course it is, all support should be critical.
so is “Hamas is actually good, though.”
No they are actively doing great damage to the occupation forces. Obviously we’d prefer that the PFLP was the dominant party, but given how things are at the moment, Hamas is good.
"XYZ is good" is invariably read as blanket approval of everything XYZ does. That's not what we mean, so we shouldn't say it.
I disagree. If I say “I like puppies” does it mean I not only like when they’re cute and friendly, but also when they pee on the floor? If I say the USSR was good do I mean everything about it was perfect including LGBT persecution and it’s internal contradictions that led to collapse? Anyway, I can think of ways Hamas can be better, but what don’t I approve of? So yes, Hamas is good.
If we say Hamas is good, the response, without fail, is "oh so you think [insert mix of atrocity propaganda and real Hamas shortcomings] is good?????" Then we have to clarify, and sort through which of the allegations are bullshit and which are real issues, and only after all that sidetracking do we get to saying we really mean critical support.
I'm suggesting we just say critical support from the jump. Why set yourself up to backtrack or clarify?
Disprove the atrocity propaganda, say you don’t care if they’re religious because they’re doing the work. You’ll get the same response if you say critical support from the jump.
Edit: maybe starting with critical support is better in a conversational context, but it’s a meme and “it’s good” works so much better.
You’ll get the same response if you say critical support from the jump.
Yes, but it doesn't land the same when you say critical support from beginning to end. If you start with "good" and switch to "critical support" that comes off as backtracking or trying to weasel around what you mean.
but it’s a meme and “it’s good” works so much better.
It's just not that great of a meme. It flattens the best take (critical support) into something resembling what the pro-genocide crowd accuses us of (blindly endorsing even the bad parts of anti-imperialist resistance).
What bad parts do you keep pointing to? The meme will become much worse if I try to include a lot of nuance. That’s why people don’t like “leftist memes.” There’s a reason why “Stalin did nothing wrong” is a meme and not “here’s a few good things Stalin did and a few I don’t like as much.”
"Stalin did nothing wrong" is a shit meme because it could be taken as being analogous to the "Hitler did nothing wrong", the premise being that it's obvious he mostly did wrong things but saying the contrary, being ironic. Unknowing people will take the former like the latter.
Now "Stalin shouldn't have stopped at Berlin" on the other hand...
Fair
What if I changed it to “hamas isn’t even bad/evil tho?”
Aren't you the guy who constantly curves the colonized who bring up any kind of attempted struggle against their settlers? Yeah, this peckerwood-assed take scans coming from you. Hell, there's already been a read-down on you; it ain't just me.
Do better.
Aren't you the guy who constantly curves the colonized who bring up successful struggle against their settlers?
That's a link to a thread about working class people being more generous about sharing small costs, where I point out that class traitors have played prominent roles in every successful revolution, and should be encouraged.How is that related to "critical support is the best take, not a blanket endorsement"
The point here is you can't be trusted to have a single decent take regarding colonized people, which you clearly aren't (or are a Sunken-Place-assed coon; which'd be sadder, but I'm beyond tears for you if that's the case). Any time the subject of colonizers and how to deal with them come up, you can always be counted on to be running interference for opfor. Every time. At least you finally said something for once, I expected this to be another one of your hits where a subject-of-empire addresses you and then you just play "I have mysteriously gone blind" for a fuckin week.
The point here is it is not your fucking call to condemn people dealing with their colonizers in the way they see fit. Giving this situation "critical support" implies there's some element here that perturbs you, that makes you incapable of uplifting their struggle to the point it deserves. What about driving out the colonizers by any means necessary merits bare critical support out of you? You approach them from a state of colonial chauvinism that you've never once investigated or attempted to unmake. And it disgusts me.
What exactly do you think is a bad take?
- Critical support is a better position than a complete endorsement
- Class traitors should be encouraged because they've historically played helpful roles
I expected this to be another one of your hits where a subject-of-empire addresses you and then you just play "I have mysteriously gone blind" for a fuckin week.
Reddit-brained behavior. If you make a pissy comment at someone they aren't obligated to argue with you to your heart's content.
Neither of these are the original takes you made; nice revisions though. At least my revisions are up-front and indicated by a marker on the post; you do yours skullduggerously, after-the-fact to cover for already-committed fuckshit. For the original take of #1, why won't you endorse the any-means-necessary driving out of colonizers? Why can you only critically support it, and why does it walk hand in hand with your chauvinism? For the original take of #2, you were not fucking arguing for the support of class traitors, you were whelping about how our use of "cracker" wasn't "coalition-building behavior". Own your bullshit with your whole chest, thank you.
