Do you think of the massacre of women and children to be a game? I consider the actions Hamas commuted on October 7 to be genocidal, not a game.

You a disgusting person to think of genocide as “a game.”

You’re a genocide denier then.

You don’t care about genocide, so long as it’s the people you hate being killed.

What are YOUR feelings and thoughts about the real, actual genocide of Palestinians in Gaza/West Bank that has been ongoing for several decades?

I actually do think what happened on October 7 was a genocidal act. The people that deny it are actually disgusting to me. You look the other way when Jews are massacred because you’re antisemitic. A war targeting the perpetrators of a genocidal act, that’s what you label as genocide instead.

You bought into the bullshit about Hamas being freedom fighters. When they committed a genocidal act, you’re too narcissistic to admit you were wrong to ever support them. So you needed to “both sides” actual fucking genocide. You’ve weaponized the word genocide. You don’t care when actual genocide occurs in Sudan. You look the other way when the Ayatollah butchers over 30,000 people in a span of 48 hours. If someone hates Israel they’re your ally and you’ll look the other way on any atrocity they commit.

If you actually cared about Palestinians, you’d hate Hamas. They’ve only ever made things worse for the Palestinian people. But you look the other way when Hamas tortures and executes Palestinians. You’ll look the other way on any atrocity, as long it’s done by those who hate Israel. If Hamas survives, another generation of Palestinians may be indoctrinated into their system of hate and sent into the meat grinder so Hamas can profit. You don’t care about Palestinians if you make excuses for Hamas.

If you were to admit that Hamas committed a genocidal act on October 7, then maybe I could think “this person applies the word genocide way more easily than I would.” But you don’t. You do not consider deliberately massacring women and children to be genocide so long as those women and children are Jews. That’s antisemitism.

This isn’t the first time antisemitism has been popular. You’re not the first one that just went along to get along. Look in a history book you’ll find many examples of people rationalizing their hatred towards Jews. You’re not the first ones to come up with a different term for Jews so you could deny being antisemitic. “Rootless cosmopolitan”, “Globalist”, “Zionist”, it’s all the same scam decade after decade. And you fell for it.

The Jews outlived the Nazis. They will outlive you. Iran’s propaganda machine is getting shut down. How long will you continue to be angry that the Jews outlived the people trying to kill them? You kind of get a pass for being upset when you’re seeing imagery being put in front of you by a propaganda machine. But if you continue to hate Jews (even if you’re careful to always use the word Zionist, that’s obvious bullshit) after the propaganda machine is shut down, you’ll be in some very bad company, historically speaking. There’s signs the “anti-zionist” movement will be folded into the post-Trump fascist movement. How far are you going to go down this dark path you’re on?

Like…I haven’t seen you say anything in favor of having a king, or of having this king in particular?

I have but you haven’t been paying attention. If you don’t have a King, people will create one. The US technically doesn’t have a King, but they’ve created on in Donald Trump in all but name. You don’t seem to think about any potential of a politician doing the things that you mention in all of these hypotheticals, but you worry greatly about an actual King doing them. And that’s the problem, a politician can become a tyrant without anyone noticing. If the King became a tyrant everyone would notice.

You label the King as a “genocidiers, looters, and pedophiles” even though he has not personally done those things. His brother has done some crimes, and he’s being prosecuted. When will Donald Trump or any of the billionaires in the US get prosecuted? Probably never.

And are you accusing the King of everything his ancestors have done? Sounds to me like you really believe in lineage stuff way more than I do. Seems unfair to judge someone for what their ancestors did. If there was no King would you be devoting time to researching what Mark Carney’s ancestors did and unfairly judging him for those things?

The monarchy acts as an emotional lightning rod for many people. All the emotional garbage whether it be grievance over things from the history books, nostalgia, or just a love of pomp and pageantry gets focused on the monarchy who are apolitical. That separates the emotional garbage from politics. Allows people to think about the actual policies the politician is proposing rather than some historical grievance or how “Presidential” they look. Americans keep voting in old coots out of nostalgia for some good times when Ronald Reagan was President. We still get a touch of that with Justin Trudeau benefiting from nostalgia over his father, but you’ll have a tough time arguing people had loyalty to him like he was a King.

Americans feel like they’re supposed to be loyal to the President and because of that they won’t remove a President from office even when he commits egregious crimes. The Prime Minister gets some degree of respect for the job, but a vote of no confidence is something much more likely to happen as it won’t seem disloyal to the country. For those that feel they must show subservience to a person to prove their loyalty to the country we have a King who’s apolitical. In the US, the subservient must show loyalty to the President since they have no king.

