sybok
@punranger:
And I cannot understand how someone can say yes to supporting anti-fascism, and then say no to supporting a free Palestine.
Because for some, the last two words refer to a simple slogan with which others have been operating/associated using means and/or (final) intentions that the some people do not agree with.
Consider three variants of a slogan:
1) “A GOAL!”
2) “Carte blanche to reach A GOAL!” (By any means deemed necessary, no matter the costs, e.g. others be damned.)
3) “A GOAL achieved using respectful methods!”
I believe that 1) associates to you directly with 3) and you separate 2) out of the equation internally with the “nothing more, nothing less”.
For some (probably more cautious people), 1) associates *also* with 2) and they feel a need to have 1) and 2) *explicitly* separated, i.e. to have 1) extended to 3).
Consider this analogue as another example.
Me: A) “Everyone has the right not to starve!” (I do not want people to suffer from malnutrition) AND at the same time B) “I do not want people to break into my house and eat/take the food I have at home.” (I have, thus far, the right to have my own property and this ownership is protected by law.)
Consider an extremist leader who says: “We are hungry! We have the right not to starve!” (so far, so good); then they add: “Let’s take actions – take the food wherever we can find it and get it by whatever means necessary.” (which crosses the border for current me).
Hearing the added words or (in)directly witnessing such actions spoil the slogan A) for me.
Whenever I hear it after that, I get cautious and there is a red flag waving (because of the witnessed connection with activities threatening/violating my rights).
This experience sets a new context for me and this context affects how I react to the slogan.
The context gives rise to a need for a more complete version of the slogan A), i.e. any reasonable variant of B) being *explicitly* present for me to be able to align with the slogan.
And my understanding is that many people so-called disagreeing here are just asking/saying (referring to the 1st example):
“What do you mean by slogan formulation 1)? Is it 2) or 3)? *If* it is 2), which the formulation 1) does not explicitly exclude, then I cannot agree with it.”