>>60485538
>fortunately, i don't care about definition which is just latent collective gaslighting
International law is "collective gaslighting" now? Convenient that you dismiss the legal framework that makes forced relocation a crime against humanity.

>abstraction and models do not inherently justify «ethnic cleansing», or maybe they do
"Maybe they do"? At least you're finally being honest. You're literally admitting you think abstract models might justify ethnic cleansing.

>moral responsibility is a meme, this is the new karma
Tell that to the Palestinians being bombed. I'm sure they'll be comforted to know their deaths are just a "meme" in your philosophical framework.

>the questions are not only reductive, but inappropriate and conversationally offensive
You know what's actually offensive? Advocating for ethnic cleansing and then acting wounded when someone asks you to clarify your position.
You find "should people be forced from their homes?" offensive, but not the actual forcing of people from homes. That's very telling.

>nothing i wrote is complex unless the reader is a 100 iq idiot
Your entire strategy has been:
1. Propose ethnic cleansing ("free housing somewhere")
2. Dress it up in academic language
3. Dismiss international law as "gaslighting"
4. Call moral responsibility a "meme"
5. Insult anyone who sees through it

Here's a thought experiment using your own framework: If Palestinians declared Israeli existence "existential" to them (using your rationalist models and game theory), would they be justified in forcibly relocating Israelis? After all, you said "anything is justified if existential."
Or does your philosophy only work in one direction?