wtf is a person supposed to actually do about israel murdering hundreds of innocent civilians.

[Alcofribas]

 

 

try being the one debating/arguing with everyone else across an entire thread, get called moron/dumbass/whatever else and see how well composed you remain. my money is on you cracking up a lot harder than eugene has, mesh. and im not even trying to defend him, so much as just commenting on the nature of debate at this place. i'm also not saying i've conducted myself perfectly here, but that's part of my point. you cant hold eugene to standards nobody else is held to just because you disagree with him.

just to be clear I'm specifically calling eugene a dumbass etc in the spirit of eugenism. I've tried to be civil with him for many years but he has proven himself incapable of adhering to a higher standard. so basically I'm just goofing around. save your crocodile tears for some other thread, I've never once seen you come in and defend any one from his vile abuse.

maybe so, but the idea that somehow eugenes past activity not only warrants yours towards him but that he can still be criticized on the grounds of his personal insults (which at least in this current thread seem to be outnumbered by those being launched at him) while they are still being levied at him is just the opposite of smart and honest. you cant do the same thing as someone else while also claiming high ground.

I don't at all buy your outrage. let's se how he responds to my request for evidence.

 

if you'd like to address my points itt that would be much more interesting. but I suspect you're going to cling to this pathetic defense of eugene against claims of dumbassery.

put mrE, where were you when he was accusing me of lusting for the death of Jews? or in so many other threads where eugene casts insults and accusations at people? never once have you stepped in to intervene. you're not a serious person and I don't expect you to say anything important on this issue. prove me wrong I guess but right now you're literally shedding crocodile tears over people insulting one of the most consistently insulting members of watmm. you never speak out against him when he's shitting on people you disagree with so how bout you address the facts only.

i don't need to believe anything, it's what i know from my own army service. idf's rules of engagement is to shoot back only if the soldier's life is in danger, so the default assumption should be that they don't just randomly shoot people but people who throw molotovs (most common) or shoot at them (like in recent protests near ramallah). idf doesn't provide evidence for every single fart, it's a state army that acts according to laws and orders, so if you doubt the legitimacy of a particular event send them a fax requesting clarification or something. israel closely cooperated with PA during that event, so it's a good indication that they didn't just ransack and rob everything in sight.

please provide proof or evidence of some kind for your beliefs.

Palestine, Hamas, should really try & follow Gandi's rule of peaceful resistance, how ever difficult that will be, lay down their arms which are useless anyway against such a highly equipped aggressor armed with the latest gear (from the west) to reveal the brutal & evil state of Israel, who are getting away with murder through the excuses 'they are firing (useless) rockets at us' & 'terrorists are using civilians as human shields' which the west continually except

Shame on Israel & shame on the west for being on Israel's side all these years, the arab world really needs to come together & come to Palestine's aid,

Stay strong Palestine

I can get down with this.

[eugene]

 

Palestine, Hamas, should really try & follow Gandi's rule of peaceful resistance, how ever difficult that will be, lay down their arms which are useless anyway against such a highly equipped aggressor armed with the latest gear (from the west) to reveal the brutal & evil state of Israel, who are getting away with murder through the excuses 'they are firing (useless) rockets at us' & 'terrorists are using civilians as human shields' which the west continually except

Shame on Israel & shame on the west for being on Israel's side all these years, the arab world really needs to come together & come to Palestine's aid,

Stay strong Palestine

 

not good enough i'm afraid, should have used phrases like "israelis are doing to palestinians what nazis did to jews" and "satanic state", perhaps even "genocidal" for good measure. oh and especially "zionazi", this is never complete without it.

 

C+

[Alcofribas]

 

nope. if israel kills people in a military engagement it is up to them to provide proof they were guilty. for you to simply believe they are not innocent makes no sense at all.

you claim that you are more informed and the "stuff confiscated belonged to Hamas." please provide a link to evidence of this.

there are some other critiques I have but I await your proof that the stolen items belonged to Hamas.

bump.

[eugene]

i don't need to believe anything, it's what i know from my own army service. idf's rules of engagement is to shoot back only if the soldier's life is in danger, so the default assumption should be that they don't just randomly shoot people but people who throw molotovs (most common) or shoot at them (like in recent protests near ramallah). idf doesn't provide evidence for every single fart, it's a state army that acts according to laws and orders, so if you doubt the legitimacy of a particular event send them a fax requesting clarification or something. israel closely cooperated with PA during that event, so it's a good indication that they didn't just ransack and rob everything in sight.

