Well, I don't think it's so simple. I believe that you didn't anticipate the blowback, but it's also true that you could listen to some of the criticism a little bit more carefully and constructively as you can. For instance, here's something you wrote:
"10/7 started all of this. Without it, there would have been no major war in Gaza. Great job, Hamas."
OK, 10/7 didn't in fact start all of 'this." And given our discussion earlier, it appears that you agree. Which means that what you wrote was incorrect -- or perhaps imprecise. What is "this"? I try to avoid using the nominative forms of "this" precisely because they create so much confusion. I would say, "the particularly vicious Israeli response," or something like that. Does it require more words and create a long post? It does. Until recently, college grads weren't allergic to reading a couple of paragraphs. Precision and brevity rarely go hand in hand.
And it's also important to understand background assumptions. There are a lot of people who do in fact argue that 10/7 was the beginning of everything, that Palestinians are getting what they deserve, etc. That's a fact. They are here on the board and have been here. So when you argue something similar, if you're not precise, your views are going to get lumped together. That's how mass conversations work. It would help to be more cognizant of how your posts interact with the overall discourse.
[BTW, I think you probably should find a new screen name. There's one dominant "Z" name poster here, and he has something of a similar posting style to you, and because that poster is ubiquitous and frustrating, you're being confused.]
x.com
