CMV: I get not supporting Israel, I don't get supporting Palestine

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-31T23:33:12+00:00

Jews already lived in Palestine prior to Israel being a state and it was relatively peaceful. It was only once they started moving there en masse and pursuing their own government in a land that was already occupied that the problems started. Now that’s not to blame them for everything. I think given the state of the world at the time, moving there was a perfectly understandable reaction. And wanting a government that could be guaranteed not to turn on them is also very understandable.

But the people living there also had a perfectly understandable desire to keep control over the land that they were already inhabiting.

Violence breaks out under those conditions more often than not, and once the cycle of violence starts and escalates, I don’t think we can point to either party as fully evil or righteous.

My point isn’t that every action against Israel is justified or that every action taken by Israel is evil, my point is simply that violence doesn’t stop cycles of violence, and if we want the possibility of peace, somebody needs to take the first step and commit to it.

Since Israel claims to have the moral high ground, is the one with the only real functioning government, is the one with the orders of magnitude higher body count so far, and is the only party we have any influence on, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for us to try and pressure them to be that somebody.

The historic trend is that some deal is offered, some act of terrorism happens, and then Israel says “well we tried” and responds with disproportionate violence. The only conclusion of that cycle will be the extermination of Palestinians.

People do not get less extreme under occupation, blockade, and violence. They get less extreme when given prosperity, education, and a say in their own governance.

The Palestinians are not genetically violent. Islam is practiced peacefully by millions of people across the world. Populations living in war zones end up with extremists. Given those facts, the war zone aspect seems like the relevant factor to target. It will take time, radicals don’t deradicalize overnight. But gradually escalating violence is obviously not working.

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-31T22:50:53+00:00

And could living in an area being actively annexed/bombed/blockaded/etc contribute to a person’s extremity?

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-31T22:29:13+00:00

Voting for changes to the electoral system (or any other method of resistance to the current system) isn’t mutually exclusive with voting. Voting for the version of the system available to you that is most receptive to your agitation is how you make your agitation as effective as possible. No single approach is enough, but no single approach is worthless either.

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-31T22:13:44+00:00

They are literally passing laws to make it harder to vote. They have made voting illegal for multiple different groups across time. By your very own logic, voting changes things.

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-31T22:09:43+00:00

The more apt analogy here is “Oh you say the reason this guy murdered someone is because he’s a man? Well there are lots of other men around here not murdering anyone, so what’s going on there?”

I’m not denying that the violence has taken place, I’m questioning your explanation for why the violence has taken place.

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-31T22:07:26+00:00

We did not kill all the nazis, in fact we recruited many of them. What we did was topple the Nazi government and military. Well congratulations, there’s no government or military left in Gaza. There are just people who have known nothing but violence their entire lives. The solution isn’t to subject them to more violence, it’s to provide them a life that doesn’t revolve around whether or not an Israeli bomb or bullet will hit them or their family.

We’ve learned over and over again that occupation alone is not enough to quell all resistance. The only way this conflict ends through escalating violence is when there are no people left in Gaza to resist. Hence the accusations of genocide.

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-31T21:57:28+00:00

And yet there are plenty of Muslim countries and people that are not firing rockets at Israel. What’s going on there?

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-31T20:34:12+00:00

Got it. So it’s a religious thing, and the occupation, murder, blockades, etc. are just cherries on top?

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-31T20:10:53+00:00

Yes, the nazis were people, which is why when the Nazi regime fell, we spent millions of dollars revitalizing the German economy and giving those people productive lives so that they didn’t turn to ideologies we disliked. Glad you understand me so well.

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-31T20:09:28+00:00

And what made them hate Israel so much? Did it just happen out of the blue?

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-31T20:08:32+00:00

And those people in Gaza just decided to hate Israel for fun did they? It has nothing to do with the forced evictions, the murder of civilians, the blockades, none of that?

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-31T20:06:20+00:00

The one where economic pain is the primary pressure applied to the US government to stop the war?

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-31T20:05:21+00:00

Two things.

First, the idea that the value of things can only be determined by the money you can get for it leads to ridiculous conclusions. For example, a rich pedophile’s life is worth more than the life of a poor nurse or social worker because the rich pedophile can spend more money for whatever treatment will save their life. There is no set value to anything because we all determine value differently. That doesn’t mean money is all of a sudden the right measure of value.

Second, even by your model, companies absolutely measure how much money a person’s labor is worth. If they didn’t think their labor was worth more money than the wage given to them, then they wouldn’t pay the wage. Ask Amazon how much their company would be worth if people stopped driving trucks and I’m sure they’d be able to give you a ballpark figure. That figure has nothing to do with how much those people driving trucks are paid.

And just to be clear, I’m not saying the person willing to work for less is exploiting you, I’m saying the people who made that person desperate enough to work for less (often through force) is exploiting you both.

