Screenshots emerged in early April from Viki1999’s Discord server of her saying she doesn’t support “bloodthirty islamic Palestinians who hang people for being gay” and that the “jews let me be a homo in peace.” She then doubled down, saying “if an israeli kills a gay person the israeli goes to prison. if a palestinian kills a gay person they say “thank you officer”.”

Obviously, this resulted in a backlash. where she defended herself by claiming she was being a “devil’s advocate” and quoting Zizek.

She further claimed this was “an out of context drunk quote” (another “I was not in possession of my full mental abilities at the time when I said those thing”) and said “We agree on 99 things but that 1 other thing really ruins the rest?” When told this was a reactionary belief “No supporting Palestine makes me the same as a fascist?” and “you call me a reactionary for disagreeing with you on one point?”

What followed was criticism from multiple people, including Marxist Paul, for not only her original comments but also her response. She claimed this was all just “for daring to question the party line on supporting Palestine.” When she was accused of being a zionist she said “there are WORLDS between not supporting palestine and supporting israel”

When informed that “Most of us don’t call Palestinians ‘bloodthirsty islamics’ in private”, she replied “heated gamer moment.”

When the backlash to these replies/defenses became too much, she began claiming she was still drunk, while continuing to reply, “I leave the self reflection for when I am sober. Fuck sober Viki is in for a bad awakening when she wakes up LMAO” and further “Hey I’ve been drunk for the whole day I may as well have fucking fun before I pass out”

In my view, these statements are contradictory:

1. She claims she was drunk when she was arguing in the Discord. Possible.

2. When then screenshots came out, the obvious thing would be to apologise. She claimed she was drunk and playing the devil’s advocate. Okay.

3. But when people started replying, she defended her statements in the Discord by saying it was the one thing people disagreed with her (not supporting Palestine). Which means, even if she was drunk during the Discord argument, and regretted her choice of words, the substance of what she was saying, i.e. it’s okay to not support Palestine because gay rights, was still her actual belief.

4. When the backlash to this became too much, and it became evident to her that people aren’t willing to give up Palestinian liberation, she claimed she was still drunk, actually.

5. There is something deeply hilarious about, both, being too drunk to be responsible for your words, but also being able to articulate them tweet after tweet in near perfect grammar. You’re so drunk that you’re saying things you don’t actually belief (doubtful) but not so drunk that you’re not unconscious, or finding it hard to even navigate Twitter, or even understand what is being said?

There is a lot more in the replies, of both her statements in the Discord and her doubling down on Twitter. Such as this extremely wild statement/analogy where she reveals her grandpa was a nazi.

But this is where I’ll leave it. I just wanted to show that her claiming she was just drunk or in a heated argument or whatever isn’t true (at least not entirely). It’s further proof that just because someone is a socialist, that doesn’t mean they aren’t free from reactionary/liberal brainworms, especially if they’re a Westerner.