That’s not what conservatism is. Obviously, it’s a relative term, but it still describes a concrete ideology in each society it’s in. By your logic progressives want to literally have every thing to progress, but that’s clearly not what the ideology behind it stands for.
You’re literally one of the biggest Russian simps on this platform, you gladly suck, swallow, and regurgitate Russian propaganda daily.
There’s a ZERO percent chance that someone as hollow as you cares about accuracy. You’re just mad that this post makes Russia look bad.
It’s worse here. At least r/conservative is just bots. There are plenty of idiots here who proudly spew Russian propaganda
So much cope. No Russia is infamous for their bot farms, support of far right and far left parties, and their explicit intent to destabilize the West. They’re not the only reason, but they’re still a big one
America’s fascist problem is directly created, funded, and supported by Russia
I question why this is just for “children who show mysoginistic behavior”, though. Sex ed should be universal, and this should be a major part of sex ed.
It’s because the goal here is for this be punitive, not educational. If the goal here was for valuable principles to be learned then it would be taught to everybody.
Are we reading the same things? Here are some quotes from the article that I found problematic:
Children as young as 11 who demonstrate misogynistic behaviour will be taught the difference between pornography and real relationships
They’re trying to pin porn as the cause of misogyny and that’s really stupid for a variety of reasons.
As part of the government’s flagship strategy, which was initially expected in the spring, teachers will be able to send young people at risk of causing harm on behavioural courses, and will be trained to intervene if they witness disturbing or worrying behaviour.
See, these classes are not meant to be a part of the normal sex ed curriculum where they’re taught to everybody because the information is valuable. They’re specifically meant to be punitive. The idea is to signal out kids and force them to take these classes as a consequence.
To out of touch activists, this sounds good, but in reality the kids who are being sent there are going to feel humiliated in front of their peers, and they’re going to resent both the material being taught and the system that put them through it.
Keir Starmer, announcing the strategy, said: “Every parent should be able to trust that their daughter is safe at school, online and in her relationships. But too often toxic ideas are taking hold early and going unchallenged.”
This is a theme that’s echoed in the entire article, and it is also reflected in the actual strategy. I could’ve quoted a bunch of different statements, but I specifically chose this one because it’s coming from the top. You have the PM here pushing the false idea that only girls can be victims and that boys are the problem.
The much-trailed strategy is expected to focus on three pillars:
- Preventing young men being harmed by “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate.
Are you kidding me? The “manosphere” is an online slang term, Andrew Tate is a meme. How can you possibly draft policies in general, let alone ones about education, on something so vague, unsubstantiated, and unacademic?
The point is that if the entire curriculum was taught like normal sex ed where it’s apolitical, fact based, and required to be taken by all students because it contains useful information that they need to know then there wouldn’t be an issue. However, that’s not the case. It is narrative driven, it is not entirely fact based, and it’s not applied to all students across the board. The whole thing just seems unprincipled and poorly thought out. This strategy looks like something planned by radfem weirdos on Reddit, not by people who are in charge of the education system of an entire country.
The more you look into what’s being planned here, the worse it gets
I recommend you read the article, it’s a pretty quick read. The way that this is planned sets it up for failure. This sounds more like something some politicians came up with to appease the activists in their base than something made by actual experts in the field who have the kids’ best interests in mind.
This is going to backfire hard. Kids aren’t stupid, they know when they’re looked down upon. These classes are going to be rejected by the boys who end up taking them, and they’ll resent what it stands for.
It reminds me of the US back in the 80s when schools pushed abstinence extremely hard. That didn’t stop kids from having sex, and this won’t stop misogyny.
The only way schools can contribute meaningfully to ending sexism is by providing a safe environment that requires young boys and girls to actually interact with each other in natural and healthy ways outside of class time.
Therefore, Israel is a settler-colonial state. The circumstances and motivations of the individual settlers are irrelevant when the outcome is the same. Knowing this yet still claiming that Israel is not a settler-colonial state is deceitful.
I think you’re misunderstanding what I actually said. So let me be clear, what I’m saying is that Israel, like any other country, has a complex history that can’t be oversimplified into a singular soundbite. What this means is that there is more nuance than any online narrative would have you believe. Like I said earlier, aspects of Israel’s founding did in fact revolve around it being colonial settler state, that much is true and nobody is arguing otherwise. However, what I am arguing is that the country evolved to be more than just that with time, and I demonstrated this point by giving you the exodus of Jews from the muslim world as an example this.