[LimpyLoo]

 

i don't need to believe anything, it's what i know from my own army service. idf's rules of engagement is to shoot back only if the soldier's life is in danger, so the default assumption should be that they don't just randomly shoot people but people who throw molotovs (most common) or shoot at them (like in recent protests near ramallah). idf doesn't provide evidence for every single fart, it's a state army that acts according to laws and orders, so if you doubt the legitimacy of a particular event send them a fax requesting clarification or something. israel closely cooperated with PA during that event, so it's a good indication that they didn't just ransack and rob everything in sight.

 

umm yeah no

there's plenty of youtube videos disproving what you're saying

[eugene]

disproving what?

[MisterE]

@alco

a- im not outraged and wasnt really trying to express outrage

b- eugenes being a dick or even me being one doesn't change or excuse that you probably are one too

c- i'm not 'a serious person'? what does that even mean? that ur a dick?

d- you 'don't expect you to say anything important on this issue'? well, you're right that i won't say anything important about the issue or pretty much anything about it at all. i've been making an attempt to not get into arguments/debates here for a while now, not that i'm taking some superior stance because of it but i just dont have that kind of energy lately. besides that i'll confess i dont know enough about this topic to butt in and act like i know how to solve the worlds problems here.

 

but even while i do expect you to say plenty more on this issue, i don't expect you to say anything 'important' about it either. i mean by any definition of 'important'.. like i'd think for something said here or anywhere to be important it'd have to have some real affect. i just don't see anyone's solutions/ideas posted here becoming some impetus for change in the world.

[LimpyLoo]

disproving what?

 

that "it's a state army that acts according to laws and orders"

 

If I posted a video of Israelis targeting and killing unarmed civilians, would you say "oh shit, yeah that's bad" or would you try to rationalize it somehow?

[eugene]

yeah i'll probably say just that but it doesn't mean that you'll disprove anything with a couple of such videos, unless you'll be able to prove that it's a rule and not exception somehow.

this kind of reasoning reminds me of the good ol snowden threads, where someone would post an article about some nsa guy reading his ex's text msgs to claim that nsa is abusing its powers and its programs should be dismantled.

[LimpyLoo]

yeah i'll probably say just that but it doesn't mean that you'll disprove anything with a couple of such videos, unless you'll be able to prove that it's a rule and not exception somehow.

this kind of reasoning reminds me of the good ol snowden threads, where someone would post an article about some nsa guy reading his ex's text msgs to claim that nsa is abusing its powers and its programs should be dismantled.

 

because no true Scotsman...

[joshuatxuk]

 

disproving what?

 

that "it's a state army that acts according to laws and orders"

 

If I posted a video of Israelis targeting and killing unarmed civilians, would you say "oh shit, yeah that's bad" or would you try to rationalize it somehow?

 

 

Most videos of any war are slivers of the actual scope and context of combat. Hamas will post videos of indiscriminate Israeli attacks on civilians and/or civilians killed in crossfire. Israel is going to post videos of Hamas rocket attacks on non-military targets and cherry-pick examples of their "humane" warfare, like "knocking." Raw footage of hours of besieged troops firing at each other without any gain in territory or eliminated targets is something the media doesn't run in the background of news coverage. It sounds trite, but we literally only get the select "highlights" of the conflict.

 

Eugene simply stated the rules of engagement of the IDF and his personal experience and training in the IDF. This could be said of any professional army. The U.S. military and NATO act according to laws and orders but yes, they have had incidents of improper and unauthorized attacks and documented human rights offenses and killings of civilians. Those still make up less than a majority of operations conducted, and I can say the IDF fits that criteria as well. I know friends and family in the U.S. military who are sincere, honest people. I support and respect their service but I'm not naive, I know that a few of their peers are not moral nor 100% compliant to rules and regulations of combat. It's something that happens even with the most stringent screening of recruits. The nature of war can alter so much in soldiers. The line between fighting an armed enemy and indiscriminately killing noncombatants is quite thin at times.