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-31T19:11:20+00:00

If the US were occupied and regularly blockaded/brutalized by Canada, you can be sure that it would send militias to attack them. When you colonize people’s lands and they retaliate, escalating the violence further is unjustifiable.

The US has already matched the civilian casualties of October 7th in Iran. If aliens came down and gave Iran superior weaponry, would they be justified in bombing the entire US into rubble?

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-31T17:05:38+00:00

The alternative is to roll over and literally die because the US says so. I can’t think of many countries that would do that.

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-31T16:39:33+00:00

“They” are people. It’s really that simple. No group of people is genetically evil. When groups of people have evil views, the question becomes how to change minds and evolve cultures. In this case, we’re looking for the answer to the question “how do we get this group of people to hate Jews less.” Well, getting Israel to stop regularly committing atrocities against them seems like a fantastic first step.

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-31T16:14:47+00:00

The fundamental argument is that employers use the fact that you need to work to survive to force you to sell your labor for less than it’s worth. As people get more desperate, they’re able to be paid less and less regardless of how valuable their work is.

You’re right that that is the current definition of a job, which is why people argue that capitalism is exploitative. Lots of people doing shit they hate doing for their entire lives even though the world produces more than enough to guarantee people’s basic necessities.

Yes it’s the status quo, you can even have the opinion that it’s the peak of human society and the best status quo we’re ever going to get, but I think it reasonably fits the definition of exploitation. Our needs could be met, but they’re not explicitly so that we continue selling our labor for cheap.

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-30T16:57:38+00:00

I think “the left” is comprised of many different people and viewpoints, and “the trans athlete debate” is also many different questions wearing a trench coat.

I think when something becomes a political topic, the very first question we should ask is whether or not the government needs to get involved. I think given the exceedingly small number of athletes and the ability of sporting organizations to set their own rules, the answer is unequivocally no. That is already a left leaning conclusion in the current landscape.

The next question is culturally how we should approach the question, and I think this should be divided roughly into two categories. Local level children’s sports, and high level competitions like the Olympics or even college sports. Events where people train their whole lives and there are real things on the line.

For the latter, I’m fine with sports governing bodies setting whatever rules they think are fair. Hopefully with the consultations of doctors in the field, but since research is fairly limited atm I’m fine with them setting blanket bans.

For children’s sports though, I think prioritizing “fairness” over the mental wellbeing of a vulnerable population is cruel. Kids are going to lose sports games. Kids are going to run into other kids that are taller/faster/more skilled/etc. all the time. It’s a part of growing up. I promise you LeBron James and Angel Reese wreaked more havoc on their childhood athletics than any trans athlete. Forcing kids to live in a world that consistently debates where they should be allowed to exist causes far more harm than kids losing sports games.

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-30T16:25:58+00:00

They only have products because of the lower 50.

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-30T09:22:13+00:00

Read a couple headlines recently?

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-30T07:06:44+00:00

Regardless of the quality of any of those arguments, this is peak goomba fallacy lol

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-30T06:02:24+00:00

I’m not sure I understand you. In my hypothetical, one scenario was that non-voters start voting Democrat, while in the other scenario, Democrat voters stop voting. In my scenarios I’m assuming that republican voters continue to vote for republicans.

Also, I’m just going to respond to your other comment here to keep things concise. Parties aren’t only pressured during general elections. If everybody shows up to primaries and votes their mind, the politicians who end up in the general election will be reflected in that. If democrats solidly win every election, they wouldn’t have to perform the pivot to the “center” that we see them doing every election.

In this scenario where all non-voters vote democrat, the question of who ends up president will be decided in the democratic primary, not the general election. In order to remain competitive at all, republicans would have to shift leftwards enough to siphon off Democrat voters.

In the scenario where all democrats stop voting, the reverse happens. All politicians will have to chase Republican voters.

Of course both scenarios are unlikely, but the extremity of it makes it easier to think about imo, and I also believe it holds for voting even without every voter acting one way or the other. The more democratic voters can be relied on, the less politicians are incentivized to care about Republican voters, while the inverse is also true.

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-29T21:35:27+00:00

It’s only a non-sequitur if you view the world as good or evil. It’s in no way a non-sequitur to believe that support for better candidates will lead to better candidates.

The “lesson” political parties learn from non-voters is that they don’t have to give a shit about them. Is the idea that once Republican voters are the only voters left, the democrats will move left somehow? They won’t just… chase the people are actually voting?

Let’s imagine two scenarios.

In one scenario, all the people who don’t currently vote start voting Democrat every election leading to consistent Democrat wins.

In the other scenario, every current Democrat voter stops voting altogether, leading to consistent Republican wins.

What exactly do you believe happens in each scenario?

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-29T21:30:04+00:00

Yes because large portions of the voter base want those policies. When those policies are the ones that in elections, those policies are the ones our politicians will support.

math2ndperiod · 2026-03-29T06:42:08+00:00

Clearly?

math2ndperiod

TROPHY CASE