The point is that countries aren’t static, they continuously evolve and change. A lot of countries started out as colonial settler states, but ended up evolving into being something else. Turkey, Mexico, New Zealand, Brazil, Canada, the US, and so many others fall under this category. Israel is not an exception even if some of the founding elements are still present. For example, Turkey is still colonizing and ethnically cleansing groups of people, the US is still an imperialist in its policy, Brazil still has a culture that’s entrenched in racism, and so on. However, all these countries have different national identities from when they started, and Israel is no exception.
Wikipedia is not an ideal source of information, but that particular page cites more than enough quality sources that clearly show this to be the case.
The reason why I’m dismissive of Wikipedia as a source for this discussion is because this same article from a few years ago also had a lot quality sources to justify it, yet it was changed drastically nonetheless. What this implies is that are active campaigns to manipulate information on there. Regardless, the precise definition of Zionism is irrelevant to this conversation, so I don’t really have much of an interest in arguing about Wikipedia.
Anyone with any sense understands that no group of people consists of identical individuals. You have made a lot of assumptions about my views. Just because I can see why something happened does not mean that I agree with it.
I originally interpreted your previous comments as tribalistic as it seemed like you were trying to push for a team rather than just making observations. However, If this is what you genuinely believe, then we’re on the same page.
These issues and events existed well before Netanyahu, and whether or not the citizens like him is largely irrelevant when polls repeatedly show that the vast majority approve of the general treatment of Palestinians.
I disagree, I think Netanyahu is single handedly responsible for making things way worse. He greatly weakened Israel’s democracy, he worked hard to erode the country’s institutions, he went out of his way to incorporate radical fascists into his government, he aggressively pursued conflicts as a way to escape his trails, and the list goes on and on. His very presence in government does Israel a disservice as he is an icon for corruption inside and outside the country. His exit from politics will do wonders for the country and the region.
It’s like Turkey with Erdogan or Hungary with Orban. There are a lot of protests and opposition there as there is in Israel against Netanyahu. Polls show whatever depending on how the questions are worded and how the results are interpreted, however, the one metric that is reliably consistent is people’s confidence in the government. If people have no faith in their government then they fundamentally are at odds for what it stands for and they seek drastic change. Looking at what this current government stands for, a drastic change from is exactly what this country needs.
Will most of the major issues be solved with Netanyahu going away? Probably not, however, if he is replaced by his opposition, then that means you’ll have a more sensible government in charge, and that alone is a huge change because it means that diplomacy has a real chance. When you show people a more peaceful, more reasonable path, they will always gravitate towards it. Netanyahu leaving politics is the first step to deradicalize, not just Israel but the whole damn region.
I don’t think the comment you’re referring to meant “peaceful coexistence” in the sense that there was absolutely no conflict (they did say “no major conflict”), but were more likely thinking along the lines of “peaceful enough to coexist”, whereas that is not how I would describe the current situation at all.
I feel like our conversation has split into two distinct topics. There’s the topic about the evolution of Israel and the original topic of whether or not peaceful coexistence was a thing before the creation of the modern states. For the latter, I’m arguing that there wasn’t. The type of discrimination, oppression, violence, war, and ethnic cleansing that we’re seeing today has existed long before Israel was a thing. Just because this region was under the boot of the Ottoman Empire for centuries, that doesn’t mean that things were peachy there. Can you even point to a sustained period of peace in this region that is free from the things I listed? Because no matter how far back I look, things were always tense. It’s not just between Jews and muslims, but also with Christians. The point is that the people who are saying that things were better back then are referring to a time that’s either undefined or doesn’t exist. It’s like the conservative types who say they want to make America great again, but can never define what time they want to make America back to.
You would have to be terminally online to be upset over something this trivial
You demonstrate a good enough understanding of the history that you clearly know that you are being deceitful.
I’m not being deceitful. I just stated historical facts to bring necessary context to something that you’re intentionally trying to oversimplify.
Is there any colonised country that this doesn’t apply to?
Actually it goes beyond that, it applies to all the modern states. The point I was trying to make is that you can’t water down history to narrative driven soundbites.
Colonisation is a core principle of Zionism. It’s so central to Zionism that it’s in the introductory paragraph on it’s Wikipedia page.
Wikipedia is not a source for anything related to modern conflicts because it’s prone to manipulation. This article in particular has been edited so much that it’s literally unrecognizable from a few years ago.
Many of the early Zionist leaders said that their goals could only be achieved through the displacement of Arabs, and the migration of Jews was, and still is, strongly encouraged by Zionists.
And you would be correct, and this notion that pushes ethnic cleansing is wrong. However, there’s nuance that can’t be overlooked. For example, Israel is a secular, democratic country, and because of this, there are a lot of people with a lot of different views. The current government of Israel is very unpopular among Israelis, and the majority of people oppose it. The current government is considered far right and extremist by Israeli standards, and the most don’t support their actions.