 

War still involves killing people, plain a simple. It's fucking war. There's no way it can be conducted in an urban environment without tremendous civilian casualties. The fact that the IDF has lost 42 soldiers speaks volumes. That's already 3x more than in the previous Gaza war. This is a lopsided conflict (1000 Palestinian deaths makes that quite obvious) but it's one that's being fiercely fought. It could easily 10,000. Now, I am not saying to say "well it could be worse, Isreal is trying and Hamas is making it hard blah blah" I'm personally looking at this and asking why in the hell isn't there a substantial push for a long-term ceasefire.

 

My problem with so many in the West and in Israel's leadership is that they are ok with the status quo - Palestinians in perpetual disenfranchisement and oppression, and a perpetual readying for war against Hamas, Hezbollah and the other militarized and extremist factions in Gaza and the West Bank. It's basically an endorsement for a everlasting enemy for Israel to fight, not a goal of ceasefires, negotiations, quelling of tensions and eventually lessening hatred on both sides, and moving towards a gradual but plausible peace between Palestinians and Israelis. It's incredible how many possibilities of peace and reconciliation are being thrown out for impossible "demands." Most if, not all of us, actually want that...

 

i did mention it a couple of times in previous discussions - i support this party in israel. it's nothing extraordinary really: full removal of israeli forces from west bank; arab quartets in jerusalem go to palestinian control, holy places go under some kind of joint/international control; partial evacuation of settlements and land swaps which will result in control of about ~95% of west bank by palestinians plus some land swaps to compensate for israeli settlement lands in west bank that will remain; no massive influx of palestinian refugees descendants into israel but some kind of proper compensation for loss of land and property that occurred in the 47-48 war. for that israel should get complete recognition and cessation of further demands from palesitnians and other arab states (except syria, i guess, with which there's the golan heights issue)

I basically agree with this. I'm undecided about the refugee issue and I think the insistence on the "recognition" point is irrelevant but yeah, I agree with eugene. I think his stance is basic.

 

I agree with eugene. what. the. fuck.

 

[delet...]

just fyi Reddit mods have been on massive censor rampage since the Gaza massacre, frequently hiding (not deleting, see below) any article that's highly critical of Israel

 

Dell Cameron of Vice has been keeping track of the censorship effort for the past few weeks.

 

edit: here is one example of Reddit mods calling essentially what are the same headlines of mainstream media reports 'possibly misleading' taking special issue with users literally repeating the same wording in articles about Gaza from places like BBC or the Guardian. In this specific instance the *mainstream* article making the rounds about Hamas was not responsible for the kidnapping is "misleading", according to Reddit mods

 

 

Screen Shot 2014-07-27 at 6.13.40 PM.png

 

Reddit's been compromised in terms of a free place for controversial political thought for quite a while, it virtually imploded over the NSA/GCHQ paid troll story a few months back. Any story now that the mods deem ' controversial' (including even if it's a headline from CNN) is sent into the r/conspiracy page and not allowed to exist in the regular main news page. Following pretty much the exact same model as mainstream news outlets that censor meaning that censorship is usually not in the modern age simply erasing information, it's about back-paging it to a location most people will either ignore or stop reading before they get to ( in the case of a story being moved to the last pages of a newspaper)

 

 

well that's why they murdered aaron swartz (even his father thinks so). He was a stick in the mud and an outspoken credible voice within the reedit community that prevented them from overtly (to the critical eye) fucking things with trolls and paid or government moderators. Nearly straight away they started in a big way when they began removing RT stories from the front page. God forbid any passive reedit consumer read an alternative narrative of reality. Makes you wonder what is going on in the heads of the other co-founders about aaron's death, other than knowing that they would get book deals and appearances on colbert to promote said books, by way of financial appeasement for keeping quiet about it all.

[eugene]

 

yeah i'll probably say just that but it doesn't mean that you'll disprove anything with a couple of such videos, unless you'll be able to prove that it's a rule and not exception somehow.

this kind of reasoning reminds me of the good ol snowden threads, where someone would post an article about some nsa guy reading his ex's text msgs to claim that nsa is abusing its powers and its programs should be dismantled.

 

because no true Scotsman...

 

this is not some abstracted logical argument but irl, there are no 100%'s, i can put it this way if you want: the likelihood of idf acting according to laws in orders is way higher than the opposite.

