Sociopath Community

Dragoonback said: 

Tryptamine said: 

people on the left believe that trump is literally running a fourth reich, that he's going to run a third term, that there is a "trans genocide", etc. they've gone totally hysterical. and they viewed charlie kirk as his general, and one of them acted accordingly

If he does or doesn't run for a third term, that doesn't change the fact that he has repeatedly made comments about doing so, sometimes while calling them "jokes." Given his history of making inflammatory statements and then hiding behind the word "joke," I don't think people are obligated to treat those statements as meaningless. Especially when he has a massive political following that can interpret those comments as signals about what is acceptable or desirable.

they are jokes...the guy is 80. they're already working out if it's gonna be vance or rubio or someone else next in line. the reason the jokes land is because of the insane reactions people have. it shows how out of tune they are with reality

It also doesn't change the massive division and hostility his politics have helped create. And you don't have to believe there is literally a "trans genocide" to acknowledge that anti-trans rhetoric and discriminatory policies have increased. There has been a growing effort to portray trans people as a social or political threat and to normalize hostility toward them.

what are some examples of this?

And while obviously not every individual Trump supporter necessarily hates trans people, I think it's equally dishonest to pretend that this is just some tiny fringe phenomenon. A substantial part of Trump's political coalition openly embraces anti-trans rhetoric, and the broader movement has made hostility toward trans people considerably more socially acceptable. That's what normalization means. You don't need literally every person in a political movement to hate a group for that movement to contribute to normalizing hatred of that group.

So dismissing all of this as "the left being hysterical" is just as reductive as claiming that every Trump supporter is preparing for a Fourth Reich. There are exaggerated claims on the left, but that doesn't make every concern underlying those claims imaginary.

well even a lot of people on left aren't with the trans stuff, the mainline party is ditching woke in anticipation of the midterms. and that doesn't mean victimize them...in fact i don't see how they are being victimized even under trump 

and when i say they aren't "with the trans stuff", i mean leftists are dropping what they call "woke 2.0"

Jada said: 

Candace cited for example the fact that Robinson's prints were the most degraded amongst all fingerprints on the gun. 

Her position was that there are too many suspicious things in the existing evidence, such that she thinks foul play is exceedingly likely.

I do think its weird that a gun shows up and Tyler Robinson's prints were the most degraded.

his prints were on the gun, degraded or not. and people know to wipe a gun after you use it, so that's quite possibly where the degradation is from. i feel like this would be a convincing point if he wasn't himself admitting that he did it

The point I was making is that despite how nutty Candace's views were she approached the debate by rooting her arguments in evidence. Clearly she doesnt know what shes talking about, but my main criticism of Andrew is that he completely failed to defend his own position or even attempt to discuss any evidence of his own at any length. In fact he refused to even define what was the evidence that convinced him, cause he was afraid of queries, which would show his ignorancd. 

i don't know if we are talking about the same debate then, because as far as i know she had no positive evidence, only speculative claims such as the degraded prints. which in court would be a bust

when andrew asks her for the positive proof that israel killed charlie kirk, she says her positive proof is that israel positively did it, lol. out of curiosity, how do you think andrew watered down his claims

Andrew went from agreeing that his position in the debate was going to be "there is overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson assassinated Charlie Kirk" to "im about 70%-30% sure that he did it" and by overwhelming evidence he means he just thinks personally that Tyler did it. He did it in like the first 5 minutes of his opening.

It was the most blatant bait and switch ive ever seen. Super lame. Then he cowardly never bothered to defend his position because he frankly isnt familiar enough with the whole event. Instead he just attacked Candace over some clips his team had prepared. It should've been someone who knows what they're talking about demolishing Candace by walking the viewers through the evidence.

giving those degrees of confidence is being realistic about not having total omniscient knowledge. contrast that with candace saying she was 100% certain israel was behind it

that this is the level of critical analysis just goes to show how cooked people are. and that's not me stanning andrew either, he fumbled this debate by not understanding the objective. he was in there talking about "positive evidence"...you think that concept means anything to candace?

The objective shouldve been him laying out his own evidence and addressing Candace's. Yes Candace is never going to admit shes wrong, but the point is to convince the viewers and to educate people so they dont make stupid inferences.

many are agreeing he fumbled in this regard

That I agree, and the fact that Andrew did fumble the debate by essentially holding Candace to a standard he doesnt hold himself to and I think Candace demonstrated that. Andrew didn't offer any positive evidence himself or argue why its any better than what Candace presented.

