You have demonstrated no common sense at all and a complete lack of knowledge in your previous comments, so yeah, you won’t convince me that this was not written by an LLM.

Antiandrogens (and by extension GnRH antagonists) have the bad side effect of bone loss/osteoporosis, so not really a good long term solution, and like SSRIs, they just reduce the sexual drive as a whole. I don’t know where you see any effectiveness here.

Of course your LLM response provides a study that is heavily flawed in it’s methodology and has been criticised a number. of. times..

I’m not convinced, neither are most experts in this field of research.

Does a condition being considered a mental illness magically make it curable? Was homosexuality curable when it was still classified as a mental disorder? Not that I know of. But feel free to show me a reputable study claiming that is indeed possible to cure pedophilia or paraphilias in general.

I thought I’ve read somewhere that “mental disorder” is a broader term, whereas “mental illness” was mostly referring to conditions that impact general behaviour and functioning. But okay, let’s use them synonymously, in which case it’s still not a severe mental illness that can be cured.

A sexual preference towards men, women, or nonbinary isn’t a mental illness. A sexual preference to children is.

Even if go with this assumption, that doesn’t mean it requires treatment (which is not really possible anyway), let alone forcefully.

You can’t make someone “no longer a pedophile” any more than you can make someone “no longer gay/lesbian/bisexual/[insert any other sexual orientation]”.

treat and rid individuals of the severe mental illness

It’s not a mental illness. If anything, it’s a mental disorder or just a sexual orientation. And when exactly have we ever been able to get rid of a sexual preference? Is conversion therapy your goal? That shit doesn’t work.

You seem to be making a lot of wrong assumptions here. Because just like men in the rapists example, pedophiles overwhelmingly are fit for society and don’t need treatment or rehabilitation in the first place. And for the ones that do feel like they need help, it would actually be better to not shame and stigmatize them to actually give them the chance of trusting someone to talk about it.

Yes, you did make that point, by claiming that “we should remove all pedophiles from society”. I gave you an equivalent example to show you how stupid that is. And you didn’t just “not address it”, you completely spun it around to fit your narrative. That whole point was your emotional knee-jerk reaction, I was simply throwing it back at you.

Jesus fucking Christ, are you just ragebaiting or are you genuinely this bad at comprehending stuff? I am talking about the equivalent of your original point, that being the PREEMPTIVE removal of ALL MEN from society due to the fact that they are the main perpetrators of rape, despite the overwhelming majority of them not being rapists at all.

Is this clear now, or should I send your Mum over to explain it to you?

That wasn’t the point here. You should work on your reading comprehension. Unless you genuinely believe that all men are potential rapists that should preventively be removed from society? In which case I would just give up explaining this to someone who has the mental capacity of a toddler.

You’d agree of course, that pedophiles should be removed from society?

No, I would most definitely not. In the same way that I would not agree that we should remove all men from society just because they make up the majority of rapists.

Is the idea of shaming pedophiles and pedo apologists some kind of line in the sand that shouldn’t be crossed in your eyes?

Yes.

With this line of thinking I’d rather remove you from society

This is not at all comparable to Trump/Epstein. Drew was only pitying pedophiles, not actual rapists (this may come as a surprise to you, but there is a very clear difference).

Did the people in the GDR vanish when the GDR didn’t exist anymore? No, they didn’t. So fuck off with this BS.

You made that comment with your interpretation, and someone agreed with that sentence on its own. How the fuck does this prove that “Death to X” can be interpreted as killing all people of X?

Die Verhinderung der Rettung von 5000 jüdischen Kindern und 80000 weiteren Jüd*innen aus Rumänien vor den Vernichtungslagern und die Aufstellung einer muslimischen SS-Division sind vollkommen verständliche antikoloniale Maßnahmen?

Davon rede ich doch gar nicht. Mir ging es erst mal um das opportunistische Verbünden mit den Achsenmächten an sich. Natürlich war er am Ende des Tages immer noch ein antisemitischer Vollidiot und seine spätere Rolle war nicht zu rechtfertigen, wie ich ja auch geschrieben habe (zugegeben, ich hätte diesen Punkt etwas deutlicher formulieren sollen).

Und ja, mir ist sehr klar dass du dich nur für die Zeit interessierst in der die Jüd*innen in die Lage gekommen sind sich zu wehren.

