Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the conversational dept
This week, both our winning comments on the insightful side come from our post about the Texas activist who weaponized a law requiring religious posters in schools by submitting one written in Arabic. In first place, it’s Thad responding to the suggestion that Hebrew would have been a better choice for annoying the right:
Nah. They’re open about hating Arabs; they pretend not to hate Jews.
They love throwing around the phrase “Judeo-Christian values”, which you’ll note you don’t hear so much from Jewish folks. What it really means is “Christian, but we like the Old Testament parts about punishing people we don’t like.”
In second place, it’s discussitlive with a line-by-line response to a comment bizarrely criticizing the move:
“Troll creates poster that does not say “In God We Trust,”
It does say that.“but rather other words in a different language that mean the same thing when translated.”
Perhaps it has escaped your notice; The United States does not have a legally required language.“Given their willingness to blatantly violate the law”
The thinly veiled christian faction? I agree. It’s a blatant violation of law to promote a religion on the tax payer’s property, eg: tax funded public schools.“Media falls for troll’s transparent publicity stunt,”
Which stunt? The one to allow posting religious iconography, or the one pointing out the hypocrisy?“end up looking ridiculous”
Accurately reporting events is not ridiculous.“when anyone with half a brain can grasp what actually happened.”
Yes, the question is which half of the brain is involved; The one where fools and idiots were shown to be fools and idiots, or the one that hates being pointed out as being fools and idiots?
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from Stephen T. Stone about California’s age verification scheme:
I’d rather not use the Internet at all if I need to have my laptop’s camera on all the time so some shady-ass company that I don’t trust can scan my face to make sure I’m not a kid every time I visit a given website. And if someone at that shady-ass company has a problem with my saying that, I got two words for ’em:
🖕 Fuck. 🖕 You. 🖕
Next, it’s a comment from Ninja about the travesty of Moderna suing over vaccine patents when the public paid for its mRNA tech:
Privatize profits and socialize losses. Classic.
Over on the funny side, both our winners once again come in response to the Texas poster story. In first place it’s Sabroni replying to a rather confusing comment:
They look like sentences, they’re structured fine and all the words are in a sensible order. But what the fuck is it trying to say?
In second place, it’s an anonymous suggestion:
I’m still rooting for signs in Braille…
Maybe if they put them up under a glass pane to protect them from wear…
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with a comment from Coyne Tibbets about Jonas Salk’s famous quote about patenting the sun:
By another name
I couldn’t patent the “Sun” by that name, but I figure I should be able to patent “A device and methodology for the radiative warming and powering of a solar system by means of large scale nuclear fusion in gravitational containment.”
Now pay me.
Finally, it’s Gumnos with a comment about Arizona’s new law saying you can’t record cops from within 8 feet:
Sounds like an opportunity to start carrying around an 8′ pole to ensure one is sufficiently far away from the officer(s), with the pole hovering inches from them. All while saying “I’m not touching you!” 😉
That’s all for this week, folks!
Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”
excellent!
all excellent choices, thanks!
I don,t think a law that says every website that might be visited by a 17 year old or a 5 year 9 must have a fully explanation of all its features and explain its moderation practices, and privacy options ,this includes sites like arstechnica, time,reddit,your local newspaper, would not be challenged by any judge who respects free speech and the constitution .also many pcs and laptops have no webcams, i visit 1000 news websites,
i,m no going to record a webcam video to read one article
even china does not expect all websites to be suitable for a 7 year old
Re:
Yes, correct.
Here’s the part you didn’t read:
All the moderation, privacy, features, etc. of every website that “is likely” to be accessed by “a(n undefined) significant” number of children must be published.
And then there’s this stupidity:
I would be (midly) interested in your technical explanation for how this can be achieved without the use of magic or technology one would find in an episode of Star Trek.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Well, the customer’s could write the identification strings from their driver’s license or birth certificate and then your company will crosscheck the information from the government’s or church databases and deny access to the service if the provided information doesn’t match.
