False binary.

In any case, like I said, you can disagree with the etiquette if you wish, but that is the ettiquette. So one shouldn't be surprised when people disapprove of one breaking it.

You got a problem, mate? Or you just going to be passive aggressive via emoji?

I'm so proud of you

I am privileged, with a will that allows me to remain away from bullshit if I choose to without caring if anyone gets offended by choices I make that happen to mine to make anyway.

I feel sorry for the crowd that has to ne policing anything different than what they think because their lives are so empty they have nothing to fill them with so that is all they can try.

That's a very sad way to live, so yeah, I guess I am privileged to not live like that.

Would you call the Warsaw ghetto uprising a terrorist organization?

Hamas has many problems but that's all they have. Israel helped to create Hamas.

There, your so beloved nuanced take. But one that doesn't disarm the oppresed people being systematically erased by evil colonizers and their critical supporters like you.

Your cynicism is another form of evil.

I see that now. Maybe my bar for decency is too low because as non-ideal ignorance may be, at least they admitted it and just focused on Israeli spyware.

Had it stopped there, I would have said the other initial responses were a tad unnecessarily harsh, but then the OP commenter dropped some real shitter takes.

I am not the original commenter. This comment asking "why" was before the OP commenter "both-sides" the genocide with "muh khamas".

At the time, OP commenter was just talking about Israeli spyware using BDS as a source while also letting us know they are uninformed about the genocide and thus don't have a stance. My understanding was that this was to deflect any criticism or accusations from Zionists for being biased.

While it is not ideal, there are a million reasons why someone may be ignorant on a conflict, atrocity, phenomenon, etc. It could be willfull ignorance, it could be that their environment does everything possible to keep them ignorant; regardless, until I know the reason, I cannot judge them.

What matters to me more is how they act with said ignorance. In this case, they initially said they are very poorly informed aka "I don't know". Instead of talking about what they don't know (genocide, settler-colonial conflict, Zionism, etc), they only spoke about what they do know (Israeli spyware).

I think this is fine, especially since those who know they are ignorant and refuse to speak on what they don't know are generally open to learn or have any misconceptions corrected. I also have very low expectations of Amerikkkans from the land of the burger, home of the fries.

This all is to say, this is why I was asking "why". My mind was focused on the spyware, and I was wondering why another commenter didn't like it. Was the information inaccurate?

Since then, a lot of other commenters responded--I now understand why they take issue with the OP comment, though I believed the initial responses were unnecessarily harsh. However, the OP commenter, despite knowing full well their ignorance, dropped the "muh khamas" shitter nuke, so...

How about "you're one of the few people that took it as yet another fucked up thing going on in the world, together with RAM chip shortages and kids with cancer, and decided to go on with your life?" Or is that an entirely infeasible event in your mind?