My bad I thought you were the op for that post with prismatic-bell but w/e, reply if you’d like, it’s still a good doc
You know, I actually don’t think I will reply to your initial message, nor will I watch the video you sent, pretty much specifically because you sent it to me in that manner. “My bad” is a weird thing to say in this context. Sending a fantastically rude and deliberately inflammatory ask takes time. It took you time to find the video, and time to type the message, and it should have taken you time to send it, because as we all know, sending asking before your head has cooled is a recipe for disaster and embarrassment. In all that time, why did you not simply double check whether or not I was who you thought I was???
I want to be clear that this would be my reaction and response literally no matter what post or subject your first message was in response to. This was a completely inappropriate interpersonal interaction on its face, and I am absolutely sure that it is not the way you would have responded to the situation “in real life” – or, put more directly, how you would have responded if you truly saw users on this site as people, instead of nameless, faceless, profile pics with nothing you needed to care about at the keyboard on the other side.
Tl;dr: go outside and touch grass, holy shit.
If I saw real people in front of me trying to explain how Israel is acting humanely and getting into the nitty-gritty of “well actually…” I would act this mean because zionists are really bad at following up once they know someone else has information on the subject and won’t just roll over. It wasn’t particularly harshly worded either which makes me believe you’re too afraid to watch something that counters a Zionist viewpoint. Let me know if you grow a spine! You’ve reinvigorated me to sending that ask to the person I meant to send it to
See, @haloes-samsara this shit is exactly what I’m talking about. Your specific politics are genuinely completely immaterial to the salient issue here, which is that sending an unlabeled video link to a stranger with a message about how you know that they are personally a liar who is too afraid to watch a video that contains the truth is not a normal thing to do. And replying to their response telling you that what you did isn’t normal with a request that they additionally help you to block evade some other blog is downright fucking weird.
If you truly have frog-boiled yourself to the point where you thought that the first parasocially creepy ask that you sent me was fine, simply because it “wasn’t particularly harshly worded” then you have a serious problem with not understanding how to appropriately interact with other humans.
Like, I don’t know how to make this any clearer: I don’t know you! You’re a stranger! This is not normal behavior, at any level! FFS, go outside and touch grass!
First off, don’t misuse your metaphors. The frog boiling only works if I have also lobotomized myself. Second off, parasocial does not apply here, you are not someone famous or someone I am aware of before this post. Third, you are not the arbiter of what is normal, and at the end of the day you are the one spending their free time running defense for Israel, trying to whataboutism the definition of an ethnostate to give benefit of the doubt to an obvious candidate. You are not behaving particularly normally to begin with, and are doing your own version of respectability politics. You can just admit you’re too lazy to watch a documentary about an otherwise incredibly important topic to you
Just because @penrosesun isn't a well-known figure doesn't mean your behavior doesn't exhibit the markers of parasocial interaction from your end. Because those interactions are typified as illusory on the part of the audience (you), they can be typified as abnormal.
Also, laziness has nothing to do with not watching an online rando's video. You're assuming you have a claim on penrosesun's time, which is, again, a hallmark of a parasocial interaction. (You don't have that claim, btw, in case it wasn't obvious.)
That sort of behavior actually plays into my responses with my beloved and frequent stalker, spaceship. I refuse to directly answer his questions because he thinks he has some sort of claim on my time or effort, when he does not.
Ultimately, whether coming in good faith or bad faith, you are both randos on the goddamn internet. You're 30 years old and therefore are old enough to know better. Touch grass.
First off, they have blocked me because they couldn’t put in the time you’ve just done, so you are already on the losing side here. They realized too late what they should have done from the beginning.
Do you think you have an obligation to respond to every interaction you have on the internet? You are confusing parasociality with the function of the website. If this was a smooth interaction rather than one in which I openly disagree with them, or one where they decided not to respond at all, none of the collective energy wasted here would have happened, none of the “parasociality” would exist. Don’t neglect your own agency.
