Context: comment on a post about Hezbollah leader being killed.
This comment is not calling for violence. It is literally mocking those that think violence is a good idea as the dire consequences are the very subject at hand.
Those mods clearly put zero effort into examining the context and simply prosecute on report alone. Either that or they themselves support some violence and abhor its criticism.
Tbh the phrasing leaves a bit to interpretation… and considering the volume of moderation they need to go through, I can see how this one could be flagged incorrectly.
I disagree; it’s rather clear what Cephalotrocity is arguing against violence, even if I happen to outright disagree with his views when it comes to the state of Israel.
EDIT: on the other hand I’m not sure about the other comment flagged as misinformation.Further EDIT: nah, the mods were spot on with that one. “Zionism is simply [the state of] Israel existing peacefully.”?Zionism as a concept is about Israel having a right to exist. People are conflating bad actors taking this simple concept and employing violent means to achieve it, with the core concept.
It is the same as someone saying “Islam is a religion of peace” and having that flagged as ‘misinformation’ because there are radical islamists that employ terrorism.
It’s a concept rooted in ethno-cultural nationalism, about Israel having a right to exist at the detriment of the Arabs in the region. The omission of those pieces of info that I’ve highlighted misleads the reader towards an incorrect conclusion, and that’s what makes it misinformation.
I fully agree however with the comment you mentioned in the OP not being a call to violence, but the opposite.
right to exist at the detriment of the Arabs in the region
This was not, nor is it now a prerequisite, nor part of the definition. There were and are solutions that could benefit both Israelis and Arabs if they would sit down and settle it peacefully, which was my whole point.
This was not, nor is it now a prerequisite, nor part of the definition.
It is, given the nationalistic nature of Zionism and the region that it prescribes for the Jewish people being already inhabited by the Palestinian Arabs. Not just historically, mind you - Zionism prescribes that even the current Palestinian lands should belong to the state of Israel.
Note that this is extremely close to the Nazi policy of Lebensraum, or “vital space”. It is that bad.
There were and are solutions that could benefit both Israelis and Arabs if they would sit down and settle it peacefully, which was my whole point.
Peaceful solutions are in direct conflict with Zionism. And the fact that you were proposing those, hints to me that you aren’t Zionist, you’re simply using the word in a bad way.
No, this is projecting your bias onto it or attributing the basic concept to those that are stretching the definition beyond its original intent.
No, this is projecting your bias onto it
The fact that Zionism is incompatible with Jewish-Arabic peaceful coexistence was already attested at least way back in 1975, by the UN General Assembly, that equated it with racism. It is also consistent with the fact that the state of Israel does not recognise Palestine as another state (as it shows that Israel sees those lands as its own by right, due to Zionism being its official ideology). And it is backed by a well-established tertiary source, itself backed by multiple sources of lower order.
So let me be blunt: cut off the crap. You could claim that I’m being misled or something like this, but you cannot honestly claim that I’m “projecting my bias” into it. And by doing the later you’re being at the very least disingenuous (i.e. using dishonest argumentation), if not also outright assumptive (i.e. making shit up).
attributing the basic concept to those that are stretching the definition beyond its original intent.
“Intention” - whatever it means - does not exist outside your head.
This is contextually relevant here given that moderators have no crystal ball to know your “intentions”, so rule enforcement should be based on what you say. And in this case what you said is misinformation - regardless of your “intentions” behind the utterance. As such I keep my view that one of the removals was a false positive, but the other was accurate.
To me, the use of the words ‘still think’ clearly shows I’m arguing against violence. Not just that, but following the conversation chain makes this absolutely clear. They have 8 mods. They can do a little due diligence.
And to top it all off, they flag this post as ‘misinformation’, but don’t dare specify what is misinformation because they know they’ll get their ass handed to them.
