I pointed out the dishonest outright lies a post was making and rustled some jimmies.

Any day I rustle the jimmies of tankies is a good day.

The rest of the modlog was pretty entertaining too.

Edit: No the comment below my ban in this screenshot is not my comment. I guess that was confusing some people.

Full context: someone had posted a picture of the Obamas in a wine cellar and everyone was deriding them for being so bourgeois as to own a wine cellar (all the usual high level discourse such as “MichelleSoUgly lmaolol”)

I pointed out that this was them at a private event at a restaurant that has a wine cellar and not their own personal wine cellar. Everyone then freaked out that I was “defending the Obamas” and I got banned for Liberalism.

  • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
    163·
    2 days ago

    Bro you posted in a community I’m subscribed to. Don’t post if you don’t want people to see your post and comment on it.

    But anyway, several problems here:

    1. A tanky is a leftist who supports pro-authoritarian violence. If you saw my history interacting with actual tankies, you’ll see that this is not me. I oppose the Chinese, North Korean, and Russian governments in the strongest terms, and support South Korea, Taiwan, and Ukraine (two of which I have very good friends and relatives from).
    2. I never once moved goalposts. I stated in very clear terms why you were wrong and what the bare minimum of evidence would be for me to even begin considering your claims of genocide denial. I then later restated the terms in more specificity, since you seemed unhappy with how vague the first statement was. You failed to even attempt to do that.
    3. Not stalking. You posted where something would appear in my feed. And then decided to have a whinge about it.

    If you don’t want to be called out, don’t defend or deny genocide. End of story.

    • peregrin5@lemm.eeOPEnglish
      310·
      2 days ago

      You stated that “EVERY reputable expert” says Israel is committing genocide literally using a source that was TITLED “experts deeply divided on whether or not Israel is committing genocide”.

      Then you said that you would only accept experts as “reputable” if they didn’t support Israel in the conflict. Lol.

      I deny a genocide when there literally isn’t a genocide bruh. Using it for every conflict waters down the term to basically mean nothing.

      I couldn’t respond to you anyway (not that I was going to) since I got banned for breaking the cardinal lemmy rule that you have to hate Jews to post here.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
        93·
        2 days ago

        No, I said they could not be reputable if they were Israeli or had strong ties to Israel. Which…should be obvious? The bias is far too strong otherwise. It would be like asking someone living in Nazi Germany if Germany was committing genocide.

        • peregrin5@lemm.eeOPEnglish
          37·
          2 days ago

          The fact that someone supports Israel in this conflict is likely what you’ll use as evidence that someone has “strong ties to Israel”.

          Most claims of genocide come from people who have strong ties to Palestine or people linked to Palestine. Why does the same bar of evidence not apply to you?

          https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/

          There are several people referenced in this article not Israeli or tied to Israel that claim Israel’s actions don’t meet the criteria of genocide. As I recall your request was that I provide just one. Now I’ll wait as you claim that these experts are actually just Israel shills and they should thus be disregarded.

          • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
            83·
            1 day ago

            No offence, but even before I started reading that, I noted the date was November 2023. Suffice it to say, things have become a lot clearer since then. May 2024 is realistically the earliest a report can come out denying genocide and be taken as evidence someone probably still holds that opinion in 2025.*

            Here’s an article written by the first name in your article I saw that denied genocide. In it, he lays out pretty clearly that:

            (a) knowingly creating famine conditions is tantamount to genocide, and
            (b) Israel is knowingly creating famine conditions in Gaza.

            Though he doesn’t actually connect the dots himself, he leaves it so it’s impossible for the reader not to do so. (And he certainly doesn’t say that it’s not genocide, like he did in November '23.)

            Only one other person quoted in that article went so far as to say, in November '23, that it was not a genocide. I could find no more recent commentary from them to determine whether or not they still hold that view. All others either concretely came down on the side that it is genocide, or said that it’s a technicality that doesn’t matter and that what actually matters is stopping all the destruction Israel is causing.

            Thanks for sharing that article though. Sincerely. It surprised me. It surprised me just how strong the academic consensus was even by November '23. Time could find 2 (Simon, Kiernan) who said it was not, compared to 4 who said it was (Mokhiber, Segal, Verdeja, Sanford) and others who said the answer to that question doesn’t matter. I honestly thought that it would be more 50:50, only shifting in favour of the strong consensus that we see today as the genocide went on.

            * and before you accuse me of moving the goalposts again, as I know you so cheerfully are waiting to do, note that my request originally was for you to find someone who holds that the UN and Amnesty International accusations of genocide are wrong. To be wrong, someone would have to hold, today, the opinion that it is not a genocide. That’s much harder to deny now than it was barely a month after the latest wave of the genocide began, when it was somewhat reasonable to explain it away as justified military response.

            • peregrin5@lemm.eeOPEnglish
              14·
              1 day ago

              The numbers quoted within the article do not matter as the fact that someone claiming genocide is more interesting news than people who do not. You can’t really use any news article quoting a handful of people you don’t know how they sampled to make a calculation on consensus.

              Now you are looking for only works published within the last 15 days only (since that is how many days we’ve had in 2025 so far) and you claim you are not moving goal posts. Lol.

              And you change your request for a third (fourth?) time claiming it was about the UN and Amnesty international. Lol. That was literally not part of your original request and this constant goal post moving is why I refused to engage with you in this futile exercise of you lifting the football every time I try to kick it.

              Remember your original claim is that “EVERY expert agrees that a genocide is occurring", something I’ve already proven wrong several times at this point. Take the L and let me move on with my life. Goddamn.

              Hell I don’t even think Israel is justified in the amount of damage they are causing, they are obviously committing war crimes, and Bibi should burn in hell. I just don’t think it’s a genocide.

              If that means you have to stalk every thread I go to to alert people that I don’t agree with you that a genocide is happening then you my friend have too much time on your hands.

              • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
                1·
                19 hours ago

                Now you are looking for only works published within the last 15 days only

                Well if you’re going to just pull shit out of your arse in order to make yourself look better, I’m done here.