This is a great retort. But does this belong in this community? Is this a meme?
Do you not consider this a meme? If I may ask, why not?
Frankly, I have trouble defining what a ‘meme’ really is. Traditionally, a meme is an idea of some sort that spreads through a culture. A more modern definition would be:
An amusing or interesting item (such as a captioned picture or video) or genre of items that is spread widely online especially through social media
So personally I would say this post a meme and thus belongs here. However, I don’t know if Webster’s definition is really what posters here, and more importantly the mods here, would use.
Aww, you took their gatekeeper pass away.
Does spitting fire as truth have a right to our memes?
Yes and yes. Any further questions?
They were both rhetorical.
Good point. Technically it is, it’s just not funny.
Memes don’t always need to be funny.
Still though, is this even a meme at all?
Meme: an idea, behavior, style, or piece of media that spreads from person to person within a culture, often via imitation or rapid online sharing.
Yeah I think this would count.
Then I can post links to music videos about politics in this community?
I personally think that definition is too broad, as a person who grew up with the memes taking form, and the internet taking shape.
The term was first defined in the 70s. Memes are not a new thing that took form with the internet, nor are they limited to the internet at all.
Right, I just think that an online community such as this, with “memes” in its name, carries a certain connotation and expectaton.
My two cents. 🤷♂️
I don’t see how this is a meme. It shares the similarity of being an image posted to the internet, but I don’t know if that qualifies. 😅
That’s not what a meme is.
Meme: an idea, behavior, style, or piece of media that spreads from person to person within a culture, often via imitation or rapid online sharing.
Memes existed long before the internet, and long before people butchered the term to just mean “hurt durr funny internet picture”.
I understand all that, I just don’t see how this qualifies, still. It’s just a great rebuttal, that’s all. What’s the “cultural idea” here? Care to explain?
What exactly is Israel? The government? The people? The corporations? Which aspect of the country has a right to exist exactly?
The part systematically killing off an entire population of people? No. That part has no right to exist.
The fullfilment of prophecy to bring about the end times according to their doomsday cult.
Jesus fucking christ so basically every power structure that men inhabit has rights but people don’t have rights?
We don’t need to tolerate this bullshit.
I’m guessing by “this bullshit” you mean men? Weird pivot to misandry.
Oh fuck off, you “deliberately misunderstanding to bitch about something” asshat.
Since when did states have rights?
Yeah, “does Israel have a right to exist?” is a nonsense question. What’s the difference between a state with that right and one that doesn’t? Is a state that has a “right to exist” therefore somehow beyond reproach? I think it’s a rhetorical tool that is meant to confuse people, because any clear eyed understanding of reality leaves Israel looking obviously terrible.
Weird to not just say ‘yes’. Regarding the tax dollars he’s correct though. I think US foreign spendings are based on china and allies are enemies and the need of strategic military bases/puppet states. I mean wtf pakistan has nukes… On the other hand there’s happy trading with their declared enemies.
He’s trying to control the conversation. When someone asks a question like that it is often a trap with the interviewer having planned follow up “questions” that make the guy look bad.
No state has a right to exist.
Does the confederacy have a right to exist?
Does Rhodesia have a right to exist?
Does Nazi Germany have a right to exist?
States are imaginary land borders we make up for governments and those don’t have rights.
I know where you are coming from. No borders no nations blah. But what you then get is eternal fighting and suffering. We have to accept the borders how they are to find peace. This is from i think kenia’s diplomat’s speech on russias invasion of ukraine. He argues, when Africa can accept borders drawn by foreign conquerors through towns and famillies then then you can too.
Not accepting either israels or palestines rights is the cause of all the suffering.
Okay, fine, I accept the 1967 borders of Israel. Oh, is that not enough? Why not? Why didn’t they respect the borders that existed?
I think the '67 borders are the international consensus. Im not arguing against that.
Righto then, we agree on that one. It’s a shame Israel doesn’t.
Why didnt who respect the the 1967 borders?
If you think an apartheid colonial ethnostate can respect the rights of the people it is subjugating and stealing from, you are lost.
Every state was conquered at some point for whatever reason. If you go back far enough we should give the USA back to natives. But where do we put like 100++ m displaced people now? The argument of keeping borders actually supports weaker players.
Israel is as old as 1948, it’s not that far back, and continues to steal more of Palestine since.
I see you’re just a might makes right fascist. Got it. Follow your leader buddy.
1944 is not that far back on this time scale too. You wanna reroll to this? Actual fascists would be happy.
It’s the question that’s weird actually. Does anyone ever ask if Australia has a right to exist? Does anyone ask if America has a right to exist? It’s called sowing doubt, and it’s always in this context and it’s always the same goal in this current media ecosystem. Abdul is just demonstrating the nature of the question which you simply don’t see people do, either becuase media outlets coach them not to, or they’re caught off guard by the implicit gaslighting. If you and I had a public conversation and I, unprovoked, kept asking you if I have a right to live, people watching might start to think you don’t think I do regardless of how you answer despite how absurd the question is to ask in what we consider civilized society.
If you and I had a public conversation and I, unprovoked, kept asking you if I have a right to live, people watching might start to think you don’t think I do regardless of how you answer despite how absurd the question is to ask in what we consider civilized society.
This is SUCH a good simile. Bravo! I’m gonna use that the next time someone mentions Israel’s “RiGhT tO eXiSt”.
Australia has a right to exist
But we don’t, we’re a big lie.
I thought we went through this
Fair, that was a bad example lol
It’s not a weird question. There’s no other group claiming territory in Australia. Nor are there any real territorial disputes or territories claiming independence from the United States.