Its your company’s problem how to get access to the needed databases. You can purchase the info from facebook, if nothing else works, but better rely on reliable government databases and only accept people with US citizenship.
Re: Re: Re:
Considering the stupidity of what you suggested, I find it totally superfluous to point out the obvious flaw because you won’t get it.
Re: Re: Re:
Fine, you have validated the age of the person whose credentials were submitted, now propose a mechanism for validating that they were presented by that person. Any person who wants to can find and submit credentials belonging to somebody else, after all that is what identity theft is.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
You can always compare the selfie taken from their phone camera with a picture of the person in police database. You know, humans are very convinient for comparing photos of people. You just need to ensure that everyone’s photos are verified manually.
Re: Re: Re:3
And you just have to verify that it was a selfie, and not a per-stored image. Also, do you want;-
1)Any government to track your every move.
2)To take a selfie every time your browser land on a different site, because it just fetched an external reference, or you have followed a link. (Hint, advertisers would love you image every time you visited a site).
Re: Re: Re:3 Oh no.
This comment section is going to be like my toilet: clogged with TP.
Re: Re: Re:3
You can always compare the selfie taken from their phone camera with a picture of the person in police database.
Definitely possible for some people, but what about those of us without a criminal record who don’t live in a police state?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
The US side of the globe didn’t have any place which wasn’t a police state. Cuba seems nearest, and its full of communists.
Re: Re: Re:5
I wasn’t aware that the US was the whole world, so thank you for updating my geographical knowledge. /s
Re: Re: Re:5
Um, you’re going to be more specific. Do you mean the geographical northern hemisphere? Do you mean the geopolitical northern hemisphere? Do you mean the geographical western hemisphere?
You need to be waaaay more specific when you say “The US side of the globe”, bunghole.
Re: Re: Re:5 Moreover,
Costa Rica seems like a nation in both the geographical northern and western hemispheres that was never a police state.
Your ignorance is showing, assmunch.
Re: Re: Re:5
Interesting how you refer to “globe”, then just the US. So, is your insane scheme going to account for the fact that websites are accessed from many different countries, all of whom would need to agree on a scheme (and some of whom would be placed in real danger by participating)? Or, are you going to be happy to block your own access to many websites so that draconian measures can be applied to Americans without worrying about who it affects from outside of that country? Are you going to account for different rules applying to travellers?
There are so many factors involved here, that you typically choose to ignore because when the real world intrudes upon your fantasy world, life gets way more complicated than you pretend it is. This is why you fail so often – you’re incapable of addressing the real world, so your products cannot work there effectively.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
I don’t think real world has any requirements for applying copyright infringement before you are able to fulfill the real world needs. This is probably what you mean, when I actually try to implement copyright features correctly, without allowing users to infringe on other people’s content/material, somehow that implementation doesn’t work in real world.
I understand that I get less traffic to my web site when I refuse to support criminals. The pirates simply do not find the technology interesting if the copying controls are not promising the product for criminals too. And this leads to many criminals shake their head to not forward the product to their friends.
But that’s the price you need to pay to make products control criminals instead of criminals controlling our products.
Re: Re: Re:7 stupid in two more languages
“And this leads to many criminals shake their head to not forward the product to their friends.”
I know english isn’t your first language but this is gibberish.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
You can’t complain about my english. The current AI solutions are able to draw a picture of the concept, so you’d have to admit that you’re less intelligent than some gpt algorithm, if you reject the statement as gibberish.
Re: Re: Re:9
“You can’t complain about my english.”
I didn’t you fuckwit.
Re: Re: Re:9
…so you’d have to admit that you’re less intelligent than some gpt algorithm…
And when are you going to admit that?
Re: Re: Re:3
“You can always compare the selfie taken from their phone camera with a picture of the person in police database”
You can. You first have to build a comprehensive police database containing everyone who wants to use the internet, some of whom don’t have an existing photo ID. A lot of people are going to have a problem with that, especially people who don’t have minors in their house and you’re trying to datamine them to solve a problem they don’t face.
