#false equivalence

When discussing media, any statement that follows this type of pattern:

If you don't agree with the expressed opinion then you have a moral failing, with the implication you should feel ashamed about it...

That's a false equivalency. It's probably obvious when it's stated bluntly like that, but it's harder to recognize in the wild in the moment when the emotional reaction the statement triggers gets logged first.

Here's a very basic example that I'm using because I've seen it a lot lately (no hate here, my intention is not to call out anyone who might have made posts like this, please keep reading because I do explain that below):

If you didn't like the ending of Good Omens, you don't think humans/human love/relationships that start in mid-life have any worth.

I think it's important to remember that most of the people posting that sort of thing don't have a troll mindset. They have a love for the source and a strong opinion that feels right in their bones and it's very easy to get caught up in feeling like anyone who doesn't agree is wrong. So they look at why they loved it and extrapolate that people who don't agree clearly feel the opposite.

Aside from the disrespect to drag as an important element of LGBTQ+ culture and history, I cannot stand when white people (well, non-Black people in general, but I've noticed white people do it the most) compare things to blackface that...just aren't comparable.

I've heard The Big Bang Theory described as "nerd blackface" (I don't even like the show; that's just tasteless). I've heard campy gay men characters described as "gay blackface." I've even heard a character played by Anna Kendrick in a shitty movie described as "Millennial blackface." JUST STOP.

Call it stereotypical. Call it over-the-top. Call it tacky. Call it a caricature, but if it's not blackface, DON'T CALL IT BLACKFACE.

“It’s worth noting that Trump’s own rhetoric and actions have, in fact, inflamed tensions in the country.” I am so sick of false equivalence. It drives me fucking crazy!” journalist Don Lemon said on his show.”

https://www.facebook.com/DefeatTheDemocrats/posts/pfbid02kygeVcYzu8VGWPs3mFpCZJTucnaU8jHa6Zo9fsndrvFtsjNwGnp9v2cQNuxe93Bhl The Claim “The same people who were glad Biden killed the Keystone Pipeline are now whining about gas prices… you are the problem!” There’s something undeniably satisfying about this kind of statement. It draws a straight line between cause and effect, assigns…

More generally, what tools are "valid" for non-state actors in pursuit of becoming a state?

(these are genuine questions im curious to hear your answers to, not a gotcha attempt)

Here's how Haviv Rettig Gur answers this question:

You want to know if Zionist paramilitaries were justified using terrorism against the British.

The implication is clear: if they were justified, then is Hamas justified now?

But discussion of "justification" misses what actually matters and is a strategic reframing of the comparison you're suggesting.

Here's what we should compare:

1. Could the British leave?

Yes. They had England. They were occupiers by choice.

Can Israelis leave?

No. They literally have No Other Land. (Yes, that's where the line comes from - it was appropriated by the makers of the propaganda film)

This isn't "colonial power vs natives." It's two peoples, both with national claims, with nowhere else to go.

2. What did Zionist groups want?

To expel the British and create a state.

What does Hamas want?

To eliminate Israel. Not "end occupation," but to eliminate the state. Read the Hamas charter.

These are very different goals.

People keep reaching for "justification" because it's simple and clean. It gives you a good guy and a bad guy. You pick your side, you're done. You get to feel moral clarity. That's what the Free Palestine movement is about: emotional resonance.

The actual situation offers no clarity. You can argue about who's more wrong or who started it, but justification framing skips past the harder question: what do you actually do when neither of these two peoples is going anywhere?

Justification turns a political problem into a morality play. It lets you have an opinion without needing a solution.

"Justification" is what Hamas supporters rely on to rationalize, then excuse any Hamas atrocity.

"Justification" is a fundamentally broken way to evaluate terrorism.

Targeting civilians is always wrong, and never, ever justifiable.

The identity of the attacked doesn't matter. The identity of the attacker doesn't matter. The goals being pursued by the attack don't matter.