I can’t see inside your head, but based on what you are posting, the thinking is binary. You’ve been insisting it’s either zionism is Jewish supremacy or it’s white supremacy and if one says it’s white supremacy, they are promoting “genocide denialism” (your words):

Zionism is Jewish supremacist, and trying to erase that is genocide denialism.

This was what you said in response to someone simply saying:

The sterilisation of black Ethiopian Jews by israel shows that zionism(at least the specific form practiced in israel) is white supremacist

I’m not going to argue with you on the basis of a binary that isn’t actually a binary. The conversation is poisoned from the start when its foundation is ahistorical and needlessly antagonistic toward people who probably would overall agree with you about the connections between zionism and Judaism in practice, but are also pointing out that there’s more to it than that.

What in the world does acknowledging the historical realities of white supremacy and the role that its global military power has played have to do with “centering Jews”.

I want to know where this binary thinking poison is coming from, so we can stamp it out; this bizarre dichotomy presented as something like: “you have to despise Jewish people and deny white supremacy’s influence in the zionist project, or else you are denying genocide and centering Jews.” It’s bizarre and is at odds with historical materialism.

Denying white supremacy in zionism as a means of proving claims of Jewish supremacy in zionism (as if they are mutually-exclusive) makes the most sense if one is a nazi: if the person seeks to simultaneously deny the existence of white supremacy while pushing a narrative about Jewish people running the world.

I don’t believe you are intending to do this, but I can’t help wondering if some rightist reasoning is getting into the mix here from elsewhere.

Zionism can contain characteristics of white supremacy and Jewish supremacy at the same time. If it were down to a binary though, it’d surely be white supremacy that wins out, considering that israel would be isolated and easily overwhelmed by the numerous enemies it has made in the region without the military support of the white supremacist empire to back it up.

Before the US being the predominant support for it, there was the support of the British empire of the time. Zionism may be more than white supremacy in its characteristics, but as its history goes, there is no successfully executed zionist project without the forces of “white” colonialism in the background making it feasible. So to reiterate, I would not describe it as a binary where it is only one or the other, but if it were, it’s white supremacy’s military might that makes it possible and so white supremacy is ultimately what has the final say in the project.

Yeah I’m baffled at how many upvotes a post like the OP’s gets. Like who and why is supporting this kind of disingenuous argument. The argument is sort of like saying Obama getting elected means the US is no longer racist against black people.

This might unironically work if Obama did a welcoming event for Flavio. Trump seems to dislike Obama enough on an ego level that it might set him off.

I agree, I think that’s a good way to put it. Streamers come with bad side effects that talking to other “regular” people don’t. And parasocially bonding with a streamer lacks the one-to-one ties that building even acquaintance level relationships with other people does. Even 100 people who are all bonded with each other can do a lot. 1 streamer with 10k fans can’t do more than be an “influencer” because none of their fans are actually bonded to them and most of them are not bonded with each other meaningfully either. So there is no material base with which to build an org, a reading group, anything that requires persistent organization beyond voluntarily showing up to an online space to listen to one person talk. Figures like this can do the occasional virtual charity drive, but these are abstracted forms of charity, where people virtually and voluntarily give donations to a specified organization; no organized gathering of materials and distributing them to people, no passing out literature or talking about an org’s political program with people, etc.

It’s all very shallow in impact, in other words. It’s not without any impact, but it lacks what is needed for movement building, while allowing the viewer to still feel like they’re part of something.