Then, you have to build some form of mystical mechanism to ensure that the selfie was taken by the person in there for the purpose of identification at that moment, and not just a repurposed selfie taken previously or a photo taken via some kind of subterfuge (a kid could easily get their naive parent to agree to a photo of them without them knowing what it’s intended to be used for).
“You just need to ensure that everyone’s photos are verified manually.”
Which is, again, utter nonsense. Vastly increasing costs and time to perform a task in order to verify the one part of the transaction that’s easily confirmed by code is not going to solve the real world problems that lay behind the verification of identity. This is a problem that’s impossible to solve without introducing a new form of ID verification specifically for accessing the internet, and you’re not going to be able to sell this easily to the majority of people.
As ever, your solutions to problems require zero understanding of human behaviour, and the introduction of worse problems than the one you’re trying to solve.
Re: Re: Re:4
Or have already been implemented and it’s still horribly totalitarian.
In China.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Well, there’s good trick to avoid the increasing costs of this kind of verification tasks.
The website just asks the information from everyone, so users can trust that you actually check the information.
But not all images need to be verified. Random sampling of the user base can give pretty much the same result as going through every one of them. And random sampling has very desirable property — you can decide yourself how much effort to spend for the verification tasks. The result calculation, which anyway need to use averaging, can be easily done since averaging is also able to freely choose the number of samples. You just get more accurate results if you use more samples.
Re: Re: Re:5
Funny. You’ve gone from “You just need to ensure that everyone’s photos are verified manually” to “not all images need to be verified” in the face of basic logic, and even injected automation into the process you originally claimed needs to be done manually.
“users can trust that you actually check the information”
Users don’t give a shit if you check the information. They do give a shit that you’re asking for it in the first place because some government entity is trying to build a database to tie them to internet activity.
This is like your useless software – you seem to have convinced yourself that users are asking for a system that blocks them from doing anything useful in the name of copyright protection, but in reality it’s the last thing any of them want, and results in the opposite of a useful system anyone would ever pay for.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Its only the criminals who cannot accept this kind of systems. Whenever there is money involved, there needs to be systems in place for detection of money related crimes. Copyright is similar to money, in that people can obtain undeserved benefits if they infringe copyright. While money allows purchasing any products with certain price, copyright permission allows usage of a specific product. Thus money area and copyright area deserves similar kind of technologies for protecting against criminals.
this is what we want to restore to the copyright market. That author’s work is protected in the same way as your bank account or credit card has been protected against criminals.
Re: Re: Re:7 Fair Use
Consider for a minute that your post above, which, per the US copyright office, has a copyright, might be something some of us want to deride.
So to do so, we copy your post, add some annotation, and magic, it grows into a whole post on Techdirt. That process is known as fair use, and preserving a copy of your original (so you can’t simply disappear it in embarrassmemt) would also be a fair use of your work.
How are you planning on discerning, automatically, whether we are making fair use or displacing the market for your work?
Note that my computer and especially my smartphone doing video means I can make a copy of basically anything trivially, so the copying is almost impossible to stop, since not everyone knows or cares about copyright.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
There are several levels of copyright protection. The works where there is low amount of effort involved in creation of the work, the expected level of copyright protection needs to be low too. So techdirt posts are not getting the same level of copyright protection than the plans for a nuclear plant. If you do copyright infringement of nuclear plant plans, you can easily expect spying charges from the courts. But techdirt posts are encoding only small amount of creative effort.
When I learned programming, there was one book called “The C programming language”, which contained something that we called “compressed information”. When large amount of effort is being used to develop some technologies and copyrighted works, the end result is compressed information. It is more valuable information than random posts on techdirt. Compressed information thus should deserve better copyright protection. Only humans can detect compressed information from random poems on the internet.
Zip files and tar.gz packages are other kind of compressed information. Large files compressed using compression algorithms deserve better copyright protection than small files. The unique character in these files is impossible to reproduce without copying the files.
We do not need to stop the copying. We can focus on other aspects of the copyrighted work. Size of files and the amount of effort that went into the work, or original source/author’s name could be used to detect/evaluate the level of problems with a copyrighted work. Movies with 100million dollars/euros creation budget should obviously get significantly better copyright protection than your techdirt posts.