And yes what Candace presented was not good enough to make her case. The problem with Andrew was that he apparently feared presenting any case at all. Go to the clip where hes asked one of his tweets that cited the evidence he found compelling - the footage of Tyler and a few other things. He then backtracks on it and refuses to cite any specific evidence. Instead he offers "its all the evidence". He refuses to defend his own thesis.

the purpose of debate itself was candace owens taking the positive position that tyler robinson did not kill charlie kirk. that's not really the place for andrew to explain all of the evidence for tyler robinson committing the crime—everyone had that information already. what was in dispute, was that candace insisted there was sufficient evidence that there was more to the story. specifically, the debate happened because candace has been dragging out speculation for months, and accusing kirk's wife and TPUSA of having killed kirk, etc.

That's my chief issue. We have a bunch of people who can speak to things like the physics of ballistics. People who've done this for 30 years. Invite those people.

might be half a mil for candace to do the next debate

It is the courtroom yes. But I think there is also a place for these things in the public discourse. I dont have as pessimistic a view as you seem to have with regard to public debate on important topics. I think that more public discourse is needed in legal matters, conspiracies, science, math, politics, religion, etc. Its imho much more productive than making the public discourse about... Celebrity gossip.

The experts need the public'a support to function and vice versa, we need experts. We funnel so much money into useless nonsense. Give it to people who do put their lives into public service instead, and promote that. 

that would be great, if there wasn't a serious grifter problem. candace is actually doing serious damage to the future of this country by misleading people for her own economic gain

You dont think itll create problems if we have all our experts not communicating to the public about what they're actually doing?

after thinking about it more, there is a place for it. but they need to be platformed by someone who is able to maintain the flow of the conversation and keep it interesting. people come home from their 9-5 and they don't want to see dry material. but there is a place for experts in that framework, to get put on by people who know how to make the content digestible to the normies

Yeah we've come a full circle huh.

 no bueno. but life and reality are always in flux, this is just the current iteration, i suppose

Turncoat said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

She's probably profited more than anyone off of Kirk's death.

Among those young-famous, who isn't a parasite? 

nick fuentes, but people don't wanna hear that. destiny too, if you count under 40. i haven't checked the pulse on the left in years, so maybe there are some others in there. i don't think andrew callaghan is a grifter, either. i would say he's kind of base-level engaged in politics, but he's coming from a sincere place. authenticity is going to become a social currency in these coming years, because the levels of fakeness/clipability are reaching nauseating highs

Golden Eagle said:

Gemini, help him, I cannot be the one.

Gemini said:
Hamas is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist movement that originated in the Gaza Strip in December 1987. The group was founded by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and other members of the Muslim Brotherhood during the start of the first Palestinian uprising (intifada) against Israeli occupation.

Hamas also kills their own people ( Palestinians ) by various means to maintain power.

I'm not telling you who is good and bad. I'm showing you. The best place you can exist in the middle east is in Israel, where they won't kill you for being a fag.

"The 1948 War: Following the 1947 UN plan to partition the land, Israel declared independence in 1948. A coalition of Arab nations immediately attacked Israel. When the war ended, Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip, and hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees were displaced into Gaza"

On a side note Palestinians and Jews share deep common ancestry and are essentially closely related people. Just because I'm not a homosexual, doesn't mean I have contempt for them as people. Though I do find homosexuality itself disgusting.

I also do not believe in executing homosexuals. I know some of them, I used to live with 2 homosexuals and we all get along. The female one was yummy looking, I should've hit it when I had the chance, and I had a chance, cause bisexual and signals

Gemini didn't contradict what I said. It actually reinforces the distinction I was making: Hamas is an organization, while Gaza is a population, and Palestinians are not synonymous with Hamas. Saying Hamas kills Palestinians doesn't somehow make every Palestinian responsible for Hamas.

You're also still trying to turn "Israel is safer for LGBT people than Hamas-controlled Gaza" into "therefore Israel is the obvious good side." That's not what follows. It's one comparison concerning one issue. I oppose discriminatory treatment of LGBT people whether it comes from Hamas, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Israel, or anywhere else. You don't get to use Hamas's homophobia as a way to smuggle your own homophobia into the argument and then pretend I'm defending Hamas because I reject your binary.