You’re gonna really hate this part. “Assuming I have a claim on someone’s time,” give me a break. Wait till you find out what learning is. The topic at hand is about whether Israel is an ethnostate, and I actually gave them the name of the doc and how to search if they felt like they couldn’t trust the link (it’s dailymotion, another instance of them just being a baby.) the video mentioned is Louis Theroux’s the settlers (2025) a very relevant source that would argue against a public post they added to. Linking the video is only an opportunity to make it easier, if they actually cared about the subject, to watch it. I didn’t say they were lazy; I said they were allowed to be lazy if they wanted to, because otherwise there truly is no reason to avoid watching it.
You are suggesting that I could’ve effectively kept this person ignorant on any topic I linked them and they have actually done themselves a huge mental health service by blocking me?
Again, "they COULDN'T put in the time" is a parasocial framing. They WOULDN'T put in the time, because you are a stranger to them and don't need to. I'm doing it because I'm working from home today and not enough is keeping me occupied.
No. But, why even send your message in the first place? By sending it, you are creating the parasociality. As you say, don't neglect your own agency.
We're not in class and you're not our teacher. Why should we bother learning from you? There's no reason. I don't care what the documentary is. If a stranger is sending it to me out of the blue, it's part of an agenda I don't yet know, and therefore I am less likely to watch it.
I care about the subject. I have 75 books on my shelf about it. All of them are either primary source collections or books by qualified historians. Considering that the BBC has recently had numerous and blatant issues with editorial bias, I would question the editorial bias of a documentary made by them this year.
"I didn't say they were lazy" This is a direct quote:
You can just admit you’re too lazy
Don't treat me like an idiot and I won't do the same to you.
You are suggesting that I could’ve effectively kept this person ignorant on any topic I linked them and they have actually done themselves a huge mental health service by blocking me?
Yes.
Once again, you cannot make any claim towards parasociality because now you’re saying the subjunctive clause is indicative of something other than suggesting towards a more desirable state. That’s a you problem, not a me problem.
You also don’t want to be arguing your “intellectual superiority” when you are arguing for a fundamentally anti-intellectual outcome. “Don’t spend time learning information disagreeable to my ideology” will not get you far here. If you genuinely filter your information by who is presenting it to you before even examining the substance of information, once again, I don’t know what to tell you. Why would you spend your time like this.
You might want to look up who Louis Theroux is before commenting further on whether the doc is truthworthy or not. Heck, why not watch it for yourself? The settlers 2025
I also don’t know what to tell you about the lazy comment, I’m giving them space to admit they are lazy if they choose, that’s not calling someone lazy.
Nah, you're just not careful enough with how you talk. Reiterating that for the lazy comment as well.
I'm not arguing my intellectual superiority. Putting that in quotes as though I said that is dishonest. I don't have an ideology, and I do filter my information by the context of who is presenting, what is being presented, when it is being presented, and why it is being presented. That's called media literacy.
Considering I already view the settler project as state-sponsored ethnic cleansing, this documentary is unlikely to change my opinion because it most likely agrees with my position. I'm more interested in materials that will substantially challenge my views without obviously biased rhetoric, or materials that present a snapshot of time from which I can draw my own conclusions.
No offense but this grammatical nitpicking is not helping your credibility as an intellectual or someone who can actually discuss important topics. Unless you’d like to do an exercise explaining the difference in meaning between “watch this video” and “you should watch this video,” there’s nothing further to discuss. The other instances of quotes are literally me quoting you, that is another thing I have no control over whether you feel it demeaning or not. I will say in addition to instances of property expansion in the West Bank there are obvious civil rights abuses documented in the documentary, so it would still be worth your time. Once again, you will not get far arguing to be 1) intelligent and 2) against actually recieving information. Even outside the topic, it is a documentary. Documentaries are art
Look, bro. Couldn't implies ability. Wouldn't implies volition. If you can't tell the difference when writing or talking, your communication is less clear. That's a you problem.
