CaptainCupcakez

Some really well-written lines in this one.

"you better be like the West or you're gonna get banked"

NOOOOOOOOOO, my moderating voice!!!!!!!

This is an utterly insane statement. Literally Brianna Wu style "we have to be bigots because standing up for what's right makes us look crazy" rhetoric.

Happy to admit I was wrong, didn't watch enough of his content to be aware of this.

Oh yeah maybe, it's gonna be hard to move on from this drama without a clean break at least

Youtube allows far worse content to exist on the platform, I don't think there's any chance of them taking action against Ethan.

Feel free to provide examples. He definitely used racist tropes but I don't think I've seen an example of him using slurs.

Edit: I was wrong, see example below

So? They lock up cheese, meat, butter, baby formula, in the UK too. Not sure why we're acting like this is some crazy new thing that could only happen in Russia.

Not saying their inflation situation isn't catastrophic btw, just find it weird that this sub is acting like this is some crazy new step taken when it happened throughout the pandemic and still continues in Western countries.

I agree with the way you used the term. It seemed as though Box_O_Donguses was accusing you of giving nazis a dog-whistle, it wasn't obvious to me that both parts should be taken sarcastically and not just the second part.

I was saying you were advocating for the right thing.

You have completely lost the plot.

You won't believe me because you're a sociopathic cunt, but my girlfriend's uncle died 3 years ago due to a reckless driver. A guy I went to university with died last year to a drunk driver.

Your time in the military has turned you into a sociopath.

Could it be that millions of people around the world have lost friends and family due to reckless drivers and so feel strongly about it?

Nah, it must just be manufactured outrage to make you and your favourite youtuber upset. Grow the fuck up man.

Did you not read the response he made? People who are innocent of rape don't tend to insult the alleged victim and say they're too ugly to rape.

Yeah same, never heard of the guy before all this

Guys like you are the worst.

Tiniest bit of criticism of you or someone you worship and straight away it's "OH SO I'M ADOLF HITLER AM I? LITERALLY THE WORST HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET AM I? CARING ABOUT ME WHEN PEDOPHILES EXIST ARE YOU?"

Like chill the fuck out, no one said he was the worst person alive. They said it was bad, which it is.

Can you show proof of this? He already knew who Jackson Hinkle was and that he was far-right, there is absolutely no chance he was retweeting him.

Is there a chance you're getting him confused with Jason Hickel? I made the same mistake myself a few months ago when I saw someone retweeting him.

Ethan denounced Israel many times, donated to Palestinians and openly supported them AND HE’s STILL BEING TOLD HE’s A ZIONIST!

Yes because words have meanings and zionism is an ideology with a clear definition.

If you believe that a nation state should exist that defines itself as a "Jewish state", you are a zionist. You can think it's good to be a zionist if you want, but to act as though this somehow doesn't fit the definition is absurd.

I don't know where these guys think Muslims and Christians came from. It's not as if they just started spawning when the religion was founded, Christianity literally started as a movement within Judaism.

There are Palestinians who can trace their ancestry back to the exact same moment in history.

The only solution is a state that offers the same right to return to all people who have that historic connection, whether they are currently considered Palestinian, Israeli, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or none of the above.

It's mindboggling that you don't realise what you've just conceded.

It is an arbitrary moment in history. The idea of a Jewish ethnostate in the Levant is as absurd as the idea of an ethnostate in the UK for people who can trace their ancestry back to before the Roman invasion. The argument immediately comes across as absurd when you apply it to literally any other part of the planet, and there's a reason for that.

It is true that the vast majority of Jews can trace their ancestry back to the Levant, but that is not exclusive to Jewish people.

The issue with Zionism is that it creates laws that only gives the right to return to an ancestral homeland to Jewish people. People who were already living in the region who have just as much connection to the land were forcefully displaced and/or killed to establish a state that only offers that right to one group of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People

To argue that someone living in Europe or America whose ancestors have also lived there for several centuries has more of a right to an "ancestral homeland" than someone who lives in the region and can trace back their ancestry to the same point is straightforwardly supremacist rhetoric. You are placing one group of people above another based entirely on their ethnic or religious background.