And your own wording makes the distinction between "I don't have contempt for homosexuals" and "I find homosexuality disgusting" rather meaningless. You've used "faggotry" as an insult and repeatedly spoken about homosexuality with contempt. Saying you know homosexual people and don't want them executed doesn't erase what you've actually said. You can claim you separate people from homosexuality, but your language is still openly contemptuous toward the group and the characteristic you're associating with them.

You're also treating "they won't kill you for being gay" as though that settles the matter. It doesn't. LGBTQ Palestinians are still part of the Palestinian civilian population and can be killed, injured, displaced, or deprived of necessities by Israel's war. I'm not saying Israel specifically targets LGBT people. I'm saying domestic LGBT protections don't establish that every other action by a state is justified. A country can have better LGBT rights than its neighbors and still be criticized for its treatment of civilians.

The 1948 paragraph doesn't resolve this either. "Arab states attacked Israel after its declaration of independence" is not a complete history of the conflict. It leaves out the preceding civil war, the partition dispute, the displacement of Palestinians, and the circumstances that produced the refugee crisis. None of this requires treating Israel as uniquely evil or Palestinians as uniquely innocent. It requires refusing to turn a complicated history into "they attacked Israel, therefore Israel is the obvious good side."

And the shared ancestry point actually reinforces why I don't see Palestinians and Jews as two fundamentally separate peoples where one can simply be assigned the role of good side and the other bad side. They're historically related populations with a complicated history.

So no, you haven't "shown" me who's good and bad. You've presented a collection of facts and then attached conclusions to them that don't logically follow. Hamas being bad doesn't make Israel good in every respect. Israel having stronger LGBT protections doesn't make its conduct toward Palestinians irrelevant. Anti-LGBT policies being practiced by some Muslim-majority states doesn't make every Muslim or Palestinian responsible for them. And your own contemptuous language about homosexuality doesn't disappear because you know two homosexual people you got along with. That's the black-and-white reasoning I was criticizing in the first place.

Tryptamine said:

Well, even a lot of people on the left aren't with the trans stuff, the mainline party is ditching woke in anticipation of the midterms. And that doesn't mean victimize them... in fact I don't see how they are being victimized even under Trump. And when I say they aren't ‘with the trans stuff’, I mean leftists are dropping what they call ‘woke 2.0’.

You're changing the subject. I never claimed every person on the left is "with the trans stuff," nor did I claim every Trump supporter hates trans people. My argument was specifically that anti-trans rhetoric and discriminatory policy have been normalized within a substantial part of the right. The fact that some Democrats are backing away from "woke 2.0" doesn't refute that at all. A political faction becoming less enthusiastic about something doesn't make the thing itself nonexistent.

And "I don't see how they're being victimized" isn't an argument. You asked for examples, so the relevant question is whether there are policies and rhetoric that impose additional restrictions or disadvantages on trans people. There are. You can argue that those restrictions are justified, but that's different from claiming there is no victimization or discrimination occurring. Nobody needs to prove a "trans genocide" for discrimination to exist.

You're also treating "the left is dropping woke" as though it somehow proves the right is correct. It doesn't. Political parties change messaging because of elections, public opinion, strategy, and internal disagreements. None of that establishes whether a particular policy is reasonable or whether hostility toward a group is justified.

More importantly, this is exactly the black-and-white reasoning I've been criticizing. "There isn't a trans genocide" does not imply "there is no anti-trans hostility." "Some leftists oppose aspects of trans politics" does not imply "there is no discrimination against trans people." And "some people on the left are hysterical" does not imply that criticism of Trump or the right is hysterical by definition. You're repeatedly replacing the actual claim with a much more extreme one because the extreme version is easier to dismiss.

Tryptamine said:

nick fuentes, but people don't wanna hear that. destiny too, if you count under 40. i haven't checked the pulse on the left in years, so maybe there are some others in there. i don't think andrew callaghan is a grifter, either. i would say he's kind of base-level engaged in politics, but he's coming from a sincere place. authenticity is going to become a social currency in these coming years, because the levels of fakeness/clipability are reaching nauseating highs

I don't think "authenticity" is a meaningful distinction in the way you're using it. There isn't a pure, unmediated "real self" on one side and a fake persona on the other. People construct their presentation of themselves according to context, incentives, audience, self-image, and what they currently believe. Even someone who sincerely believes a statement is still presenting a selective version of themselves and can be consciously or unconsciously performing a role.

