Just because you started (and were on the correct side) of that struggle session doesn’t make you the arbiter of what gets discussed, weirdo. This IS the wrong place to bring up the Romanov kids struggle session, as you did. But pointing out the contradiction (which tbf he did himself point out as well) in someone’s arguments about what’s happening right now is not doing that.
ComradeCmdrPiggy isn’t wrong - if a 15 year-old Israeli kid is, for example, pointing a gun at a Palestinian freedom fighter, no one should expect the Palestinian not to protect themselves and the necessary struggle for their liberation in whatever way possible. If that same kid is huddled down and simply trying not to die, but is present because their parents are colonizers, killing that kid would be fucking heinous. Someone enters this conversation with the understandable and justifiable take of “I’m in favor of Palestine engaging in violent resistance, but if you’re going to start making apologisms for violence against teenagers you’ve lost the plot.” That’s great, but then that person proceeds to say “well if that huddled, non-threatening, prisoner kid might inherit a dangerous position, they’re fair game. Scratch what I said earlier about apologisms for violence against teenagers being bad.” Pointing out the fact they’ve completely undermined themselves with respect to what they’re saying about this conflict right now isn’t just fair game, it’s completely relevant and on topic.
Pointing out the fact they’ve completely undermined themselves with respect to what they’re saying about this conflict conflict right now isn’t just fair game, it’s completely relevant and on topic.
It doesn’t though, cause it’s easily fixed with an ad hoc carve out, and in order to explore whether or not that ad hoc carve out stands up to scrutiny will, in substantial effect, involve reopening the Romanov struggle session and the justifications within it. Something both of us agreed shouldn’t happen.
Just because you started (and were on the correct side) of that struggle session doesn’t make you the arbiter of what gets discussed, weirdo. This IS the wrong place to bring up the Romanov kids struggle session, as you did. But pointing out the contradiction (which tbf he did himself point out as well) in someone’s arguments about what’s happening right now is not doing that.
ComradeCmdrPiggy isn’t wrong - if a 15 year-old Israeli kid is, for example, pointing a gun at a Palestinian freedom fighter, no one should expect the Palestinian not to protect themselves and the necessary struggle for their liberation in whatever way possible. If that same kid is huddled down and simply trying not to die, but is present because their parents are colonizers, killing that kid would be fucking heinous. Someone enters this conversation with the understandable and justifiable take of “I’m in favor of Palestine engaging in violent resistance, but if you’re going to start making apologisms for violence against teenagers you’ve lost the plot.” That’s great, but then that person proceeds to say “well if that huddled, non-threatening, prisoner kid might inherit a dangerous position, they’re fair game. Scratch what I said earlier about apologisms for violence against teenagers being bad.” Pointing out the fact they’ve completely undermined themselves with respect to what they’re saying about this conflict right now isn’t just fair game, it’s completely relevant and on topic.
It doesn’t though, cause it’s easily fixed with an ad hoc carve out, and in order to explore whether or not that ad hoc carve out stands up to scrutiny will, in substantial effect, involve reopening the Romanov struggle session and the justifications within it. Something both of us agreed shouldn’t happen.
If you think this conversation shouldn’t be had here, then stop commenting on it and perpetuating it.