Lemmy.world reportedly bans people for being anti-Zionist. At the same time, numerous human rights organizations have documented that Zionist policies and actions amount to crimes against humanity (e.g., forced displacement, collective punishment, apartheid).
If banning opposition to crimes against humanity is itself anti-humanity, doesn’t that make lemmy.world complicit? How do you reconcile defending a platform that silences critics while atrocities continue?
Depends on whose definition, which version of the newspeak dictionary, one uses. I try avoid the language of the oppressor, but it’s not easy. Many do not even realise the etymology, let alone the Orwellian perversion that has them throw a baby out with the bathwater.
Zion’s 'sposa be like paradise on earth, right? Zionism, the right for your people to try to make paradise for your nation, right? Nowhere in that necessitates all the false flag attacks, the dehumanisation, the supremacy, the jingoism, the torture, the rape, the … because of course, that’s not even what that is. Paradise cannot be built with bricks of atrocity. There’s no rest on a bed of blood. There’s no paradise being built there. And so when we use the language of the oppressor, we’re truncating our vocabulary, obliterating words, concepts, in the conflations and inversions, depriving ourselves the means out, perverting our good intentions to serve the ills we fight against.
Though, best of luck to anyone trying get back upstream, this deep in the Orwellian hole.
Your definition literally does not matter, zionism is an actually existing force.
Sadly Zionism always assumed the displacement of other people, so that some could build their paradise, it also gave up on the idea of building paradise together with other people, rather then a walled garden just for a single people. It’s a fundamentally conservative ideology that assumes that the basic principles of the enlightenment that all people are equal, and that people have the ability to change are false. Read Judenstaat by Herzl I found it to be a very cynical take on things and I couldn’t finish it.
Since the crooks conjured their plan, yeah.
There’s another bag of fun to etymologically explore, seeing the contrast of how each of these words are commonly used, and what lurks shallow beneath the contemporary euphemisms. Perhaps not least the whole “conserve what” thing. Worse things than the milder interpretations some associate with in the broad conflation
Sorry I don’t speak academese. It’s conservative in the sense that Zionism chose to conserve reactionary ideas in favor of perusing a more libratory political path that was available at the time, while using the cloak of progressivism. Herzl himself said he wanted to use Marxist economics in the new Jewish state even though I have no idea how you can use Marxist economics without pursuing liberation for all. As I said I couldn’t get past the first couple of pages of Judenstaat because it pissed me off.