This does make it feel a little bit better though.

By a lot, yeah. Kind of a bummer how much he's behind, wish it was at least close, he didn't deserve to finish this in his own riding.

That feels like it was probably one of the central reasons permanent members of the UNSC have vetoes.

Is this really the first time they've called it that? Genuinely surprised, given how often bombing civilians has needed some industrial-strength PR to justify it.

I haven't seen a lot of that personally, but the way you're framing it really comes across as the bad actors hitting the "oppression" button when they can't form a real argument for their position.

I don't know any honest people who would apply the extreme definition without question or critical thought, so this all feels like kicking at a straw man to be honest.

As I said above, I think it's reasonable to ask for clarification, if only to aid in understanding so people can do better in the future, but also to prevent bad actors from abusing the "oppression" button when they can't form a proper argument. 1/2

I think anyone would at least have the right to ask for an explanation as to why there's so much disagreement on the point from within their own community, otherwise you're just handing bad actors carte blanche to call "oppression" on anything they didn't like to be criticized about.

Fair, but when a significant portion of the community in question seem to be contradicting the strongest voices outside their community going hard for the most extreme version of the position, it feels like there's more to it than groups defining their own oppression.

Can we? Most of the biggest voices I'm seeing calling criticism of the Israeli government anti-Semitic are American Evangelical Christians, not Jewish people.

Also, there's a world of difference between "support" and "support uncritically", and not a lot of Jewish people seem to do that at all.

Something I missed on the first pass, "unquestionably" doesn't seem like a justified part of the premise here, and looks to be the root of the apparent conflict between the claims being compared. I'm sure there are exceptions, but nobody I've been hearing does that irl.

But with so many Jewish people all over the world (including within Israel) so vocally calling out the Israeli government for its treatment of Palestinians, I don't see how "on balance" applies in this case where there's so much clear disagreement within the community itself.

It's not a bad idea, but I think equating "Jewish" and "Israel" is a flaw that undoes it pretty badly though.

Palestinians aren't saying that Jews as an ethnic group are bombing them out of existence, they're saying the IDF is, and it's hard to argue against that.

Fallacy fallacy. Thanks for playing.

If you want to make a real point, make one, don't just throw out a random fallacy that doesn't actually apply in a way that invalidates the argument you're trying to refute. If someone has 1st hand knowledge on a subject, that doesn't make their view worth less.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I should probably time things better.

I feel like I should actually get the job before I start thinking of ways to dramatically lose it.

I would genuinely prefer the feral raccoons over the not see cosplayer I encountered over there today.

Don't tempt me, the job I interviewed for this afternoon is a hybrid remote position I could make really evil use of a green screen with.

I'm moderately annoyed now that I'm realizing the green wall in my new office is in front of my desk instead of behind it.

Though, I do still have a substantial amount of green paint left...