The far right factions, like Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit and Smotrich’s Religious Zionist party, are responsible for the vast majority of things people associate negatively with Israel. Here’s a short list:
They’re horrible people. They follow a specific ideology called Kahanism, which is basically Jewish fascism. This ideology is so extreme that the US and Israel both designated the original founder of the ideology and his party as terrorists. The entire far right Kahanist coalition only got 10.84% of the vote in the 2022 election, and they only got 14/120 seats. A lot of their voters were the illegal settlers in the West Bank. By all accounts, these parasites shouldn’t have sniffed any significant position in power, but Netanyahu, being the corrupt war criminal that he is, decided incorporate them into his wing so he could form a government with himself at the top. He also went the extra mile of giving them outsized positions of influence.
The point I’m trying to make here is that Israel is a diverse country and the people responsible for most of what’s wrong with it are a small, corrupt minority that do not represent the general population. Just because the country started a certain way or has extremist politician today, that doesn’t mean all 10 million people there are extremist as well. A lot of them don’t support these things, and it would wrong to generalize any country in general.
Gosh, I wonder if that was in response to the treatment of Arabs in Palestine.
Are you seriously trying to defend these people getting ethnically cleansed because you think that this is somehow a justified reaction?
Just to refresh, these people who have no connection to Israel. These are people who have been living in their communities for centuries, for some it’s literally thousands of years, and for no other reason than being Jewish they were expelled or chased out of their country and were forced to flee to Israel as refugees because they had nowhere else to go. These people lost their homes, their livelihoods, their property, their communities, and they’re citizenship. They’re just as much victims as the Palestinians you’re trying to defend.
If you’re going to sit here and wag your finger about the morality of Israel ethnically cleansing Palestinians and then turn around and justify the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the muslim world then you’re nothing more than a hypocrite and your words mean nothing.
And they had no problem pushing out the Arabs (who had been living in their communities for hundreds, and for some, thousands, of years) on their way in.
Stop thinking like a Neanderthal. There’s no “team” here. This mentality of tribalism is precisely the reason why this conflict is never ending. Instead think about it in terms of actions. There are actions that are morally good and actions that are morally bad. If an action is morally bad, like say ethnic cleansing, then you oppose it in all its forms and in all instances because that’s the principled thing to do. When Israel ethnically cleansed Arabs during it’s founding, that was bad. However, the muslim world ethnically cleansing Jews was also bad. Having moral consistency shouldn’t be this difficult.
A majority of Australian colonists were sent there for committing petty crimes, such as theft. The industrial revolution left much of the working class without work, so theft in Britain rose rapidly. For the crime of trying to fees their family, over 100,000 people were forcibly transported to Australia. Their descendants now make up a very large chunk of the Australian population.
Okay, let’s follow this logic. The original British settlers were colonial settlers sent by the British Empire to colonize Australia. The Aboriginal people there got the short end of the stick, and were ethnically cleansed from their lands. However, the Aborigines were not a monolith, there were many different nations and cultures and many them clashed. Australia prior to the arrival of European had a lot of wars, conflicts, discrimination, and disputes between different tribes (source).
Now, imagine some dingleberry today came along on the internet and started talking about how the Aboriginal people of Australia all peacefully coexisted for centuries, and the violence on the continent is a recent phenomenon brought by the British. How would you interpret this? The way I see it, this is just pure ignorance because both the premise and the conclusion are incorrect. The aboriginal people didn’t all coexist peacefully, and the British didn’t bring violence, they merely extending what was there. That’s actually what the British were known for, divide and conquer. That’s how they captured North America, South Africa, India, and so on. This strategy wouldn’t even be possible if there was no tensions to exploit.
If we circle back to our topic, how does this same exact logic not apply here? The person that I replied had an incorrect premise and an incorrect conclusion based on that premise. I merely criticized it and provided context that proved otherwise. How does this make me deceitful? The answer is it doesn’t.
I was being too much of an ass as well. We’re all good bro
I need someone to explain to me, what situation could possibly arise that would require me to use Copilot on my fucking TV?
The source of this guy being muslim in the article is literally Benjamin Netanyahu…
Regardless, all I wanted was for you to provide an article that at least had a source for the claim. I don’t trust anything Netanyahu says out of principle, but still this is an article that does provide something to support the claim. It’s not a pure clickbait headline that’s misleading. So there we go, that puts whatever this was to rest.
I’m having a hard time understanding your comment. Are you implying that media outlets don’t lie in their headlines? Are you perhaps implying that claims don’t require evidence for you to believe them?
Read what I said again, you missed the point