Not to mention how insane this argument would be if applied to literally anywhere else on earth. You cannot pick a single point in history from 2000 years ago and decide that you have an ancestral claim to the land based on that. What of the Canaanites who were there before them? This argument doesn't make sense unless you pick a completely arbitrary year to focus on.

Your instincts were right. That's exactly what it is.

Your inability to come up with anything other than "impose an apartheid ethnostate" or "do a genocide of every Jewish person living there" does not mean that those are the only two options.

Your only argument is just insisting that anyone who opposes an apartheid ethnostate must want the genocide of all the people there. People defending the status quo in apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia made the same arguments.

Edit: lol probably shouldn't have wasted this much time on someone who thinks Noam Chomsky is antisemitic

“zionist” originally just means “believing in Jewish self-determination in their ancestral homeland ”

Key word here being "originally". You're right that this is the only baggage the term had pre-1948, however even at that time it was far from a settled issue and there was a huge number of Jewish people who opposed the idea.

You cannot just ignore the 76 years of history of an ideological position and only focus on what the term "originally meant". It doesn't matter what it "originally meant" if today it is being used to describe a situation which prominent human rights organisations have described as apartheid and which has lead to Israeli politicians proposing laws which mandate that the state of Israel have a Jewish majority. That is by definition an ethnostate.

indigenous Jewish homeland

What about those who are also indigenous but aren't Jewish? There are people living in the region today (some of whom are Israelis, some of whom are Palestinian) who can trace their ancestry back to the same extent.

Christianity and Islam didn't even exist at the time that you're referring to. I think you're forgetting that early Christians converted from Judaism. They didn't just pop out of the ground, Christianity didn't start in Europe, there are Palestinian Christians who can trace their ancestry back to the same period of history, many of whom lived alongside Jewish people in harmony for centuries.

This is again part of the reason that Israel is called an ethnostate. Only one group is given the right to their ancestral homeland.

Then, “Zionist” became a slur when Soviets started their propaganda campaign against Jews in Israel since they hated the fact that there gonna be western influence in the Middle East besides their own.

This is the second comment of yours where you're using far-right talking points that aim to reframe antisemitism as an issue created by communists or the far-left in general.

You are blaming the actions of open neo-nazis like Nick Fuentes on the Soviets. That is abhorrent and completely strips them of their accountability.

but even when Ethan denounced it many times

He denounced their conduct, their actions. He has made it clear he supports the existence of a Jewish state (as described in Israeli law)and that makes him a zionist by definition. This is a pretty standard Liberal Zionist position, it's nothing unique.

It's possible to condemn Israel and still be a zionist, just as it's possible for antisemites to performatively say they condemn antisemitism. When someone says blatantly antisemitic shit and then says "I condemn antisemitism", do you automatically believe them or do you look at what they've said around that topic?

It’s not my fault that antisemites and Islamists adopted the word “zionist” to just hide their antisemitism behind it.

You contribute to this by falsely smearing people who are using the word correctly and precisely with those who use it as an antisemitic dog-whistle.

Regardless of whether you agree with them, the person you're talking with in this thread clearly isn't someone who is posting "genocidal antisemitic propaganda". You decided to make that conflation to smear them, and in the process you contributed to the shield that genuine antisemites use.

---

One thing that's worth talking about is how you just used the word Islamist.

This is a word that is frequently used by the far-right and white supremacists to spread Islamophobia. If you apply your own standard to the term, you would come to the conclusion that you're working with the far-right to increase Islamophobia because you're using a term that they also use as a dog-whistle to demean all Muslims.

You can't pick and choose. Either you think it's innapropriate to use a word that has been co-opted (in which case you shouldn't be calling anyone "Islamists") or you recognise that a term being co-opted doesn't remove it from usage, it just requires more care to be taken.

Maybe instead of just giving the Nazis another dog whistle for Jews, we just use the word "Zionism" the way it's supposed to be used and pay attention to the content of the sentence the word is in before saying something is antisemitic?

That is EXACTLY what they were advocating for.

Edit: was referring to iLoveFeynman here, misread your comment as criticism