Israel and Palestine have an active disagreement about who owns what territory, and both fundamentally disagree on the other even existing at all. It’s also an extremely relevant topic right now, with Israel being a long time diplomatic and military ally of the United States.
It would be like asking a candidate if Taiwan has the right to exist, which is also very relevant.
There’s no other group claiming territory in Australia
Does Canada have the right to exist? How about Greenland?
Thoee would also be pertinent questions to ask. At least to a Republican candidate since the Republican president is the one with those aggressive claims.
People would answer “yes of course, why do you ask such a weird question”. He didnt answer like this for a reason.
Its a loyalty test question.
He is a person so, you’re wrong. Also not everyone agrees with your bias, especially when you include the appropriate context: “Does Israel have a right to exist as a state that inflicts collective violence and murder on unprecedented scales against a large segment of their population based on ideology and skin tone without consequence?”. Does Isreal have a right to exist? As much as any other state, and NO state has a right to exist if that existence is centered on violent expansionism, bigotry and genocide. This is akin to how nobody asks if Israel is anti-Islamic, we’re being fed carefully curated narratives to avoid the follow-up, and to that effect I’ll ask you: Does Palestine have a right to exist as an independent state and defend itself against foreing aggression? If not, why?
Not in a rapemurder civillians style. This can not be seen as defensive action.
I agree, yet people are constantly asked if Israel has a right to ‘defend’ itslef when referring to precisely that behaviour in our biased legacy media, and then don’t blink when confronted with video evidence of the IDF bombing groups of unarmed civilians with thermobaric weaponry… Or refuse to acknowledge that throwing rocks in the face of sniper fire is met with improsonment, sexual torture using trained dogs, and death. I just don’t see how anyone can point the finger anywhere else when committing to those actions, and I’ll be first to stress the fact that terror attacks by groups like Hamas are not justifiable, either. They’re just not baseless or irrational, that too is self-defense, and every aggressive action whether in Gaza, Lebanon, or Syria by the IDF is GOING to result in more of this, and the leadership knows that. People have to call out their disingenuous assertions that somehow this is unexpected or unreasonable, and that because of an iredeemable suffering inflicted 70 years ago they should be allowed to inflict the same on other people without question.
People can believe what they want, but I just have to reject that status quo on humanitarian grounds, and it’s not negotiable. I’m not going to passively observe someone who is knowingly or otherwise enabling the narratives that pave the way for more of these actions.
Israel doesn’t have a right to exist. Neither does Palestine. Neither does my country.
Countries don’t have a right to exist. They never did. We just respected each other for relative peace.
People, however, do have a right to exist.
So bombs will determine borders. Guess who has more firepower?
Bombs don’t capture territory. I don’t know how many times people need to learn this.
Do states having a right to exist means people can’t democratically choose to merge their country with another?
Like crimea “voted” to be part of russia? There are better ways than merging i.e. making one cease to exist because those votes can never be unanimous. See EU. You just contract to use the same rule set, currency etc and are factually merged.
I did say “democratically choose”, not merely “vote”. Russia does “votes” but isn’t really democratic.
While committing to the practical it is always important to hold in mind the theoretical. Forget either and we become lost.
Very poignant! 👌
What’s weird is that every talking head keeps asking that question. It’s become a thought terminating cliché that functions as a loyalty test. Any self respecting citizen should just refuse the question in the first place.
I think everyone should agree that question should only be met with “That’s such a fucking weird question.” and then move on in the conversation.
I think the acceptance of isreals right to exist is requirement to get citizenship here. So answering ‘no’ can have real consequences if you ever should seek asylum + citizenship
That’s absurd and that’s even more of a reason why existing citizens should refuse and delegitimize the question.
Let’s just say it’s part of the ‘never again’ heritage. Anyway i can work with just agreeing to keep the map how it is and not start wars to change it.
The problem is that Israel is not happy to keep the map how it is. Israel has continuously pushed to occupy more and more territory — not just Palestinian territory, but in Syria and Lebanon too. This is part of why “does Israel have a right to exist?” is such a loaded question when it’s asked to people who oppose Israel’s unrelenting militarism
What “never again” heritage? They’re shooting children in bread lines and then telling you you’re the bad guy for finding that to be evil.
Which map exactly do you have in mind buddy?
And let’s just also say that the “never again” heritage is not the property of any one ethnic group, but of all humanity. Never again for anyone.
Internationally accepted borders. Not including illegal annexed territory.
I too have problems with our interpretation of never again.
Israel only has internationally accepted borders with Egypt and Jordan.
The answer is no, not yes. They dont. They can go to hell.
The only right israel has is to suck my dick like all the other genocidal nations in this shitty world.
Israel has as much right to exist as any country. None.
The question is a loyalty test. Its another way of asking “will you serve the Epstein class?”
connecting this to epstein is absurd. If anything, israel has material about trump et al threatening to publish if they dont get help. That’d make israel an enemy of the epstein class tho.
Epstein was just the guy creating the kompromat. The Epstein class is the transnational oligarchy that runs the West. They are universally pro Israel.
its always been a laundering scheme to go back into the campaigns of politicians, much like with the charter school vouchers. Which is why schumer, hakeem, slotkin, booker was so adamant to support them it funds thier stolen money lifestyles, and yes they are pratically dinos(actually the old moderate Rs)
Do we have evidence that Israel funds AIPAC?
As far as I know, and that we are aware of, it didn’t happen since the early 1960s, with AZC, an ancestor organization.
where do you think all the billions of aid to israel were?
???
What does AIPAC mean