Where are those quotes from me actually from? Because I did not type them. At this point I'm comfortable saying that YOU'RE comfortable making shit up about people, because "intellectual superiority" came directly from your brain, and so did "don't spend time learning information disagreeable to my ideology."
Yeah, I know about those civil rights abuses as well, thank you. I don't need a documentary to find out about that.
I'm very sorry you think media literacy is somehow pretentious or beneath you.
As for the artistic merits of documentaries, cool story but not what we're talking about.
Yes the capacity and desire to learn more, which is what op lacks. In a more desirable state. We’re both saying the same thing and you’ve once again gotten hung up on semantics. Also I apologize, I’m getting mixed up with posts, but considering you say “I have 75 books on my shelf about it. All of them are either primary source collections or books by qualified historians…” then continue to say you won’t examine another primary source about the topic from a qualified documentarian, it sounds like you’re the one who needs to focus on media literacy. seriously suggesting you don’t operate by an ideology is also impressively wrong. I fully support media literacy, it would help you realize a lot of stuff about why you have the capacity to compartmentalize human rights violations so easily
Wow, all this to say you've missed the entire fucking point we've been explaining to you.
OP has the capacity.
OP does not give a shit about you or what you have to say.
Therefore, OP has chosen not to listen to you or what you have to say.
OP is not INCAPABLE of learning. OP has simply dismissed you, and you're butthurt about it.
Please expand on the fully made up shit about me, "I have the capacity to compartmentalize human rights violations so easily," with receipts.
“Yeah, I know about those civil rights abuses as well, thank you. I don't need a documentary to find out about that.” This is you compartmentalizing massive human rights abuses that would make you a candidate for an upsetting person to be around.
Has the capacity, not the desire to, because they are not interested in actually educating themselves. Once again, more respectability politics from people who could not name the primary focus of my initial ask. Op is mad because I wasn’t nice to them thus it’s morally agreeable to ignore a contrary viewpoint. You also are mad that I won’t be nice to you, and the only thing I can assure you is I would not have been afraid or uncomfortable doing this in person either. You are not obligated to have everyone who interacts with you know your rules of posting engagement. That’s what the site preferences are for
I’m just curious: do you watch every hour long documentary that someone links to you, lest you be deemed lazy for doing so? (This is a rhetorical question: obviously you don’t. You’re welcome to lie about it, if you want.)
The problem isn’t that it’s a bad documentary or disreputable, somehow. The problem is being in a conversation with strangers and saying ‘rebut this hour long documentary, or be condemned for laziness’. Is that meant to be an effective, honest tactic?
You’d be surprised but the internet is capable of speeding up the ability to communicate at alarming rates. If it were in person I would mention seeing the documentary and how obvious the “separate but equal” legal falsity is used in Israel. Also yes, if you’ve got a pro-Israeli documentary that isn’t October h8te I’ll watch it (already watched that one) you’d also be shocked at how little zionists feel obligated to provide sources when they make claims regarding the conflict, so it would be refreshing
I don’t even know what you mean by ‘October h8te’. Context clues suggest it would be a documentary that, well, documents the brutality and cruelty of Hamas and those who followed them-whether or not it’s used to justify the war that Hamas started-but I could be wrong about that.
What I do know is that, in person or on the internet, telling strangers ‘unless you rebut this hour documentary, you’re lazy’ is simply put bullshit. See, in that documentary there are facts and figures presented, presumably. Sources cited and referred to. In the time you’ve spent lecturing people about not doing an hour’s worth of homework on the word of a smug, hostile internet stranger, you could have directly referenced some or at this point all of them.
In fact, you’ve spent enough time lecturing and not referencing the actual sources of the documentary I’m starting to wonder if *you’ve* watched it.
