There were some good replies in there, but mostly I thought it was disappointing. I guess it's probably fine to just tell someone to fuck off because it's a community management issue, but I think it's good to try to have some engagement with arguments to both understand your own positions and to be ready to refute things when it actually matters. I tried responding, but in the time it took me to write something, the thread was deleted.
You probably won't find this compelling, but I think that it's good in cases where someone seems sincere and shares several of our values that at least a little effort is made to re-educate them. It's simply to our advantage for more people to agree with us. The OP was antisemitic, but it got worse in the comments, where they assigned collective guilt to Jews in general because there were a number of Jewish Nazi collaborators before the Nazis really started with the Holocaust. I think this is a stronger indication that the poster was unsalveagable as far as a forum is concerned, because I think they are just motivated by a seething resentment of Jews, but I'm curious how they would respond to the self-evident charge of them assigning collective guilt to an ethnicity, something that is really fucked.
Anyway, I don't mean this as an indictment of people who aren't the aforementioned antisemite, I just wanted to mention a thought I had and also make my comment from before:
useless comment
Why are you still centering the "uncomfortable" feelings of a group that overwhelmingly supports genocide?
This is a deranged argument that, on its own, merits your banning. The popularity of Zionism among Jews does not negate the question of ethnic discrimination, and the logic that you are using here could easily be pogromism. "Why aren't we taking violent action against a group that overwhelmingly supports genocide? Never mind that the "group" being talked about isn't a coherent political entity or even a coherent community, but an ethnic group!" Also, even if we counterfactually said that directing antisemitism against zios is okay (it is not!), there are still many Jews who closely identify with their Jewishness and are ardent anti-zionists!
Because you're using an inversion of a common zionist argument, let me use the inversion of its counter: The vast majority of people who are uncomfortable with the burning of a Star of David are not Jewish, and I'm willing to bet that the majority aren't Zionists either (or they at least oppose the genocide but may or may not understand that it's the inevitable expression of what Israel is). A lot of people object to the inciting of ethnic hatred, and you yourself recognize that the Star of David is different in this respect from a cross, because you single out Jews as an ethnicity to tar and trample on, but when discussing the burning of St. George's cross on the English flag, you relate us to the KKK because of their burning crosses in front of black churches (etc.). Those two things (England's flag and KKK rituals) have nothing to do with each other and are just superficially connected by the floating signifier of the cross, with no specific connection to something like an ethnicity because it is being extended very cross-ethnically (pun not intended), and hypothetically also applies to Arab Christians, to LatAm Christians, and so on. Regardless, around the world in many different countries, many people object to inciting ethnic hatred and they also object to genocide, e.g. in China, so the idea that the objectors are all Jews is completely false.
Also obviously this shit gets used as a cover for antisemitism, like in your case as you reveal by assigning collective guilt to Jews because like 70% of them according to some polls support Israel, as though that means the other 30% are chaff! (Never mind the other problems with this logic)
guys I don't like Christianity so let's have a burning cross emoji, I'm sure it has no other meaning
The St George's Cross and Saltire aren't anywhere near as synonymous with christianity as the Star of David is with judaism. Without the context of being on a flag they're indistinguishable from a + and x - the equivalent symbol would be a Crucifix, which we definitely do not have a burning version of.
Jewish supremacy and exceptionalism
Is there a settler colony whose flag is a cross?
Is Australia a settler colony? It contains one.
Australia is absolutely a settler-colony
It is the definition of a settler colony along with the US and Canada.
I mean probably at some point
England started as a setter colony
Are you referring to the Angles and Saxons here? Their migration to Britain and treatment of the Britons was similar but I wouldn't call it a "colony".
it's a bit frought, the old law codes can be interpretted as apartheid-y against the britons, but there's also good indications of large areas being basically depopulated when the germanics occupied them (i.e. London, York). In any case it was too slow and decentralised to be very comparable to more modern colonizatoon
The Norman invasion could probably be considered a colony, what with the genocide and ethnic supremacy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North
I was initially referring to the Roman colony/military base in London, but I suppose that also applies
The southern cross is found on several southern hemisphere countries flags
I was positive there was a black and white picture of a klan guy with a burning cross as an emoji, but I can't find it. Am I just making things up?
closest thing I can recall:
We've got a klan guy being beaten and a cop on fire and they have similar composition
I also seem to remember this
Clearly this means we've been transported to another reality
If it actually existed it probably got removed for breaking the emoji rules, since reactionary symbols aren't allowed in isolation.
This is evidence that we switched timelines.