It’s considered acceptable language by mainstream culture because it's a legitimate interpretation of reality.
It's not reasonable to say Jews are literally rats. It is a reasonable to say civilian Gazans are used as a shield by Hamas. What is dehumanizing, sometime literally, is using people as shields.
Your post right there? That's one of the reasons Harris lost.
Of course people (not just Americans) are selfish. Doesn't matter if it's good or not, that's just the factual truth. The Republicans knew how to work with that, by selling the voters a solution to the things that actually interested them. That's also what helped Obama ("Hope", though a bit vague) and Bill Clinton ("It's the economy, stupid") get elected (Yes, it also didn't hurt that they were rock stars). Now the Democrats are perceived not only as a party that's not willing to work on issues that concern them, but as actually criticizing them for wanting what they want.
Dude, you brought up the comparison between Hamas and Israel and you brought up the IDF investigation. Now you're acting condescending while trying to straw man the things I said (hint: I never said the IDF is just, nor is it relevant to my argument).
Don't really see a point continuing the discussion any further, but thanks for answering some of my questions. I do have one more question though - would you say your opinions are representative of the "Pro-Palestinian" crowd in your country?
Counteroffer - try to read what I said with the understanding there might be a difference between what you think "Zionism" is and what Zionism actually is. Not all Zionists would agree with what I said, but then again that's also one of the thing you probably don't understand.
First of all, you didn't address the main point I was making, or answered my question (just wanted to point that out).
The way that Hamas treats Palestinians is partially the responsibility of Netanyahu and the Likud given that they provided Hamas with material support to take power in the first place.
Not really. Netanyahu didn't provide material support for Hamas, rather allowed Qatar to materially support them (Yet somehow I don't see anyone condemning Qatar...). Also, this began about a decade after Hamas took over Gaza. And, really, it's an extremely weak argument even if what you said were true. Saying Israel is partially responsible for the way Hamas treated the people in Gaza doesn't mean it treated Palestinians worse than Hamas.
Also, the fact that Israelis stormed an IDF base in protest of the punishment of IDF thugs that anally raped innocent Palestinians to death with rifles
That's not what happened. The IDF detained some soldiers who allegedly anally raped and perhaps killed Palestinian detainees as part of an investigation. After hearing that, some extreme right wingers stormed the base in something raging from protest against the way soldiers were detained to the mere fact they were detained (depending on who you ask). The act was condemned by a huge majority of the Israeli public. Judging Israel by that is like judging the US by the proud boys of the Jan 6th Capitol riots. But let's go back to your point of Israel treating Palestinians worse than Hamas - could you point out an example of Hamas investigating it's operatives for mistreating detainees? If not, is it because you think Hamas doesn't mistreat its detainees?
To address your second point “not voting for Harris is a vote for Trump”; why isn’t the opposite true? “Not voting for Trump is a vote for Harris”, follows the same logic, so refusing to vote or voting independent should be net neutral, no?
You're missing some context - “not voting [instead of] for Harris is a vote for Trump”. If the dilemma is between not voting and voting Harris, choosing not to vote subtracts a vote from Harris.
Of course Harris got a boost in donations after she became the candidate - she appealed the the people who thought Biden was too conservative. That doesn't mean conservative democrats are an insignificant demographic, they simply already donated earlier. The move towards the center is meant to not drive them away into not voting [instead of voting for Harris]. Obviously there will be some progressives and some conservatives who will decide to not vote [instead of voting for Harris], the goal is to move to the point where these margins from both sides will be minimal.
That's like saying German citizens during WW2 should be killed, raped and tortured. Black and white is usually the wrong way to go about thinking.
Without commenting on whether I agree with the screenshot, I'd like to ask a question - what do you (as in, the people who would like to see "Zionism" defeated) think will happen if "Zionism" will be defeated?
Star Wars is a science fantasy film with space magic and swords made of light where the main character goes into the evil warlord's dungeon to save the princess. Oh, and it made most of it's money by selling toys.
That's not to say other media in the same universe can't be gritty war films, not that it can't be good. But the issue isn't that Disney are "infantilizing Star Wars and profit", the issue is that they are, for the most part, doing a bad job at it. The first season of The Mandalorien was arguably the best thing to come out of the brand since the original trilogy because, like the original trilogy, it had charm, lovable characters and (to a lesser degree) some nice world building.
I think part of the issue is that people at Disney realize why Star Wars was successful, but think along the lines of "Well, if people loved this chocolate cake, I could double the amount of chocolate and people will like it twice as much".
Volunteering?
There's a good chance got them because dunkin donated them or because the cafe didn't want to give cash for fear it could be construed as pay.
The point of gift cards is that they're: a. Not money (when using money might have some sort of disadvantage for either side). b. Have restrictions that the person who gave it to you might want to impose. c. Are usually cheaper than paying money directly to the vendor.
And frankly, no one forced you to try and use them. They were given as a gesture of appreciation, and you could have given them to someone who would have been happy to have them, or just politely refuse to accept them. Also, not checking the expiration date is on you.
My gut reaction is to say - I don't know, if murder isn't okay, how come I only see people here criticizing Israel and not Hamas or Hezbollah?
When people assign blame only on one side, they're encouraging the other side to do more bad things. This applies to both the "Free Palestine!!!" and "Antisemitism!!!" camps.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the reason people are saying that Hamas are using Palestinians as human shields isn't a Hasbarah plot to dehumanize Palestinians, but because Hamas are using Palestinians as human shields. Could you explain why this seems to be controversial? Do people not agree that Hamas are using human shields, or do they think that pointing any criticism at anyone Palestinian is "pro-Israeli"?