So separating "authenticity" from "fakeness/clipability" doesn't actually establish anything. Being perceived as authentic is itself part of someone's public persona and can be monetized just like any other persona. And calling someone authentic because you personally perceive them as sincere is circular: you're essentially saying they're authentic because they seem authentic to you.

That's especially weak as a way of determining who is or isn't a parasite. You'd have to identify the actual behavior you're calling parasitic rather than replacing the question with "I like this person's presentation, therefore they're authentic."

his prints were on the gun, degraded or not. and people know to wipe a gun after you use it, so that's quite possibly where the degradation is from. i feel like this would be a convincing point if he wasn't himself admitting that he did it

For me the smoking gun is what you also think is the smoking gun, namely that Tyler admitted or strongly implied that he killed Kirk to his discord friends, parents, significant other, and one more person to my recall, and didn't deny it when asked.

Its unlikely that the confessions were "fabricated" because itd require his mom/dad/partner to be in on it, though it doesnt rule out that he was coerced into confessing. Candace at least implied that he was framed. If that were true then his mom and dad, romantic partner, and some others would have to be in on it. 

i don't know if we are talking about the same debate then, because as far as i know she had no positive evidence, only speculative claims such as the degraded prints. which in court would be a bust

He didnt argue for any positive evidence for his own claim either so there is no reason to side with Andrew, beyond the reasons viewers already had going into the debate.

giving those degrees of confidence is being realistic about not having total omniscient knowledge. contrast that with candace saying she was 100% certain israel was behind it

Totally agree, but then he cant go claiming overwhelming evidence when organising the debate and then flipping to 70-30% did-didnt after the debate starts. He shouldve gone with "there is some evidence that Tyler did it" or something uninteresting like that from the start. 70% is very underwhelming evidence plus he changed the claim so that he doesnt need to defend his position, but he did it after the fact, which is a cop-out.

Besides, if he thinks there's a one in three chance Candace is right, there is no reason to have a debate.

many are agreeing he fumbled in this regard

Yep

the purpose of debate itself was candace owens taking the positive position that tyler robinson did not kill charlie kirk. that's not really the place for andrew to explain all of the evidence for tyler robinson committing the crime—everyone had that information already. what was in dispute, was that candace insisted there was sufficient evidence that there was more to the story. specifically, the debate happened because candace has been dragging out speculation for months, and accusing kirk's wife and TPUSA of having killed kirk, etc.

I dont agree with this. The premise of the debate was that both made the statement that there is overwhelming evidence that Tyler did/didn't do it, with Andrew saying he did, and Candace saying he didn't. It wasnt that Candace made a positive claim and Andrew didnt. That's why Andrew's cop out is so cowardly because he wanted to change the debate premise after the fact. Check the debate opening and what the moderator said the agreed-upon debate claims from both parties were. Andrew absolutely needs to defend his positive claim that Tyler did it.

I do agree that the debate was triggered by Candace's speculation.

might be half a mil for candace to do the next debate

Lol yeah its a shitshow.

that would be great, if there wasn't a serious grifter problem. candace is actually doing serious damage to the future of this country by misleading people for her own economic gain

I agree with you theres a massive grifter problem that needs fixing. 300k to debate friend's death. That's messed up.

after thinking about it more, there is a place for it. but they need to be platformed by someone who is able to maintain the flow of the conversation and keep it interesting. people come home from their 9-5 and they don't want to see dry material. but there is a place for experts in that framework, to get put on by people who know how to make the content digestible to the normies

Dragoonback said: 

Golden Eagle said:

Gemini, help him, I cannot be the one.

Gemini said:
Hamas is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist movement that originated in the Gaza Strip in December 1987. The group was founded by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and other members of the Muslim Brotherhood during the start of the first Palestinian uprising (intifada) against Israeli occupation.

Hamas also kills their own people ( Palestinians ) by various means to maintain power.

I'm not telling you who is good and bad. I'm showing you. The best place you can exist in the middle east is in Israel, where they won't kill you for being a fag.

"The 1948 War: Following the 1947 UN plan to partition the land, Israel declared independence in 1948. A coalition of Arab nations immediately attacked Israel. When the war ended, Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip, and hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees were displaced into Gaza"

On a side note Palestinians and Jews share deep common ancestry and are essentially closely related people. Just because I'm not a homosexual, doesn't mean I have contempt for them as people. Though I do find homosexuality itself disgusting.