There are many many reasons to have a King, not least of which was the reason Pierre Trudeau brought up: It would take a lot of effort to remove the King and it wouldn’t really change anything. Why bother removing the King?

The only reasons you have to go through that effort is hypotheticals (which would also apply to a President) and your belief that there’s something wrong with the Royal lineage. Which is… hmmmm.

It was a massacre of every Jew they could find and couldn’t carry back to their dungeons. Why do you deny that it was genocide?

It seems you’re very selective about what you label a genocide. What criteria do you use?

Do you consider the acts of Hamas on October 7 to be a genocide?

Only idiots brain rotted by Iranian propaganda would be upset by that asshole’s death.

The guy executed something like 30K people in the last month. What kind of shit person supports a guy like that?

INB4 WHATABOUT WHATABOUT WHATABOUT

Fucking noob… a lot of big talk, but didn’t leave the basement of his house.

Are you against the genocide that Hamas committed on October 7, or do you deny that it was a genocide?

To paraphrase Abe Lincoln, if I had more time I would’ve written a shorter comment. Maybe if you were able to engage in actual conversation rather than just making lame insults, I’d put some more effort into proofreading and editing down comments. I get the feeling you’re not capable of appreciating that effort so I won’t bother to make it.

how are you

You’re overestimating the value of laws. Laws don’t create civilization, the civilization creates laws. The jungle is always there, we just generally avoid it because going to the jungle means our survival is down to just our abilities and judgement. It’s far preferable to stay in civilization where we have our best chance of survival.

Your hypothetical examples all depend on people being weak willed in the face of a constitutional crisis. If people are weak, there being a King or not a King makes no difference. The US has no King, but people are weak towards Trump, and it’s the same result as your hypotheticals, just different titles.

And why would the King risk his cushy life to do any of these things? Why would someone who is in a position like that for the rest of his life risk it all for some short term gain?

So corruption can happen in a republican, and it seems to me it’s more obvious when someone doesn’t give royal ascent, and it’s very unlikely a King who has guaranteed housing in a palace for life being waited on hand and foot would risk that for a small bump in his stock portfolio. It seems you’re imagining the King behaving like a corrupt politician, but you’re not explaining how replacing the King with an actual politician makes that less likely to happen? If anything a term limited politician is more likely to do any of these hypotheticals, get that money in the limited time they’re in the position to get it. And the people that voted for that politician are more likely to look the other way than if a King started doing shenanigans.

Ken M… fucking legend.

Sorry for being more literate than you.

You insinuate that all antisemitism is false. It’s very easy to see through.

By this logic, why have laws at all?

Laws are needed for a civilized society. but civilization is a safe area we’ve created for ourselves in a dangerous jungle. When we step outside of our civilization we’re in a lawless place and we’re just surviving based on or abilities and judgement. There’s no legal way to eliminate the jungle, it will always be there. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t bother to have nice things when living in our civilized society.

A lot of these hypotheticals and real world scenarios are just people going out from civilized behaviour to the edge of the jungle. Whether it’s a King making commands or a President ignoring the court, these are things that shouldn’t be done based on the norms and laws of our civilization. So we’re in jungle rules, we have to figure out how to deal with the problem based on just our abilities and out judgement.

I see your point that “if we all agree he has no power, any exercise will clearly be a problem” … except the monarchy is in constant contact with the governor general. You won’t know why the GG makes her choices.

Parliament would know. Their job is to represent the will of the people. If the GG or King weren’t doing as they were told by Parliament, the PM has able opportunity to say to the country “that’s not what I wanted them to say.”

Or consider this situation: https://donshafer1.substack.com/p/the-day-37-british-columbia-mlas . Imagine the King has business interests in BC and would benefit from this financially. He calls the GG, who calls the LG of BC to say “get this moving.” If the LG (or GG) went public, she’d lose her job. So she’d quietly do it.

There were 50 MLAs that voted against that. How would the LG be able to do this quietly without the 50 people that voted against it knowing about it? When legislation gets royal assent, it’s done so publicly. Someone reads it out in Parliament and the Governor gives it a nod. It’s all a formality really, but who would be the person in parliament reading out legislation that didn’t pass to a Governor in the first place? You’d have to have the Parliament’s Clerks in on the scheme and not have them leak it to the the representatives, And they would be fired if caught doing any of this. Laws obviously have to be published so people like your self can use them in court. How would a GG, LG, or the King himself be able to do something without the elected representatives who voted against it knowing about it?