What we are doing in our technology is that we limit the complexity of the resulting animation files. Our script file size has been limited to 500 lines. The running length of the animation is limited to short clips. We prevent encoding existing hollywood movies to our data structures by simply not supporting video files. 3d model formats are limited to representing single frame of the scene. We require that users create selected parts of the material themselves — by not supporting standard file formats, but inventing completely proprietary formats that are not available anywhere else in the world.
There’s many other aspects of copyrighted works that can be controlled, we do not need to focus on the “copying” of the material. Copyright can be enforced in so many different ways, even if copying was somehow not possible to prevent.
Re: Re: Re:9 That's not how any of this works
“Movies with 100million dollars/euros creation budget should obviously get significantly better copyright protection than your techdirt posts.”
That’s not how that works.
Re: Re: Re:10
but you forgot to explain how you think it works..
Re: Re: Re:11
How it works is:-
If people like the work they will pay to see it, and promote it to their friends. If the don’t they will discourage others from seeing it. Therefor the income from a works depend on how well it is liked, which has nothing to do with how much was spent creating it.
Re: Re: Re:12
Strength of the copyright has nothing to do with how many users your web page has managed to gather. Instead, the quality of the copyrighted work determines copyright strength. Adult video companies like Prenda cannot get their copyright lawsuits accepted by the courts simply because their creation process for the adult videos is nothing more than pressing record button on standard video camera equipment. While the recording such videos involves a little bit more than just pressing record button, the overall effort amount does not support the stronger copyright.
Re: Re: Re:13
And that has nothing to do with earning money from your copyrights.
Re: Re: Re:14
strenght of the copyright determines if your copyright damages is at $300,000 or 3 million or 3 billion bucks….
Re: Re: Re:15
What determines copyright damages is whether or not the infringement was willful, whether the defendant you dragged to court was even liable to start with, and a very rough guess on how much monetary damage was done, if at all. The “strength” of copyright protection is the same no matter what work is infringed; the statutory damages are always going be the same range of $750 to $150,000 per infringement, and realistically lowered to at best $750 to $3,000 in most cases.
No judge is going to entertain a copyright fine of $3 billion. Throwing a massive fine no single person can pay off is just going to get them to file for bankruptcy and you get nothing in return.
Re: Re: Re:16
That doesn’t prevent large companies like oracle and google from fighting over billions about some infringement of 200 lines of header files.
Re: Re: Re:17
Which the judge eventually found not infringing, so your point is moot. The judge in that case wisely realized that opening the floodgates to homicidal maniacs like you would be dangerous for everyone, so unfortunately a billion dollar fine remains a pipe dream for you that will never be achieved.
Re: Re: Re:18
Happily our friends at MPAA managed to get USA isp’s give not just 1 billion bucks, but a whole 2 billion bucks. Now they’re going for next layer of isp’s with the same arguments: 1) isp didn’t terminate pirates 2) the isp lost their dmca protection because of (1). 3) isp was in key role in their ability to prevent the piracy opertions.
In this case it isn’t about 200 lines of header files, but instead overly commercial movies where the director pressed record button and let his standardized video camera record some awesome movies. This 2 second record button press obviously gives them ability to sue isp’s for major copyright infringement worth 2 billion bucks.
Targets of this copyright operation isn’t the companies that provide internet access to ordinary american citizens. It’s the customers themselves, and these movie companies think that ordinary american citizens are filthy pirates. They have been waiting for their money for several years already, so it’s about time the lawsuits give content owners some reenumeration.
Re: Re: Re:19
Such a fine does not exist. US ISPs aren’t Google; they don’t have $2 billion to give to your idols.
The issue is not as straightforward as you prefer to portray it – under the DMCA, at best the ISPs would have needed to notify repeat infringers. Currently the most that the Copyright Office recommendations have triggered (as of 2020) is that disconnections might be on the table, not that disconnections have to be enforced for DMCA safe harbor qualification.