As for separate but equal, well. Here at least we’re getting into facts and history I can speak to without homework, because I’ve already done it: it’s a bad, stupid, ignorant comparison you’re making. Separate but equal was a legal fiction that failed to be true on paper much less in practice. I’d love to hear, for instance, how many members of Congress were black south of the Mason Dixon line during separate but equal, for instance. How many Supreme Court justices. How many political parties in the south answered to black voters. (Ofc, throughout the rest of the country it was very far from good, and was only flattering by comparison.)
None of this is to say that Israel is without flaw or systemic prejudices-very far from it. But since you’re so comfortable speaking in sweeping generalizations, allow me* to point out that as usual, a pro-Palestinian is taking a flaw and dialing it up to 11 rather than speaking of it honestly.
There’s also fun in this: *you haven’t provided sources.* ‘Watch this hour long documentary’ isn’t providing a source. Did your teachers let you down, or were you simply not paying attention?
Out of curiosity: what is the definition of the term ‘Zionism’, to you? You speak of Zionists with great familiarity, so surely you’ve got an idea that should easy to express.
*I don’t actually hold with sweeping generalizations, myself. So unlike you, I’m not claiming your behavior is representative.
I’m not going to convince you that a documentary is a useful source of information. You either can understand the value in historical narrative crafted through video or not, but when these come out the lives of the people who are involved with these documentaries are harassed and threatened, so clearly people closer than you to the conflict took the time to learn enough about this (ultimately you are arguing for the right to remain ignorant and justifying this with respectability politics)
Oh, well, I’m sure you’ll trust my summation of the documentary, so I’ll go ahead and do that since it’s really not a problem, I just didn’t expect to meet someone who thinks watching a movie is arduous work.
Louis Theroux interviews several members who live in different aspects of Israeli life. They highlight an American Jewish convert who believes he is protecting the holy land for Armageddon, people who basically move trailer parks into previously agreed-upon Palestinian land and squat on territory, suburban land development crews, and of particular note, a Palestinian who is forced through a checkpoint labyrinth in order to live and is constantly at threat of harassment from the IDF. There’s more, i haven’t watched it since it came out, but that’s the rough outline. It’s not my fault you decided to not google who Louis Theroux was before replying
Yikes! Those goalposts got rockets attached to ‘em. At no point did I say or even suggest that documentaries cannot be a useful form of information. This has been explained to you repeatedly, and in different ways, such that at this point it really feels more like bad faith than genuine misunderstanding.
So I guess your teachers did fail you. A summary of a documentary isn’t a source. It could be useful, absolutely, in a discussion between well meaning people within some framework of trust and mutual effort. Strangers on the internet, though? Yeah, ‘give me an hour of your time or you’re lazy’ is some buckwild bullshit, and calling you out on that has not the least to do with respectability politics. For a conversation between strangers, an appropriate source would be ‘here is this serious bit of reporting which takes 5-10m to read’, not ‘watch an hour documentary’.
Seriously, what is this? By this exact same metric, how lazy are *you,* or will you claim every time someone has sent a video link you’ve watched it? Please.
Nothing to say on the definition of Zionism, huh? What a curious omission.
Sorry, you’re not going to convince me I’m the lazy one here. You cannot convince yourself to spend very little time watching something made to be easily consumed. You’re not doing your own cause any favors by ignoring reality
I have no reason to define Zionism because I don’t need to, I’m not dealing with someone interested in learning what I have to say about the topic and who would rather hem and haw over the right definition for the word “source” than be just a little brave and watch a movie. I also don’t know how to explain to you that other than a lack of mla citing, that is a source of information directly related to the topic. You’re asking me to what, pull out time stamps? That’s another excuse to not do anything for yourself. A big part of education is being capable of teaching yourself new information at which you are such a horrible failure I wouldn’t trust your opinions on how to educate anyone. It’s only by the grace of the internet that you even get to try again because in a real conversation you’re not gonna be up to the task of defending your own position
