This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays This is true and probably not unfair in that sense. But one would have hoped they had the character to be better people than their oppressors. Look at the price they paid in the end..😷
CountScrofula · 46-50, M
The atrocities committed directly upon children is the enduring legacy of this horror our elected officials bought, paid for, covered up, and in many cases have cheered for.
Moshe Feiglin (former Knesset):
Nissim Vaturi (Deputy Speaker):
Mervav Ben-Ari (Knesset member):
I will never, ever get over how many people stand by and cheer for this stuff.
Moshe Feiglin (former Knesset):
"Every child, every baby in Gaza is an enemy. The enemy is not Hamas... We need to conquer Gaza and colonize it and not leave a single Gazan child there."
Nissim Vaturi (Deputy Speaker):
"Gaza is full of terrorists and every child born there is already a terrorist, from the moment of his birth."
Mervav Ben-Ari (Knesset member):
"The children of Gaza have brought this upon themselves."
I will never, ever get over how many people stand by and cheer for this stuff.
SinlessOnslaught · M
@CountScrofula Even people I run into personally will say things like this and I hate them.
bijouxbroussard · F
@CountScrofula I’m sorry. Anyone knowing that their ancestors also faced this kind of hatred and still spewing such bile is inconceivable. 🤨
val70 · 56-60
I'm partly from farming stock. If one doesn't take care of ones boots then the next day will get much worse to labour on the fields. Mud sticks and corrodes. Personally, I've posted in the past against the violence both in Gaza and the West Bank. I even posted the plans for the Samaria and Judea regions. How those in power in Israel are just that, plus albeit not totally but in the majority now represent the Israeli jews.
MasterLee · 56-60, M
If someone supports "palestine", you know they are indictrinated.
ElwoodBlues · M
HijabaDabbaDoo · F
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
@HijabaDabbaDoo You support Hamas?
@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays
Crude name-calling usually signals that the discussion has shifted from evaluating propositions to policing moral identity. “You’re disgusting” does not answer any claim; it attempts to shame and discredit the speaker as a person.
Several processes may be operating:
Affective flooding: anger, horror, or tribal loyalty overwhelms analytic thought.
Binary thinking: acknowledging Israeli wrongdoing is equated with supporting Hamas—or acknowledging Hamas’s responsibility is equated with endorsing Israel’s destruction of Gaza.
Identity threat: a nuanced statement threatens a morally certain worldview, so the speaker attacks its author.
Moral exclusion: labeling someone “disgusting” marks that person as unworthy of serious engagement.
Argumentative incapacity or unwillingness: insult substitutes for evidence when someone cannot—or does not wish to—answer the actual proposition.
Audience performance: online insults often demonstrate loyalty to one’s side rather than persuade the interlocutor.
The second screenshot is genuinely measured in structure: it distinguishes evidence of widespread destruction from conclusive proof that every strike was unlawful, identifies the competing legal interpretations, and leaves adjudication open. Someone could challenge its factual or legal premises, but a rational response would identify the disputed premise and present contrary evidence.
The first exchange is less one-sided. The initial expression of compassion does not imply support for Hamas, so “Blame Hamas” is reductive. But “you’re disgusting” is a personal attack, and “You support Hamas?” continues the same false binary in reverse. The exchange becomes:
civilian suffering → blame Hamas → moral condemnation → accusation of supporting Hamas
At that point, nobody is examining proportionality, targeting, precautions, Hamas’s conduct, or Israel’s legal responsibility.
So name-calling does not prove that the target is correct or balanced. But when it replaces engagement with an evidently qualified argument, it is strong evidence that the respondent is defending an emotionally charged allegiance rather than reasoning about what was actually said.
Several processes may be operating:
Affective flooding: anger, horror, or tribal loyalty overwhelms analytic thought.
Binary thinking: acknowledging Israeli wrongdoing is equated with supporting Hamas—or acknowledging Hamas’s responsibility is equated with endorsing Israel’s destruction of Gaza.
Identity threat: a nuanced statement threatens a morally certain worldview, so the speaker attacks its author.
Moral exclusion: labeling someone “disgusting” marks that person as unworthy of serious engagement.
Argumentative incapacity or unwillingness: insult substitutes for evidence when someone cannot—or does not wish to—answer the actual proposition.
Audience performance: online insults often demonstrate loyalty to one’s side rather than persuade the interlocutor.
The second screenshot is genuinely measured in structure: it distinguishes evidence of widespread destruction from conclusive proof that every strike was unlawful, identifies the competing legal interpretations, and leaves adjudication open. Someone could challenge its factual or legal premises, but a rational response would identify the disputed premise and present contrary evidence.
The first exchange is less one-sided. The initial expression of compassion does not imply support for Hamas, so “Blame Hamas” is reductive. But “you’re disgusting” is a personal attack, and “You support Hamas?” continues the same false binary in reverse. The exchange becomes:
civilian suffering → blame Hamas → moral condemnation → accusation of supporting Hamas
At that point, nobody is examining proportionality, targeting, precautions, Hamas’s conduct, or Israel’s legal responsibility.
So name-calling does not prove that the target is correct or balanced. But when it replaces engagement with an evidently qualified argument, it is strong evidence that the respondent is defending an emotionally charged allegiance rather than reasoning about what was actually said.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
[image/video - please log in to see this content]
SinlessOnslaught · M
@SinlessOnslaught The extraordinary cumulative devastation is not by itself conclusive proof that every strike was illegal, but it is powerful evidence of a broader pattern requiring independent investigation.
Ultimately, whether these actions constitute legitimate self-defense against an embedded adversary or violations of international humanitarian law remains the focal point of the ongoing genocide case at the ICJ and investigations by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Let's see what the ICJ finds.
Ultimately, whether these actions constitute legitimate self-defense against an embedded adversary or violations of international humanitarian law remains the focal point of the ongoing genocide case at the ICJ and investigations by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Let's see what the ICJ finds.