The cases you’re suggesting at are not as a result of failure to disconnect alleged pirates, but a claim that certain ISPs have not been forwarding DMCA notices to repeat infringers, and thus that disqualifies them from protection.
Except that an ISP would not have committed copyright infringement; their users did, and you’d still have to prove it. And even in that case, it wouldn’t be worth $2 billion due to the limits for statutory damages.
You just made a claim that the studios are suing the ISPs for $2 billion. So what is it? Are the companies being targeted or their users? (Of course, realistically we know you’d steal money from anyone and everyone if you were given the chance.)
And the more ordinary American citizens they piss off, the more citizens will boycott their content.
If you’re relying on copyright lawsuits to bring in the bulk of the money, there’s plenty of bad news on the horizon.
One, judges are increasingly wary of outfits like Prenda Law and Malibu Media (copyright trolls you have previously supported in the past) trying to abuse the court system to make money – so any sort of “remuneration” is not going to be in the “billions” as you’re hoping for. In fact, several Malibu Media lawsuits were abandoned because the judges in those case divided up the copyright fines among several John Doe defendants, meaning that they’d be paying less than $100 per person at best, and Malibu Media gave that up because they weren’t happy with the small amounts.
Two, the MPA doesn’t go after individual pirates – at least, not at the level they used to, precisely because it invites a lot of scrutiny due to their own spotty history of actually finding the right person. They’re more interested in going after the people behind download sites, and the money there isn’t as much as you think it is. Between the Pirate Bay, IsoHunt, Depositfile et al, the MPA has never uncovered the “millions of dollars” such operations were claimed to have. Because they simply don’t exist.
Re: Re: Re:20
So, they were not “primary infringer”, but instead their technology was enabling and assisting in the infringement. Secondary infringement is still illegal and has similar kinds of damage awards than the primary infringer.
Proper technology developers would have seen this problem from miles away and adjusted the technology stack to a status where the problems was minimized. Now these isp’s did nothing to protect content owner’s copyrights and should be sued as a result.
Hell, I bet I did more to protect my technology against pirates than these isp’s with millions of customers did.
statutory damages maximum amount is multiplied by the number of works being infringed. And in case of isp’s with millions of customers, that number is very large. Even with the lower amount of statutory damages like 15% of the maximum, when the numbers are multiplied by the amount of pirated material in isp’s network, the numbers add up very quickly and we are talking about billions of dollars.
Re: Re: Re:20
Companies who are genuinely implementing law’s requirements are not just implementing the minimum stuff required. Instead they would look at the regulations and examine the core of the rules, and then implementing it in such way that respects the fine details encoded in the regulation.
Anyone who implements just the bare minimum deserves to be sued.
Re: Re: Re:6
…and results in the opposite of a useful system anyone would ever pay for.
No offense, but I would never pay for something that’s offered for free. Why the hell should I have to when the dev’s not even charging for it? If software is charged for, that just makes it easier to decide not to download it, then I feel better if it turns out to be shit like Meshpage has.
Re: Re: Re:7
I’m actually selling crypto tokens in meshpage. While I haven’t yet found anyone stupid enough to actually purchase one of the tokens, you cannot claim that I’m not charging for it.
Re: Re: Re:8
I’m actually selling crypto tokens in meshpage.
And yet Shi… Meshpage remains free to download. So not only are you obviously stupid, you’re also certifiably delusional.
Re: Re: Re:9
Yes, the technology is free. The tokens give ability to maximize its value. Consider it as a tutorial of how to use the technology. There’s 2 ways to get that information: either ask me directly in irc or email. Or purchase a token from opensea, the token’s secret sauce has all the info you’ll ever need.
Re: Re: Re:10
It’s always a good sign when someone has to resort to crypto to push their idea, it makes it easy for laymen to dismiss. On top of having the token as a tutorial, that’s apparently not enough; you need to be contacted through IRC or email in order for the tutorial to actually work. Never mind that most crypto is by and large so cumbersome by design and requires a significant monetary barrier of entry to even start get started, plus the whole volatility of the market.