Ist doch auch logisch, dass ich mich für diese Zeit interessiere, da dies der relevante Zeitraum für den Konflikt mit den Palästinensern ist. Dass Juden in anderen Regionen der Welt unterdrückt wurden bestreite ich ja gar nicht und sich dagegen zu wehren ist ja auch absolut verständlich, aber das trifft eben nicht auf Palästinenser zu, die zu der Zeit seit Jahrhunderten kein wirkliches Problem mit den dort seit jeher lebenden und zugezogenen nicht-zionistischen Juden hatten. Wenn aber diese durch die Alijas immer mehr werdenden zugezogenen Menschen die lokale Bevölkerung im zionistischen Interesse eines exklusiv jüdischen Gebietes aus den Dörfern vertreiben und damit dieses Zusammenleben zunichte machen, ist es wenig verwunderlich, dass sie auf diese nicht gerade positiv zu sprechen sind. Für diesen historischen Kontext, der so ziemlich den Ursprung des aktuellen Konflikts darstellt, brauchen wir keinen wirklich größeren Zeitrahmen.

Die beiden Punkte wollte ich noch kurz klarstellen, dann können wir das Thema hier gerne auch wie gewünscht begraben.

Islamists may be fine with some civilian casualties, but I have no reason to believe that this is their main goal. Even the actual large scale attacks against the US so far (11-9) were directed towards the nation and its economy (WTC, pentagon, capitol) and not some random civilian hotspot. Then again, this wasn’t simply a religiously motivated attack and not every Islamist is the same, some may be more extreme than others, but to me the past events and expressions that I know of have not shown a clear intent to kill all Americans. I don’t think it’s really an anarchist critique, just a critique against the countless atrocities committed by the American governments and a call for systematic change, as in “Tear America down, then rebuild it into something that can’t just meddle in other countries politics and kill our people as it pleases”.

The fact that “Deutschland verrecke” is coming from Germans doesn’t change anything about the situation, because ironically this one is sometimes accompanied by a “Bomber Harris, do it again!”, which actually is a call for killing civilians, coming from Germans themselves. But without the second slogan, I also wouldn’t think that this is a call for killing all Germans, no matter if it’s Germans or anyone else saying it.

I don’t. And I’m in a lot of English subs.

Have you blocked some instances or communities? Because I know for a fact that discussions around this are a somewhat regular occurrence, even with the instances feddit.org is federated with, because I was able to see them as well when I was there. It may not discussed as much anymore as it was up to a year ago, but still occasionally flares up, IIRC it also came up again in the db0 thread about the vote for defederating feddit, but I may be wrong here.

The sentence could, for example, come straight from the neo-Nazi scene.

Unlikely. Neo-nazis may be against Jews, but they’re generally very pro-Israel. Which is only logical, because ethno-nationalism is kinda their thing, and “better have the Jews over there than here with us”. Just take a look at right-wing and literal Nazi Twitter accounts and take a shot every time you see an Israel flag in their name or bio. You’ll probably pass out drunk in just 5-10 minutes.

However, Feddit.org is not a left-wing, but rather a general instance like lemmy.world. I am also relatively certain that the sentence would be moderated away on lemmy.world as well.

It still has an overwhelmingly left-leaning user base but yeah, fair point. And lemmy.world is the pinnacle of liberal garbage, so wouldn’t surprise me. Still, there are a lot of instances that are general-purpose or focused on other non-political topics without misunderstanding this slogan.

Yes, your previous poster claims that deleting and prohibiting such posts is “policing anti-apartheid ethnostate press against a current active genocidal state.”

They’re not wrong. Of course there are more objective ways to go about this, but that doesn’t change the fact that moderating such posts is useless policing (hint: “policing” doesn’t mean “not allowing one side to post at all”) against a side objecting to genocide and the existence of settler-colonial ethnostates. And if you’re so sure that it’s not a zionist instance, you could try voicing the opinion on Feddit that Israel shouldn’t and doesn’t have the unquestionable right to exist. I’m very curious if this more neutral way of saying it with no ambiguity about the killing of civilians will get removed. If it will be, which I’m almost certain about, it’s a zionist instance. But I’m open to be proven wrong.

And sorry for slightly leaving the discussion at hand here, but with a societal, online and media landscape that has basically no issue with supporting Israel and the IDF or even being in favor of supplying (more) weapons to Israel, which has the known implication of more bloodshed in the real world, happening right now where thousands of innocent civilians, many of them children, are dying every month, we’re seriously making a fuzz about a slogan that simply calls for the dissolution of a state at best, and is ambiguous to the political illiterates at worst? This is insane, and I mean this in the literal way.

