• 0 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle




  • It’s not though is it? “From the river to the sea” is referring to a Palestinian territory spanning from the Mediterranean to the Jordan. It’s referring to establishing a state over that area the exact same way Jews use it. The question meta weighed up was not “what are state actors doing”. Because if they had done so and had decided the saying was explicitly support for Hamas then they would have banned it, because Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation according to the US.

    Instead they explain they just because an individual says it, then the reader cannot infer the support of a state level group like Hamas. Nor is the saying in itself an encouragement to hurt Jewish people.

    But this also means of a Jewish individual says it then the reader cannot infer support of the action of a state level group like the Israeli government. Nor can it be taken in itself to be an explicit encouragement to violence against Palestinians.

    Cake and eat it etc.

    (Also, since it came up, over 70% of Jews in Israel were born in Israel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelis. I assume you’re not the kind of person to say “but where are you really from?”)


  • Meta have decided that an individual saying “from the river to the sea” neither implies support for a state actor (Hamas in this case) nor does it constitute hate speech in itself (the call for a Palestinian state to cover the ground currently mostly occupied by Israel is apparently not a call to violence against Israel or the Jews living there)

    None of this has anything to do with the dynamics of the current conflict, meta do not mention it. Incitement to hatred or violence occurs between individuals. And meta have determined that a Palestinian (or anyone) saying that phrase is not expressing hatred for Jews nor inciting violence by implying that Israel should be removed.

    So if they are being consistent with that logic then a Jew saying the same thing “does not imply support for the Israeli state or its actions”, in the same way that a Palestinian saying it does not imply Hamas support.

    Similarly, if a Palestinian saying it is not attempting incitement to violence (Hamas’ actions notwithstanding), then a Jew saying it is not attempting incitement to violence (the actions of the Israeli state notwithstanding)

    For the record I would regard the phrase said by either side as hate speech / incitement and I think meta’s ruling is silly.




  • They were probably just the “first batch” so to speak.

    the standard response to this is that if there were other independently created people in Eden then they wouldn’t have been expelled for Adam and Eve’s mistake. and after the fall no other people could be created because a) they would be sinless which messes everything up and b) “God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th”.


  • nice little dig at evolution calling mutations “mistakes”. as in, they happen but they can only be negative.

    since God’s Word is the only standard for defining proper marriage

    oh - and where’s that? the bit where multiple wives are ok (Solomon), or where multiple wives is commanded (Levrite marriage) or where slave girls are ok (“concubines” being the usual euphamism) or where polygamy is disallowed but only for church leaders (this seems like the worst one tbh, the very necessity of this rule means there were sufficient polygamous relationships in the early church that it even warrants a mention…)