Of course, none of this has even a smidgen of relevance to Meshpage’s purported first purpose: to be a 3D modeling platform where even kindergarteners can use it to make mansions. And now all you’ve done is made vague claims that it’s a NFT generator, in a market that’s not only already flooded with them, but continues to have diminishing value like the Axie Infinity crash.
Re: Re: Re:11
This went almost correct, you just need to add “for the web” to the explanation…
Re: Re: Re:12
And Meshpage remains just as useless, because you can’t stand the idea of lowering yourself to teach anyone, never mind children.
Re: Re: Re:13
In my world, children doesn’t exist any longer.
Re: Re: Re:14
Thanks for admitting that your product was never meant to meaningfully compete with other software, and is nothing more than a flimsy engine meant to hold the government of Finland to monetary ransom, based on nothing more than vacuous, empty threats by a washed-up, has-been pedophile abusing the benefits of the Finnish welfare system.
Re: Re: Re:15
Well, that’s the nature of spinoffs. The original product gathers all the spotlight, and spinoffs coming later are seen as latecomers.
There’s important requirements being implemented in the product. It completes certain features that were rejected in original product. When opengl was not available in the original product offering, our next product fixes that deficiency and allows me to claim that I have implemented all the customer requirements that the company collected for the original product. This is archieved by rejecting features from the new product which were implemented in the original product. Thus combining original product with our nextgen product will result in complete implementation of customer requirements.
We compete in the software market by offering products that implement all customer requirements.
Re: Re: Re:16
That’s not what spinoffs are. Google’s search engine came after Yahoo and AltaVista, and yet nobody calls Google a “spinoff” of the former two. For that matter, Google’s case is an example of a “latecomer” being successful, so you can forget trying to beg for sympathy here.
Mate, you can’t even be bothered to design your software for children. You personally admitted that in your dream world children don’t even exist. Nobody believes that you’re going to work towards any customer requirements beyond your own fevered imagination of a madman.
Re: Re: Re:17
The claim is about “all customer requirement”, not “any customer requirement”.
Re: Re: Re:14
As ever, I can’t help but be thankful that the sad, strange world you build around you doesn’t resemble the world everyone else lives in.
Quibble: That would end up being an episode in which Star Trek portrays how such a technology could go horribly wrong.
Re:
That’s The Trouble with Quibbles.
Comment Counter is inconsistent and buggy
Just a note to Techdirt website programmers — the comment counter on this post seems to be off by one in different ways at different times, as follows:
As of posting this comment, the top level says there’s 8 comments, but when I expand the comments, it says 9, but I count 8 comments.
As of last night (perhaps midnight US Eastern time), the top level (with the article showing just the top) claimed 5 comments, but when i expanded comments I only found 4 and the comment counter claimed 4.
If i were a conspiracist, I’d say that the invisible comments awaiting moderation (and in this case probably staying invisible) are getting counted sometimes, but inconsistently in the two places.
Re:
My first thought would be how the counter reflects reported and/or removed comments. While TD only hides comments from people reported as trolling morons, it’s known that they will actually delete commercial spam from the thread. So, the most likely explanation in my mind is that if spam is removed, the process doesn’t lower the comment counter to reflect this.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Some Incredible Confusion
Indeed, right-wing racists do love Hebrew.
See The Evangelicals Learning Hebrew in Order to Fully Understand the Bible.
Fake Invader Hebrew like Nazi German is crafted to make it easier for a native speaker to commit genocide.
Yet the quote below captures the insanity of US public discourse.
Southern Jews were probably the most loyal and the most pro-Slavery group in the antebellum South and in the Confederacy.
Thomas Dixon, who founded US white or Aryan Nationalism, explicitly called European Jews Aryans.
Re: Spill the tea!
How why did you break up with Phil?
Re:
Indeed, right-wing racists do love Hebrew.
