PugJesus

How is taking France’s side and agreeing with it that it deserved reparations for its slaves having freed themselves ‘backing up’ France?

How is it agreeing that France deserved reparations for its slaves? After the 'reparations' agreement was made, neither the UK nor the US immediately recognized Haiti.

Do you just not understand what ‘backing up’ means?

Typically it means to support a side or initiative, not 'do nothing'.

They were supposed to normalize relations without recognizing the validity of France’s bullshit punitive debt, so that Haiti could be allowed to economically develop and trade (with countries other than France, at least) without that yoke around its neck. Obviously.

... okay, first, the US had trade relations with Haiti since 1799, what was lacking was formal diplomatic recognition.

Second, the normalization of relations from both the US and the UK did not address the validity or invalidity of France's debt. It was irrelevant to the issue of recognition.

Third, you don't seem to understand that an agreement between two sovereign states is not affected by the stance of any other countries on it. The US and the UK saying "We don't recognize Haiti's right to make agreements with France >:(" would not have invalidated that agreement with France; only Haiti or France had the ability to modify that agreement.

Why are you playing dumb? Are you trying to troll me? You’re usually not like this.

I'm not playing dumb, I'm astounded that you're regarding an unjust agreement between two sovereign nations as something that other countries have some sort of say in. Even today, with the UN, incredibly interlinked economies, and strong conceptions of international law, this argument would be difficult.

Britain refused to recognize Haiti’s sovereignty until 1833, and the US refused until 1862.

How is that 'backing up' France?

French, US, and German banks lent Haiti the money to repay the debt at usurious rates (which means those countries enforced the validity of the unjust debt).

"Allowing another country to take out loans is enforcement"

You're absolutely right, in order to respect Haiti's sovereignty, the US and Germany should have forbidden Haiti to make deals with financial institutions in the country. /s

The US invaded and occupied the country between 1915-1934. Do I need to go on?

Short of declaring that Haiti had no right to make deals with another sovereign state, itself a violation of Haiti’s sovereignty, what were other countries supposed to do at the time, exactly? Threaten war with France?

I mean, Prussia under Frederick the Great was a golden age, and he was affectionately known as 'Der Alte Fritz' ('Old Fritz') by the common people.

Definitely didn't succeed in traumatizing the homosexuality out of the kid, considering his court was infamously gay

Frederick the Great wasn't well? His dad, Frederick Wilhelm, was deeply unwell, but Frederick the Great was remarkably well-adjusted for a traumatized pre-industrial king. Plays the flute, loves dogs, loves men, embraces art and philosophy, looks after the welfare of the common people, and has a little war, as a treat.

Thank you

I've actually lost weight since I stopped walking. Unrelated, but still.

Unfortunately, walking more does not help the issue, and I don't want to go on stronger pain meds.

Physical problems. Walking long distances is painful anymore.

I’m not defending ethnic cleansing. That’s what I mean with arguing in bad faith, I’m not policing your tone.

I’ll say your point abt ethnic cleansing of Israelis actually being thinly veiled antisemitism makes sense I was wrong about that.

Do you see how "No, it's not actual antisemitism" comes off as playing apologist for ethnic cleansing advocacy?

It's not arguing in bad faith to point out the necessary implications of an argument.

All I’m saying is, the modern use of the symbol is not a reference to the symbol used in Nazi concentration camps. Something that is confirmed both by my real life discussions and online research. I’m honestly open to change my mind if you provide a decent source or something. The Wikipedia article I linked only has one source refuting it and maybe my bubble is misinformed.

If you follow the source in the Wikipedia article, this is what it has to say:

The red triangle appears in the Palestinian flag, where it represents the role the Hashemite dynasty played in the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, Desai said.

"The colour red symbolizes the blood of those who sacrificed in battle for the Arab cause and the Palestinian cause. Red is also one of the Pan-Arab colours, along with black, white and green, which together represent Arab unity and independence."

(note, again, this is in the context of being part of the flag, of being a symbol of Arabs rather than enemy targets, and not an inverted triangle)

But for some, the red triangle is reminiscent of the classification used in the Holocaust to identify political prisoners in Nazi camps, Musu said.

As the Auschwitz-Birkenau memorial and museum explains, the camps identified prisoners using coloured triangles, including red for political prisoners and pink for gay prisoners.

Several posts online have noted the similarity, including an Instagram Reel by Jewish actor Amanda Markowitz, who wrote, "Either they truly don't know or they do know and are using Holocaust inversion … and both of these options are dangerous."

... not much of a refutation.

Pug can you chill out and try to understand me here? You don’t have to agree but no need to argue in bad faith.

Being irritable is not 'arguing in bad faith', and I'd thank you not to play fucking tone police when discussing defending ethnic fucking cleansing and antisemitism.

I’m not defending Hamas introducing the symbol. I’m defending the many protestors using this symbol as a symbol of resistance, not for their use of the symbol, but against the accusation of antisemitism.

Again, how does that differ from the Strasserist "anti-capitalism" comparison I made? "Yes, I know these people introduced this symbol for most-likely horrific reasons that I (supposedly) don't agree with, but I'm going to use it and I expect you to regard it as legitimate and wholesome"

Largely what I see is that tankies want to ethnically cleanse Israelis from the area, not Jews. Your experience may differ, let me know. That doesn’t make it okay, but the difference is rather important when discussing antisemitism. Surely you wouldn’t equate Israelis with Jews either.

Jesus fucking Christ, are you being serious here?

Campist fuckwits aren't calling for Arab citizens of Israel to be ethnically cleansed; and even if they were, that holds about as much fucking water as the Trump administration crying "It's not a Muslim ban, it's just a ban on countries that are majority Muslim 😭" Most Israelis are Jews because Israel's primary form of growth was through the invitation of Jewish immigrants. If I said "I'm not anti-Muslim, I just want all of those filthy Bosniaks out of my good Yugoslavia", would that pass muster with you? Would you say, "Oh, you're just advocating ethnic cleansing of an unrelated group for unrelated reason, definitely nothing to do with anti-Muslim sentiment! 😊"?

It's fucking insane how much you bend over for shit that, rightfully, would not fucking fly in any other context. Israel is a horrific ethnonationalist state; that doesn't mean you have to play fucking defense for ethnic cleansing because they're fucking bad camp.

Is it too much to ask for you to see some nuance in this? Wikipedia directly refutes the claims that you and the other person are making, and has a reference. If you provide some evidence to the contrary I’m happy to change my mind.

The only 'refutation' that the Wiki article provides is that the red triangle, used horizontally on the flag as a representation of Arab unity dates back to the early 20th century.

For some reason, a group of Holocaust deniers introducing the use of an inverted red triangle as an independent element to mark Jewish identified targets (not Arabs) seems a bit distinct from that.

"We're taxing you lot."

"What????"

"WITH representation"

"Man, this fucking sucks, I hate taxes"

Explanation: As noted, the ancient Romans were very fond of portents, good and bad, whose form could take essentially anything mildly unusual. From how many birds you saw, to tripping as you step off of a boat, to being met by an unexpected person upon returning from a trip. This, of course, is CLEARLY an omen! But... is the omen good or bad...?

Explanation: King Henry II of England was so enraged by the behavior of Archbishop Thomas Becket that he, supposedly, chewed on the carpet in a fit of pique.

It's also (rarely used now, I think? though I remember it being a 'crap past the radar' gag in a cartoon in my youth) slang ('carpet eating' or 'munching') for performing oral sex on a woman, so poor Henry's wife is getting a false positive here.