I also do not believe in executing homosexuals. I know some of them, I used to live with 2 homosexuals and we all get along. The female one was yummy looking, I should've hit it when I had the chance, and I had a chance, cause bisexual and signals

Gemini didn't contradict what I said. It actually reinforces the distinction I was making: Hamas is an organization, while Gaza is a population, and Palestinians are not synonymous with Hamas. Saying Hamas kills Palestinians doesn't somehow make every Palestinian responsible for Hamas.

It did. You're separating Hamas from the nation of which they came. They ARE from Gaza. 

Where did you think they came from ? They formed out at sea and just sailed in ?

You're also still trying to turn "Israel is safer for LGBT people than Hamas-controlled Gaza" into "therefore Israel is the obvious good side."

That's the truth though. The safest place in the middle east for queers is Israel. I never said if it's the good or bad side, that's up to you to decide. However, the LGBT that support Hamas in my opinion, are idiots.  

That's not what follows. It's one comparison concerning one issue. I oppose discriminatory treatment of LGBT people whether it comes from Hamas, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Israel, or anywhere else. You don't get to use Hamas's homophobia as a way to smuggle your own homophobia into the argument and then pretend I'm defending Hamas because I reject your binary.

HA HA HA. Actually. I get to. And you were showing support for Hamas while damning Israel. 

And your own wording makes the distinction between "I don't have contempt for homosexuals" and "I find homosexuality disgusting" rather meaningless.

Yeah but if I'm not gay, I'm supposed to be put off by 2 men having sex and that's okay. I know there are people who want me to kneel down and prop it up, but no. Not for me, just like being straight is not for you. 

You've used "faggotry" as an insult and repeatedly spoken about homosexuality with contempt.

But no one here believes saying homosexual is an insult. You and Nathan don't count cause you both like to complain. I also say Nigger, Paki, berka-derka, chink, cracka. Bisexual, homosexual, heterosexual. Female penis, mangina. Why should I exclude faggot ?

And I'll tell you this... And it's true... When white people are able to say these things and no one gives a fuck or even has fun with it, the world will be a better place. Oh yes it will, it's not going away. Peace of mind.  

Saying you know homosexual people and don't want them executed doesn't erase what you've actually said. You can claim you separate people from homosexuality, but your language is still openly contemptuous toward the group and the characteristic you're associating with them.

Man. I was playing Ninja Gaiden, sitting on the love seat in the living room, and she came and she sat on the arm rest of the love seat, except the other half of her ass with on my lap. It was very warm lol. I never moved. I was too nice, she had a girlfriend. Then she'd come barging into my room and sit by my foot having a smoke out my window, While I'm still in bed, and again, I was too nice. 

The other guy, I remember coming home and he was in the living room with some stranger. Looked like a kid, maybe 19-20. They were holding hands. Even if it's a straight couple I'm gonna scram, I don't like being around people while they're displaying affection for one another. Only saw the kid once. 

Yeah it was me and 2 queers and 2 dogs holding down a 3 bedroom. I call him a homosexual too, it amuses him. 

You're also treating "they won't kill you for being gay" as though that settles the matter. It doesn't. LGBTQ Palestinians are still part of the Palestinian civilian population and can be killed, injured, displaced, or deprived of necessities by Israel's war.

Hamas uses them as human shields. Before an area gets bombed, it's announced where they're going to strike. This is true. 

It was a bad idea to launch missiles at Israel. 

I'm not saying Israel specifically targets LGBT people. I'm saying domestic LGBT protections don't establish that every other action by a state is justified. A country can have better LGBT rights than its neighbors and still be criticized for its treatment of civilians.

Imagine if Israel never had the Iron Dome defense system. I already made a statement about war and how civilians get caught up in it.  Israel still supplies Gaza with water. This is true too. Gaza has parasites and it doesn't serve the people there at all. 

The 1948 paragraph doesn't resolve this either. "Arab states attacked Israel after its declaration of independence" is not a complete history of the conflict. It leaves out the preceding civil war, the partition dispute, the displacement of Palestinians, and the circumstances that produced the refugee crisis. None of this requires treating Israel as uniquely evil or Palestinians as uniquely innocent. It requires refusing to turn a complicated history into "they attacked Israel, therefore Israel is the obvious good side."