[Guest]

it's raining outside now, but i just heard a bird singing. i think the rain has cleared for now

[Guest]

nop, stillr aining

 

gonna go outside anyway fuck it

[Alcofribas]

i don't need to believe anything, it's what i know from my own army service. idf's rules of engagement is to shoot back only if the soldier's life is in danger, so the default assumption should be that they don't just randomly shoot people but people who throw molotovs (most common) or shoot at them (like in recent protests near ramallah). idf doesn't provide evidence for every single fart, it's a state army that acts according to laws and orders, so if you doubt the legitimacy of a particular event send them a fax requesting clarification or something. israel closely cooperated with PA during that event, so it's a good indication that they didn't just ransack and rob everything in sight.

this is a fair enough position to take I suppose but it certainly is not on the level of facts or evidence. basically, like in the snowden thread as you mentioned, you trust the government to behave lawfully and combined with your own army experience you have reason to trust that the military acts according to a standard of rules. I don't agree with this exactly but it's not unreasonable.

 

but to be perfectly clear you stated that you were more informed than me (whatever that even means) and made the claim that the money confiscated belonged to Hamas. I merely want you to provide a link to where you acquired this information, it would be quite useful to me. and I'd also like you to address the confiscation of jewelry and cars and such. is there such a thing as Hamas jelwery? I'm also curious how you seem rather nonchalant about the idf confiscating Hamas property and destroying Hamas homes. for one thing, no evidence was ever provided that Hamas was responsible. for another, since when is that a lawful and just response? you refer to your belief in the idf's adherence to a lawful standard so what is the legal right you think they have to demolish homes and confiscate property? and finally, why would home demolitions be applied to the people responsible for killing the Israelis but not to the Israelis who killed the Palestinian teen? shouldn't the rule apply across the board?

 

but the more important point is that in your post about the idf excursion into the west bank you downplayed what they did there bc you said you didn't think it was important. I'd argue that the idf going into the wb, demolishing homes, confiscating a bunch of shit, arresting Hamas members released in the shalit agreements and killing people quite obviously is important and combined with the incitements of revenge coming from the government, revenge which resulting in the murder of a Palestinian kid and the beating of his cousin, that it's hard not to see this as a deliberate provocation. not to mention the fact that one should find military excursions of this nature generally important to a timeline of the sort we're dealing with.

[eugene]

there's no website that aggregates evidence for the consumption of western skeptics, it's what was idf supposed to do and it's what it has done unless there's some evidence that claims otherwise. it's like asking for evidence that doctors don't steal the organs of their patients during surgeries or something, or like when awepittance was asking for evidence of the fact that osama bin laden was actually killed (his head stuck on a white house fence perhaps?), it's ridiculous. moreover there's only one source that claims that there were shifty confiscations going on and that's palestinian ma'an news, who''s worse than aljazeera when it comes to covering this conflict, so i don't why it's enough for you to conclude that there were confiscations/theft of property from people uninvolved, just because it's on a page on wiki?

 

regarding lawfulness, since when hamas is not a terrorist organization that's not exactly covered by common legal processes? specifically regarding home demolitions it's a policy that was adopted during the second intifada in order to deter future suicide bombers, because it's kinda hard to punish/prevent people who are going to blow themselves up by ting them them individually. i can't really say what was the rationale behind those two though.

 

it's a provocation only in the case israel staged those kidnappings, otherwise it's an action to try to find the teens kidnapped and the people responsible knowing that the more time spent the less are the chances of getting them back. an action that hamas didn't like and decided to try kill people in israeli towns with intensified rocket attacks (though there are probably other reasons for that too).

[Alcofribas]

@ eugene I don't really know what to make of your response, partly bc several of your sentences don't even make sense at all. I'm assuming that's just an autocorrect issue or something but it makes it hard to truly understand your positions.

 

regarding confiscation. ma'am news is not the source of the claims, however, I agree that we don't have all the information. nevertheless you appear unable to substantiate your claim that anything confiscated "belonged to Hamas" so I'm led to conclude you have no evidence of this. in fact, your general position seems to be that the idf is perfectly justified doing whatever it wants bc it only does lawful things. seems a bit odd but I'm American and the whole notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is ingrained into my way of thinking about law, and I'm also a leftist so I think it's essential that we mistrust governments, their military, and their propagandists when they insist on a paradigm of "guilty until proven innocent."