There’s a lot of process and ceremony involved in this: https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/our-procedure/LegislativeProcess/c_g_legislativeprocess-e.html How would you slip some secret laws through all of that process?

And I think you have it backwards. If something like this were to happen, there would be no more King. Even if the King were to force laws to come into being somehow (don’t know how it would happen, so it wouldn’t be the normal process, therefore very obvious) people would know and either the King would have to undo the action and abdicate or we’d just cease to be a monarchy. We’d be in the jungle and we’d be acting on our abilities and judgement.

Yes, it’s about characterizing all accusations of antisemitism as being a “false flag” before any discussion happens. How can you know what will be said in future discussions? If all accusations of antisemitism in all future discussions are preemptively declared “false flags” that’s a declaration that antisemitism no longer exists.

You may have been on the internet too long. The internet is filled with rationalizations for hate speech and you might have bought into some of them. The “anti-zionists” talk like antisemites, act like antisemites… take some to to consider whether anti-zionism is just a rebranding of antisemitism. Consider that all of the usual antisemites like Candace Owens are saying the exact same antisemitic conspiracy theories, but they’re careful to use the word “zionist” where they used to say “jews”. Consider that the people JD Vance has been talking to indicate the usual anti-semites that have now rebranded themselves as anti-zionists are being folded into the American fascist movement.

In these times it’s important to establish some red lines you refuse to cross. Because they don’t start with “Hitler was right” on day one. They make you hate a certain group of people and then expand that group over time. Fascists are pushing “anti-zionist” rhetoric, there’s been a rise in attacks on synagogues and there’s been a massacre of Jews celebrating Hanukkah. How long can you deny that these events aren’t connected to the “anti-zionist” rhetoric you’re seeing? You may believe there’s a distinction between zionists and jews, but it’s very obvious there’s a lot of people committing violent acts that don’t care about that distinction.

Why should I care about your rationalizations more than I care about the fact that “anti-zionist” rhetoric is resulting in violence against Jews? To me, if your rhetoric results in violence against Jews, your rhetoric is antisemitc no matter what you call it. Just more racist dog whistling by racist assholes.

Now who’s in denial? Do you deny the acts committed by Hamas on October 7? Many people were saying they were no threat before that day. Now you’re saying it again.

Do you consider what Hamas dead on October 7 to be genocide? Why not?

You say “if the king oversteps” and my point about law and norms and all that is that they shape perception about whether a particular thing is overstepping.

You mentioned before that most people don’t even know about these things. Why is that? Because the norm is the King does as the Parliament wants.

I think you have a very idealistic understanding of what we call democracy these days…if a 60/40 split happened like I talked about earlier came up, you think there would be mass mobilization?

This is what I mean about the people having a strong will. If they do, then yes. If the don’t then we lose democracy.

Again I go back to the example of the US. Them being a republic makes no difference. If the people don’t have the will to stand up to a tyrant, then there will be tyranny.

A crisis doesn’t occur without a context…it would be about something, and certainly something that one side thinks it can win on. I think you imagine any constitutional crisis would be immediately and unanimously handled in a democratic manner by everyone involved, no matter their interest in the underlying matter that lead to the crisis…we’d just all be on-side and do the right thing…I think that is extraordinarily naive!

Sure, but what does the existence of the monarchy have to do with any of that? Trump is a continuous constitutional crisis, doesn’t seem like eliminating the monarchy prevents any of that happening. If anything having a monarch makes it more obvious when there’s an abuse of power. Americans don’t understand that Trump is undermining their precious constitution, I suspect it has something to do with the fact that Americans know the President should have some power they just don’t know which powers he shouldn’t have. We know our head of state is supposed to only be a figurehead. It’s more obvious when someone is taking some power when they’re supposed to have none than someone show’s supposed to have some power taking more than they should.

In your mind: How many elementary schools can a nation bomb before we’re allowed to say that nation’s government is evil and should be eliminated?

Emphasis added.

Do you make a distinction between eliminating a nation’s government and a regime change?

Or were you just JAQing off there?

Ah so you recognize antisemitism is real. Good for you. Do you also recognize that there’s a deliberate effort to make antisemitism acceptable by preemptively discrediting all claims of antisemitism?

That’s what the meme is about isn’t it? The point is that “it’s ok to say whatever you want, antisemitism isn’t real.” You’re being front loaded with the idea that if anyone says something is antisemitic that person should automatically be discredited.

If all accusations of antisemitism are false, that logically means antisemitism isn’t real.

A very insidious tactic they’re using here isn’t it?