How can you love Hebrew when you hate the people who speak it?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Judeo-Christian Values = Blithering Idiocy
The assertion of common Judeo-Christian values is a post-Holocaust expression of Christian guilt that Christians have no reason to feel. In Europe anger against Jews developed
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Jewish Anti-Goyism
The pre-modern European states gave Jews special rights and privileges to perform this task but also placed special restrictions on the Jewish community to control potential socially disastrous depredations that Jewish mercantile interests might perpetrate against gentiles.
As Jews were emancipated, the special Jewish rights and privileges were canceled, and Jewish leadership loudly proclaimed such cancellation to constitute antisemitism. At the same time, Jews fought tooth and nail to continue pre-modern exploitative practices that were no longer acceptable.
Jewish anti-gentile behavior should be contrasted with the actions of the Polish Szlachta (nobility), which voted itself out of existence and made a common cause with other citizens of the Polish state against threats to Poland.
European critics of atrocious Jewish behavior before WW2 usually contrasted Jewish materiality (avarice or the harshness of the Old Testament) with Christian spirituality (the Beatitudes or the grace and spirituality of the New Testament). Jewish values were invariably considered to be in fundamental conflict with Christian values.
Re: Re:
Still ain’t reading your shit manifesto bro.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: I don't expect Anonymous Clown to Read My Posts
I post for someone whose reading comprehension is higher than that of the average 7-year-old.
Re: Re: Re:2 Seems you no can read so good
Well find an average seven year old to explain to you that no one is going to read your shit manifesto.
Re: Re: Re:2
Actually, you don’t post for any of the real commenters here at all, but nice try at Trumpism.
Re: Re:
*Jewish anti-gentile behavior…*
I’ve seen those selfies of you, and you’re not the ethnic Jew with a Berber mother you claim to be, which casts major doubt on any other claim you make of Jewish identity.
Re: Re: Re:
And, no one’s denying that Israel is doing shitty things to the Palestinians and not obeying International law to stay within the 1948 borders.
If that is all what “ThosProvoni” alleges he is saying, that is. Because hhat’s what Normal Finkelstein is saying and despite his careless use of words, he has not been banned from Twitter or Youtube, his famous asshole backer notwithstanding.
Re: Re: Re:2
If you read AC’s comment to the end, you’ll notice they denied (with evidence) ThorsProvoni’s claims of ethnic Jewish identity, not any of the other evidenceless claims that troll has made. If you notice, TP has never made any claims, direct or otherwise, about the legality of Israeli government actions.
Re:
Judeo-Christian Values = Blithering Idiocy
Please elucidate your Judeo-Christian values.
Ethnic Jewish Identity is Nonsense Intended to Legitimize Genocide
Babbling about ethnic Jewish identity is a stupid as babbling about ethnic Christian identity or about ethnic Muslim identity.
Re:
Correct, so why do you keep doing it, ThorsProvoni?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Ethnic Jewish Identity is a Bogus Concept
I am half-ethnic Ashkenazi and half-North African Jewish Berber. Why would anyone be surprised that I don’t look like a member of an ethnic group whose members used to practice Rabbinic Judaism?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Modern Jews All Descend from Non-Judean Converts to Judaism
Just like Christians — except for Palestinian Christians, all modern Christians descend from non-Judeans/non-Palestinians, who converted to Christianity.
The dipshit Tanaim discredited Judaism and themselves by supporting the depraved maniac Bar Kochba, who persecuted the peasantry (90% of the population of Palestine).
After the good guys — Romans and local Palestinian allies — crushed Bar Kochba, the Tannaim, and their vile supporters, the Palestinian peasantry rapidly converted to Christianity.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Metaphor of Roman Exile
The Romans exiled no one from Palestine.
The Roman Exile is a metaphor for the transformation of Judaism from the religion of Judea into a religion that only descendants of non-Judean converts practiced.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: The Depravity of a Zio
In stolen Palestine, a Zio colonial settler is a depraved genocidal invader, interloper, thief, and impostor, who deserves unqualified hatred, scorn, and loathing from the entire human race.
Re:
We’re not sutprised because we know you’re lying. Nobody who has an ethnic Jewish father and a Berber Jewish mother as you claim is paler than raw white bread dough.