 

as to home demolitions it seems again your "justification" amounts to it's Israeli policy so it's ok. my own view is that such a policy is disgusting. you can read the report on reuters for instance (hardly a source you can cast into the al-jazeera camp) which describes the idf smashing every single step on a staircase in a house, throwing food all over the floor, and trashing the rooms of children. this hardly seems like the behavior of people devoted to finding the lost teenagers does it? furthermore, the very notion that there is such a thing as "future terrorists" yet again shamefully irradicates the notion of innocence and is a concept that has polluted Israeli discourse for decades. what is more, as a deterrent the policy is at best flawed since it can easily be argued that one way of encouraging a child to become a "future terrorist" might be to have an army come into their house, destroy their belongings, throw their food on to the ground, meticulously demolish their stairs, humiliate and disrespect them and then blow their roof off. presumably this is why this is no longer the official policy of the Israeli government. but in my view it was never meant to be a detterent, it was meant to be an expression of anger and domination. you also failed to acknowledge why israel didn't demolish the homes of the Israelis who murdered the Palestinian teenager. this last point ties into mine about provocation -- what better way to provoke a Palestinian response than to have a completely double standard here?

 

your final point about provocation is easily dismissed. it's not provocation only if israel staged the kidnappings, that is not the only way to explain provocation here. it's perfectly possible for israel to exploit something it had no hand in for political purposes. obviously. and it's perfectly likely that their actions were deliberately designed to provoke Palestinians and for many reasons. I can examine what some of those reasons might be but if you're truly interested it's pretty easy to find this stuff online. in my view you're content to toe the party line, accept the lawfulness of Israeli actions as a given, and casually dismiss any contradictions of this status quo with silly mischaracterizations of the sources or denial.

[xox]

it's a state army that acts according to laws and orders

 

IF that's true then that's some nice laws you got there, you fakn maniacs!

[awepittance]

make sure to turn the captions on for this one (translated from hebrew)

good part starts at 50 seconds
then 1:20 till the end

[eugene]

@ eugene I don't really know what to make of your response, partly bc several of your sentences don't even make sense at all. I'm assuming that's just an autocorrect issue or something but it makes it hard to truly understand your positions.

so maybe it was a better idea to ask for clarifications instead of guessing what i mean and going along?

 

 

regarding confiscation. ma'am news is not the source of the claims, however, I agree that we don't have all the information. nevertheless you appear unable to substantiate your claim that anything confiscated "belonged to Hamas" so I'm led to conclude you have no evidence of this.

sure i do, israeli news and idf spokesman, much better evidence than ma'an news at least which is indeed the only source for claims of theft in that wiki article.

 

in fact, your general position seems to be that the idf is perfectly justified doing whatever it wants bc it only does lawful things. seems a bit odd but I'm American and the whole notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is ingrained into my way of thinking about law, and I'm also a leftist so I think it's essential that we mistrust governments, their military, and their propagandists when they insist on a paradigm of "guilty until proven innocent."

this really doesn't apply to internationally recognized terrorist organizations.

 

as to home demolitions it seems again your "justification" amounts to it's Israeli policy so it's ok. my own view is that such a policy is disgusting.

don't know how you got to this conclusion, i simply explained the reason for the policy in the past, i don't know what was the reason for it in this case.

 

you can read the report on reuters for instance (hardly a source you can cast into the al-jazeera camp) which describes the idf smashing every single step on a staircase in a house, throwing food all over the floor, and trashing the rooms of children. this hardly seems like the behavior of people devoted to finding the lost teenagers does it?

don't know which reuters article you're talking, but the legitimacy of its reporting depends on the informants and such, so do post a link to it.

 

furthermore, the very notion that there is such a thing as "future terrorists" yet again shamefully irradicates the notion of innocence and is a concept that has polluted Israeli discourse for decades. what is more, as a deterrent the policy is at best flawed since it can easily be argued that one way of encouraging a child to become a "future terrorist" might be to have an army come into their house, destroy their belongings, throw their food on to the ground, meticulously demolish their stairs, humiliate and disrespect them and then blow their roof off. presumably this is why this is no longer the official policy of the Israeli government. but in my view it was never meant to be a detterent, it was meant to be an expression of anger and domination. you also failed to acknowledge why israel didn't demolish the homes of the Israelis who murdered the Palestinian teenager. this last point ties into mine about provocation -- what better way to provoke a Palestinian response than to have a completely double standard here?

it can also be just as easily argued that it does deter people from getting into terror as their families will be left homeless.