It did not leave out the displacement of Arabs. Once side always strikes first, just like last time and the time before, and the time before that. Doesn't matter who strikes first, it is sad, but Israel won't just sit back and let themselves get wiped out.

Support for Hamas is wishing for genocide. If Istaral wanted to they can exterminate the whole Gaza strip and put an end to this once and for all in so many ways. Wouldn't be cheap but there are cheaper alternatives to doing it. They won't.

And the shared ancestry point actually reinforces why I don't see Palestinians and Jews as two fundamentally separate peoples where one can simply be assigned the role of good side and the other bad side. They're historically related populations with a complicated history.

Yeah. The war isn't with Gaza or the Arabs that live there. It's with Hamas who is funded by Iran. It's very dumb to attack a more powerful military.

So no, you haven't "shown" me who's good and bad. You've presented a collection of facts and then attached conclusions to them that don't logically follow. Hamas being bad doesn't make Israel good in every respect. Israel having stronger LGBT protections doesn't make its conduct toward Palestinians irrelevant. Anti-LGBT policies being practiced by some Muslim-majority states doesn't make every Muslim or Palestinian responsible for them. And your own contemptuous language about homosexuality doesn't disappear because you know two homosexual people you got along with. That's the black-and-white reasoning I was criticizing in the first place.

Uh huh.

From the river to the sea. 

Jada said: 

I think Joe Rogan has managed it with some of his guests. He's had real experts in countless areas and he made the conversations really interesting. Honestly I admire him for that aspect of his work, I don't know how he does it. Its a difficult job not least of all because people are so used to assuming so much common knowledge within the field. 

 

I have a massive respect for the people who do it, but Ive only seen it done right by a few people. 

Rogan is probably best understood as entertainment that happens to contain experts, rather than an expert information source. The problem is that he also promotes a lot of misinformation and speculative narratives, and that can affect people subconsciously even if they think they're listening critically. A claim doesn't have to convince you outright to influence what starts to seem plausible.

Golden_Eagle said:

It did. You're separating Hamas from the nation of which they came. They ARE from Gaza. 

Where did you think they came from ? They formed out at sea and just sailed in ? That's the truth though. The safest place in the middle east for queers is Israel. I never said if it's the good or bad side, that's up to you to decide. However, the LGBT that support Hamas in my opinion, are idiots. HA HA HA. Actually. I get to. And you were showing support for Hamas while damning Israel.  Yeah but if I'm not gay, I'm supposed to be put off by 2 men having sex and that's okay. I know there are people who want me to kneel down and prop it up, but no. Not for me, just like being straight is not for you.  But no one here believes saying homosexual is an insult. You and Nathan don't count cause you both like to complain. I also say Nigger, Paki, berka-derka, chink, cracka. Bisexual, homosexual, heterosexual. Female penis, mangina. Why should I exclude faggot ?

And I'll tell you this... And it's true... When white people are able to say these things and no one gives a fuck or even has fun with it, the world will be a better place. Oh yes it will, it's not going away. Peace of mind.  Man. I was playing Ninja Gaiden, sitting on the love seat in the living room, and she came and she sat on the arm rest of the love seat, except the other half of her ass with on my lap. It was very warm lol. I never moved. I was too nice, she had a girlfriend. Then she'd come barging into my room and sit by my foot having a smoke out my window, While I'm still in bed, and again, I was too nice. 

The other guy, I remember coming home and he was in the living room with some stranger. Looked like a kid, maybe 19-20. They were holding hands. Even if it's a straight couple I'm gonna scram, I don't like being around people while they're displaying affection for one another. Only saw the kid once. 

Yeah it was me and 2 queers and 2 dogs holding down a 3 bedroom. I call him a homosexual too, it amuses him. Hamas uses them as human shields. Before an area gets bombed, it's announced where they're going to strike. This is true. 

It was a bad idea to launch missiles at Israel. Imagine if Israel never had the Iron Dome defense system. I already made a statement about war and how civilians get caught up in it.  Israel still supplies Gaza with water. This is true too. Gaza has parasites and it doesn't serve the people there at all.  It did not leave out the displacement of Arabs. Once side always strikes first, just like last time and the time before, and the time before that. Doesn't matter who strikes first, it is sad, but Israel won't just sit back and let themselves get wiped out.

