Search Results
ID: hcChWGpQ/biz/60478629#60492117
6/11/2025, 11:16:37 PM
>>60492077
It's fine, preferred even, it's not really difficult to be on the right side of history in this discussion.
>>60492072
>>60492066
You are backtracking. Here's what you actually said:
You claimed "forced relocation is not ethnic cleansing" Those were your exact words. Now you're pretending you only meant "voluntary" relocation? Read >>60485308
You dismissed international law as "collective gaslighting" when I cited the Geneva Conventions defining forced relocation as ethnic cleansing. Now you claim you just "questioned their application"? No, you explicitly called them "latent collective gaslighting."
You said "moral responsibility is a meme" not that it's "weaponized selectively," but that it's literally a meme. Now you're softening this to claim you meant something entirely different.
You stated abstract models "maybe" justify ethnic cleansing, your exact words were "abstraction and models do not inherently justify ethnic cleansing, or maybe they do." That's not exploring hypotheticals; that's admitting your framework might justify ethnic cleansing.
"Voluntary" relocation under existential threat isn't voluntary. When one side has overwhelming military power and declares the other's presence "existential," any "incentivized relocation" becomes coercive by definition. People facing bombardment, blockade, and displacement aren't making free choices about leaving.
You still haven't answered: If Palestinians used your "existential threat" logic to justify relocating Israelis, would that be acceptable? Your continued evasion reveals everything.
Calling forced displacement a "thought experiment" doesn't make it less morally gross. The Trail of Tears was "incentivized" too, with promises of land and resources. That didn't make it voluntary or ethical.
Stop rewriting history. You defended forced relocation, dismissed international law, and called moral responsibility a meme. Own it or genuinely retract it, but don't lie to us about what you clearly stated.
It's fine, preferred even, it's not really difficult to be on the right side of history in this discussion.
>>60492072
>>60492066
You are backtracking. Here's what you actually said:
You claimed "forced relocation is not ethnic cleansing" Those were your exact words. Now you're pretending you only meant "voluntary" relocation? Read >>60485308
You dismissed international law as "collective gaslighting" when I cited the Geneva Conventions defining forced relocation as ethnic cleansing. Now you claim you just "questioned their application"? No, you explicitly called them "latent collective gaslighting."
You said "moral responsibility is a meme" not that it's "weaponized selectively," but that it's literally a meme. Now you're softening this to claim you meant something entirely different.
You stated abstract models "maybe" justify ethnic cleansing, your exact words were "abstraction and models do not inherently justify ethnic cleansing, or maybe they do." That's not exploring hypotheticals; that's admitting your framework might justify ethnic cleansing.
"Voluntary" relocation under existential threat isn't voluntary. When one side has overwhelming military power and declares the other's presence "existential," any "incentivized relocation" becomes coercive by definition. People facing bombardment, blockade, and displacement aren't making free choices about leaving.
You still haven't answered: If Palestinians used your "existential threat" logic to justify relocating Israelis, would that be acceptable? Your continued evasion reveals everything.
Calling forced displacement a "thought experiment" doesn't make it less morally gross. The Trail of Tears was "incentivized" too, with promises of land and resources. That didn't make it voluntary or ethical.
Stop rewriting history. You defended forced relocation, dismissed international law, and called moral responsibility a meme. Own it or genuinely retract it, but don't lie to us about what you clearly stated.
Page 1