 

regarding the non demolition of home of the murderers of the palestinian boy - they're not members of hamas so different considerations apply.

 

 

your final point about provocation is easily dismissed. it's not provocation only if israel staged the kidnappings, that is not the only way to explain provocation here. it's perfectly possible for israel to exploit something it had no hand in for political purposes. obviously. and it's perfectly likely that their actions were deliberately designed to provoke Palestinians and for many reasons. I can examine what some of those reasons might be but if you're truly interested it's pretty easy to find this stuff online.

it's also perfectly likely for israel to act just the way i described, what makes your explanation more viable? i follow all of this stuff very closely so i'm familiar with all of the narratives (israel unhappy with fatah-hamas unity so it stirs shit in west bank, israel wants dismantle hamas from west bank, israel wanted to start new war in gaza and so on)

 

in my view you're content to toe the party line, accept the lawfulness of Israeli actions as a given, and casually dismiss any contradictions of this status quo with silly mischaracterizations of the sources or denial.

i really don't, don't confuse my explanations of idf's reasons and actions and pointing at hole of so called "anti-israeli" arguments as government support. i really didn't lie that i support an oppositional left wing party.

[chenGOD]

You guys are all fighting a losing battle: as someone in the thread said, it's nothing about religion and all about politics.

As long as Israelis themselves won't accept anything less than a victory, the government won't change its stance very easily.

 

http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Poll-865-percent-of-Israelis-oppose-cease-fire-369064?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=*Situation%20Report&utm_campaign=SitRep0728

 

(yes I know the sample size is a little small and they don't give any margin of error, but it gives some indication of popular opinion at least)

 

eugene: the IDF is not allowed to operate outside the bounds of humanitarian law because Hamas is a terrorist organization.

 

As to destruction in Gaza: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/27/the_eye_of_the_storm_gaza_israel_hamas_cease_fire

 

Now that article doesn't address the claims that the IDF have been trashing homes by hand, but it certainly casts light on the lengths to which the IDF is wiling to go. And the thing is, it's bloody stupid - trying to eradicate Hamas through violence will only foment further resistance. If the IDF does succeed in eradicating Hamas leadership, more radical groups will assuredly take their place in the vacuum created.

[eugene]

You guys are all fighting a losing battle: as someone in the thread said, it's nothing about religion and all about politics.

As long as Israelis themselves won't accept anything less than a victory, the government won't change its stance very easily.

 

http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/Poll-865-percent-of-Israelis-oppose-cease-fire-369064?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=*Situation%20Report&utm_campaign=SitRep0728

 

(yes I know the sample size is a little small and they don't give any margin of error, but it gives some indication of popular opinion at least)

 

eugene: the IDF is not allowed to operate outside the bounds of humanitarian law because Hamas is a terrorist organization.

 

As to destruction in Gaza: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/27/the_eye_of_the_storm_gaza_israel_hamas_cease_fire

 

Now that article doesn't address the claims that the IDF have been trashing homes by hand, but it certainly casts light on the lengths to which the IDF is wiling to go. And the thing is, it's bloody stupid - trying to eradicate Hamas through violence will only foment further resistance. If the IDF does succeed in eradicating Hamas leadership, more radical groups will assuredly take their place in the vacuum created.

the sample size is ok and indeed most of israelis don't want a ceasefire atm, not because they want more death and destruction but because this situation will simply repeat itself in a couple of years unless something more significant is done. ie some international recognition of the need to demilitarize gaza and guarantee to actually push for it, or destruction of hamas (unlikely due to pressure that'll come after massive civilian casualties of such action) or at least the destruction of all tunnels that lead into israel.

 

what i meant is that hamas is not guarded by due process due to its status, not that israel can break humanitarian law because it goes for hamas.

 

a lot of things were achieved with violence, i think you'll be able to think of examples quite easily.

[sheatheman]

dude, don't even bother. go sit in a tree with shorts on. stop poking at me just bc I called you out for your irrelevant position.

This is when I give you a look:

 

 

 

[Alcofribas]

 

dude, don't even bother. go sit in a tree with shorts on. stop poking at me just bc I called you out for your irrelevant position.

This is when I give you a look:

*is struck with primordial fear*