Further, when you put an objectively bad take out there and someone addresses you on it, doesn't your instance specifically have a rule about walking out on good faith dialogue? That one I'll allow it might be Lemmygrad specific; but I'd swear Hexbear had something like that on the books too, and in ignoring it, you come off as just another haughty-assed settler trying to set conditions on the field when your walk-off comment is running defense for crackers.
You can absolutely leave it here, but just understand that you radiate a certain look at this point; and for someone as obsessed with optics politics with how you've tried debating QueerCommie down, it amazes me that you can't tell. Like I said before: do better.
nice revisions though
This coming from the person who edited both of their comments after I responded to them.
why won't you endorse the any-means-necessary driving out of colonizers?
Not once have I criticized anything to do with resistance to Israel. What I mean by critical support -- as I said elsewhere in this thread -- is that I support Hamas in its anticolonial struggle, but there's no good reason to sign off on everything they believe in on social issues. It's extremely easy to support the good an organization does while not excusing the bad.
For the original take of #2, you were not fucking arguing for the support of class traitors
Now you're just lying. You edited in a second link after I was already replying to you. Debatelord shit like this is why this is my last comment to you in this thread.
you were whelping about how our use of "cracker" wasn't "coalition-building behavior"
I was criticizing the comment “I don’t trust a white person unless they have a biracial kid, and even then maybe not.” How are you saving all these comments of mine and not even reading them?
Further, when you put an objectively bad take out there and someone addresses you on it, doesn't your instance specifically have a rule about walking out on good faith dialogue?
"Mods! MODS!!!!!"
You're not even right about what you're trying to rules-lawyer
This coming from the person who edited both of their comments after I responded to them.
Someone can't read timestamps, apparently.
What I mean by critical support
There is a time and a place for 'critical support'; and a war against colonizers is not it.
Debatelord shit
I could call your repetitive lying and backpedaling settler shit, couldn't I? Only reason I hadn't til now was I was still trying to be civil; but I guess that's out the window.
I was criticizing the comment “I don’t trust a white person unless they have a biracial kid, and even then maybe not.”
Wrong, you posted a top-level comment to a thread OP that had NOTHING TO SAY about biracial kids "Lots of normal comments, very conducive to building a mass movement". You were whelping about the whole thread at that top-level point, and then tried to move goalposts to a convenient other comment after you caught pushback. Lies, damn lies, and settler shit. You might as well have that be your last reply to me; it perfectly encapsulates everything you're about.
You’re right that our support should be critical, but in the previous discussion you constantly implied there is something wrong with hamas, playing into liberal Zionism.
On the referenced link, as a cracker, I get why people don’t trust us. We have not been great organizationally in the past. We have to earn trust. You mention that race isn’t real and just there to divide us, but you don’t realize it was made to protect a colonial system. You don’t appear to recognize the national oppression of the black nation, instead falling into the patsoc error of think we must simply unite to make a socialist us. That’s impossible.
Of course there are things wrong with Hamas. It endorses some reactionary social views and is not a socialist organization, but a national liberation one. I support them where they fight against imperialism but disagree with them where they're reactionary or hostile to socialism. This is the best take for Iran and Russia, too. It only plays into liberal imperialism if you use it as an excuse for supporting the U.S. or its client states, which I'm not doing.
On the referenced link, as a cracker, I get why people don’t trust us. We have not been great organizationally in the past. We have to earn trust.
There's a big difference between "white people have to work more to earn trust" and “I don’t trust a white person unless they have a biracial kid, and even then maybe not.” As I said in that comment, there is no AES state that approaches racism and discrimination that way, and it's a dead end in terms of building a mass movement in the U.S.
You’re right that our support should be critical, but in the previous discussion you constantly implied there is something wrong with hamas, playing into liberal Zionism.
On the referenced link, as a cracker, I get why people don’t trust us. We have not been great organizationally in the past. We have to earn trust. You mention that race isn’t real and just there to divide us, but you don’t realize it was made to protect a colonial system. You don’t appear to recognize the national oppression of the black nation, instead falling into the patsoc error of think we must simply unite to make a socialist us. That’s impossible.