Support for Hamas is wishing for genocide. If Istaral wanted to they can exterminate the whole Gaza strip and put an end to this once and for all in so many ways. Wouldn't be cheap but there are cheaper alternatives to doing it. They won't.Yeah. The war isn't with Gaza or the Arabs that live there. It's with Hamas who is funded by Iran. It's very dumb to attack a more powerful military. Uh huh.

From the river to the sea. 

Nobody said Hamas "formed out at sea." You're deliberately pretending I made an absurd claim instead of addressing what I actually said. Hamas being founded in Gaza and governing Gaza does not make Hamas synonymous with Gaza's entire civilian population. Political organizations exist within populations without becoming identical to every person in them. "They're from Gaza" doesn't refute that distinction.

Israel being comparatively safer for LGBT people than many places in the Middle East is a relevant fact, but you're turning that narrow comparison into a moral shortcut. I oppose discriminatory treatment of LGBT people regardless of whether it comes from Hamas, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Israel, or anyone else. You keep trying to turn criticism of Israel into support for Hamas, which is simply putting words in my mouth. The relevant question isn't just which society has better LGBT policy. Israel is the vastly more powerful state conducting the military campaign, so it has vastly greater capacity to affect Palestinian civilians, including LGBT Palestinians. Hamas's anti-LGBT ideology can be condemned without pretending it is therefore the more relevant actor when discussing the consequences of Israel's war. An LGBT Palestinian being killed, displaced, or deprived of necessities doesn't become irrelevant because Israel has better LGBT laws than Hamas.

Your own comments about homosexuality also make your attempted distinction increasingly ridiculous. You explicitly said homosexuality is "disgusting," use "faggot" as an insult, and then claim you don't have contempt for homosexuals because some people you know don't mind you calling them that. Whether a particular person tolerates your terminology doesn't determine whether the terminology is derogatory. Listing racial and ethnic slurs alongside "faggot" doesn't demonstrate that none of them are insults. It demonstrates that you're deliberately using slurs and then redefining them as harmless because you personally enjoy saying them.

You also keep appealing to Israel/the West as though "freedom" is a single package that automatically makes your preferred side morally superior. What exactly do you mean by secular freedom? Does that include abortion rights, same-sex marriage, protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation, freedom from religious coercion, equal political participation for atheists, and not being required to affirm religious beliefs in civic institutions? If secular freedom means individual liberty regardless of whether you personally approve of someone's choices, then it has to apply consistently. You openly describe homosexuality as disgusting and defend anti-gay slurs while appealing to Israel's LGBT protections when they're useful against Palestinians. Those principles don't naturally fit together.

And historically, your binary is even less convincing. Israeli policy itself helped Islamist networks that later developed into Hamas as a counterweight to secular Palestinian political organizations, and later Israeli governments facilitated Qatari money into Hamas-controlled Gaza. That doesn't mean Hamas was simply an Israeli creation or that Israel directly controlled its military. It means the history is more complicated than "Islamists came from Gaza, therefore Palestinians chose the bad side." Secular Palestinian politics, Israeli policy, Islamism, and Palestinian civilian society are not interchangeable categories.

The same applies to your other arguments. Hamas using civilians or civilian infrastructure for military purposes, if established in a particular case, doesn't make every civilian a member of Hamas. Israel warning civilians before some strikes doesn't mean every subsequent civilian death is justified. Israel supplying some water doesn't establish that its conduct toward Gaza as a whole is benign. Hamas being funded by Iran doesn't make Palestinians responsible for Hamas. And saying Israel could exterminate Gaza if it wanted to isn't a defense of what it actually does. "They could have killed more" isn't a moral standard.

"Hamas is bad, therefore Israel is the better side" is still not the argument I was making. I can consider Hamas reprehensible, oppose its treatment of LGBT people, oppose its attacks on Israeli civilians, and still criticize Israeli military actions, settlement policy, treatment of Palestinians, or civilian casualties. Those positions aren't contradictory. I don't have to choose between Islamism and Israeli nationalism. I can reject both wherever they conflict with secularism, individual liberty, and equal treatment.

That's ultimately the problem with your argument. You keep taking one genuine fact, such as Hamas being hostile to LGBT people, and using it to collapse an entire political conflict into a good side and a bad side. Then you accuse me of supporting the bad side whenever I reject that binary. That's not an argument. It's putting words in my mouth and replacing a complicated political question with the exact black-and-white reasoning I was criticizing.