Die größeren systemischen Vertreibungen der Juden fanden vor ~2000 bis ~1000 Jahren hauptsächlich durch die Römer statt, und sind damit für die heutige Zeit nicht wirklich relevant und auch nicht direkt den Palästinensern zuzuschreiben. Spätestens seit der aus der Schlacht von Mardsch Dabiq 1516 resultierenden Übernahme des Gebietes durch das osmanische Reich haben zudem alle wieder relativ friedlich zusammenleben können, und das funktionierte so auch für mindestens 400 Jahre, natürlich nur so lange bis die Europäer (im Speziellen Franzosen und hauptsächlich Briten) diesen Fortschritt wieder zunichte machten.

Chefs (ich vermute du meinst al-Husseini) und die allgemeine palästinensische Unterstützung für die Axenmächte war demnach eine erst einmal verständliche, wenn auch nicht völlig zu rechtfertigende opportunistische Folge im Widerstand gegen britische Kolonialherrschaft. Damit die Vertreibung der Palästinenser auch nur im Ansatz zu begründen ist sehr gewagt. Nach der Logik hätten die Palästinenser jetzt auch jedes Recht dazu, sich Teile Großbritanniens einzuverleiben.

Mir geht es wie gesagt um die für diesen Konflikt relevanten letzten ~100 Jahre, da muss man nichts bis zum heute irrelevanten Jerusalemer Tempel zurückspielen.

Wenn man jedes kleinste historische Ereignis bis in die Antike analysieren möchte mag es viel komplizierter wirken, für den heutigen Konflikt ist es das aber in Wirklichkeit nicht.

It’s not a good sign for a political slogan if you have to read the fine print to get the right interpretation.

Do you read the fine print for “Deutschland verrecke” or “Death to America” as well, or does that only apply when it comes to Israel?

You’re also overestimating how many people are actually confronted with something like this. That’s why very few people will have heard about the clarification of this slogan.

We’re on Lemmy, which means unless you limit yourself to just the local feddit.org feed (and I know for a fact that the typical zionists on feddit don’t), you get confronted with this on a fairly regular basis. And you wouldn’t need any clarification if you knew how to fucking read. Israel ≠ Israelis, it’s literally that simple.

I can understand why the mods delete such content tbh.

I can’t. We’re on a federated platform with an international community, which made it clear countless times that “Death to Israel” does not refer to killing all the Israelis/Jews in the world, often even explicitly speaking out against this. Considering that most Feddit users are proficient in English, especially admins/mods and those I’ve seen to misinterpret this slogan, I refuse to believe that they don’t know this by now. And somehow this (along with the absolute clusterfuck of Anti-Germans) is almost an exclusively German issue, because the rest of the international Left understands just fine what this slogan means.

If you think that the only way to speak out against a current active genocidal state is to write “Death to Israel,” then that’s not just pathetic, it’s childish.

Nobody claims that this is the only way, but considering that the existence of Israel as its own state to this day prevents and more than likely will continue to prevent peaceful coexistence, it’s a justified one. Is it pathetic and childish? Maybe, but much less so than misinterpreting it to fit your narrative.

Dass der Dreijährige mit seinen großen Brüdern auf Vitali losgegangen ist kam nachdem Vitali sich einfach so mit Unterstützung seiner Eltern im Zimmer des Dreijährigen breit gemacht und ihn in die Ecke vertrieben hat.

Und “Es ist kompliziert” ist auch einfach nur eine faule Ausrede um sich nicht mit der Geschichte der Region der letzten ~100 Jahre beschäftigen zu müssen, also mindestens mit der britischen Kolonialbesatzung und deren folgende militärische Unterstützung für Zionisten nach dem Sykes-Picot-Abkommen und der Balfour-Deklaration, bis hin zur Nakba und letztendlich der Errichtung des Staates Israel, ab dem die großen Brüder überhaupt erst so richtig tätig wurden. Die haben sich die Jahre vor der Staatsgründung nämlich eher vorsichtig verhalten, in Form von Unterstützung für die damals stattfindenden Aufstände oder der arabischen Revolte.

Aber erzähl mir gerne mehr darüber, wie ich zu unterkomplex über diesen Konflikt denke.

Vitali sperrt den Dreijährigen in den Wandschrank, nimmt ihm alles weg, gibt ihm dann nur minimale Vorräte und schlägt auch immer mal wieder zu. Wundert mich nicht, dass der Dreijährige sich dagegen konstant und auf jede erdenkliche Weise versucht zu wehren.