466 karma · joined March 25, 2024
Just listen to their internal rhetoric, watch who they find and why, and it is clear. However, since it’s Trump who is bombing IR, people will defend the IR regardless of what the IR stands for.
Second, why are you legitimizing gunning down thousands of people?
Of course people didn’t follow. Did you see any major news outlet doing live coverage of the events like they did for October 7th? No.
Did you see non-stop coverage about it from NYT, WaPo or others? No.
This is an actual question. It seems to me that you only care about Arabs dying. Jews can die left and right in the hands of Arabs and you won’t blink an eye. Am I correct?
I just want to clarify it for others who reads your comments to see.
So that’s why said Iranians chant Javid Shah?
> This is not salvageable without justice and accountability.
Do Palestinians have to be held accountable for their actions?
This comment just shows that you have no idea what Iran is, and how it differs from Libya.
Libya is a loose conglomerate of tribes. Iran majorly Persian that see themselves as one nation. Completely different dynamics.
I would argue that funding Axis of Resistance from Hezbollah to Houthis is aggression too. Let’s not pretend that IR minded their own business, and suddenly was under attack.
Did you miss the whole “axis of resistance” funded and driven by Iran?
And? What do these figures tell you? You are accepting a very lazy explanation for the disparity in the number of casualties and calling a day.
I will give you an example where with the same logic you will arrive to an unconventional conclusion. There was order of magnitudes more German civilians killed by the US forces during WW2 than the other way around. Does it mean that Nazi Germany are the good guys here? Probably no.
One alternative explanation why there was more Palestinians killed than Israelis is because:
1. Israelis have shelters, so they have places to hide from rockets
2. Israelis have Iron Dome and alert systems to alert civilians of incoming rockets
Palestinians did not have these things. Moreover, Gaza's government used underground facilities only for military purposes and did not allow civilians to hide there for the duration of hostilities.
As a result, it is reasonable to assume that there will be more causalities on the side that has fewer defenses.
But, you can stick to your intellectually lazy argument that paints a very specific picture.
> Nope, that's the wrong prejudice for my intersectional group, but it certainly reveals some of your own biases.
You have no idea what my biases are. You were the one who went with personal insinuations, not me. I just showed you that this type of discourse is not very productive as it lead nowhere.
So, what did your pager anxiety outburst tell us about your biases?
Well, you stated your position multiple times w.r.t. Palestinian rights, so I think for the sake of completeness you can state your position on the rights of Israelis as well.
So, do the Israelis have a right to act as they see fit, or no?
> your comment makes you bear complicity to them, in a small degree, as you serve as an apologist for such actions online.
Can Israelis act as they see fit in defense, or no?
No, “whataboutism” is using shifting a conversation to a different issue. For example:
Person A: "The democrats did X!"
Person B: "But the republicans..."
Person B is engaging in whataboutism.
I am not discussing Hutu. What I am doing is I am providing you an example why the reasoning that majority is never wrong is a fallacy via an example.
> Wrongful actions in another conflict do not justify future conflicts. The actions the world has seen do not simply go away because of your comment.
Neither because of yours. Palestinians shoot rockets towards civilians for the past 20 years. Tells us quite a lot who’s the “genocidal” here.
> I don't need to rehash every factual news article on the topic to justify my position, nor do I need you to rehash the glazing opinion pieces that justify yours; we won't move the needle that way, will we?
I am not trying to change your mind. I am posting here for others to see your double standards and flaws in your reasoning. They will see and judge themselves.
> All that I request is that you do not place an explosive device in a pager and send it to me, as that would be very inconsiderate; my neighbour works the night shift and the resulting shockwave would ruin his daytime sleep.
Interesting choice of words here. Should I ask you not to blow yourself on the bus, or in a cafe? Or in a wedding? This is good that you wrote it, it shows exactly what I wanted to see.
No, not wrong. Hutu committed genocide. Turks committed genocide against Armenians. But the war in Gaza is not a genocide once you consider facts and compare to other modern conflicts.
> and try to understand my wider point
Your point is founded on falsehoods.
Great. Which describes a very specific thing. good.
> and in the minds of many, many people all over the world, the term applies here.
In minds of many people many things were acceptable. I am not sure this kind of reasoning is a good strategy. In minds of many Hutu, Tutsi did not deserve to live. Were Hutu right?
> "War" could one day be waged against whatever group you belong to, as well. You may wish for the country waging it to follow the Geneva Convention so that your sons gain a small chance of becoming POWs and returning to you, instead of being destroyed by an autonomous drone.
This is very good point. Unfortunately, Palestinians did not follow Geneva convention. Firing unguided rockets in barrages towards population centers with the goal of overwhelming air defense systems is very much non-conventional.
> Comments like yours endorse the actions that are being done;
How come? Do you see a difference between saying "it's okay to kill civilians" and debating the merits of using one term vs. another to describe an event?
> we're beginning to recognize the term "hasbara" for them.
It seems to me an easy way out. Why discuss the merits of an argument, if you can simply say "it's hasbara" and walk away?
War is not a genocide.
Sure:)
I’m sorry you feel this way.
Due to the Iron Dome and shelter in every apartment building. The government prioritizes defense of its citizens.
Like where?
For some reason you still complained about astroturfing.
> I expect there have been variations on that sentiment
Yes. Before one human can create a thousand other fake humans indistinguishable from real ones.
Which you acknowledge yourself without realizing it.
Also, why do you ignore my question about 2nd amendment?
> I'm aware. That's why I dragged the conversation back on topic.
It was on topic, you simply chose to ignore the point you did not like.
> When put into its surrounding context, it is a plain statement of fact and reasonable assessment of the situation.
Sure bud, it is
It actually is when the “resistance” is targeting civilians, including the foreign ones.
How do you address lies with truth if the distribution of lies and truth is uncontrollable?
> We're talking about the US. Many other governments (and governed people) do not agree that freedom of speech is important or even desirable.
The example of Russia has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Read again.
Moreover, as I stated earlier, we already have documentation requirements for 2nd amendment, so why not for the 1st? Asking for ID to post on the internet does not preclude you from exercising your rights.
> The way out of that bed is sustained, good faith, cogent discussion, rather than building dossiers and the automated infrastructure for information restriction.
How can you make a good faith argument if the whole space is polluted by bots, trolls, and various influence groups? Perhaps your argument is in good faith, and factually correct, but for one of you there may be 10,000 bots. So, what value is in your voice?
> But, in truth, most of the folks pushing these systems aren't interested in cogent discussion and are arguing for them in some combination of ignorance and bad faith.
This quite a reach. I personally believe that people who have zero chance to get a real life backlash in their community will engage in bad faith arguments, etc.
How does digital ID prevents you from speaking out? For example, 2nd amendment requires a lot of hoops in some jurisdictions, which were deemed constitutional, and not violating 2nd amendment. Same with the 1st amendment. You can argue that with digital IDs there will be less privacy and anonymity than before, but it’s a different story.
Moreover, influence campaigns are not about truth or lies, but about making the public loose face on the institutions. A good example of it today is Russia, where the public does not believe that democratic elections are possible at all, in principle.
> #3 is handled by parental controls that have existed in mainstream OSs for quite some time now.
It is not handled perfectly at all, and easily bypassed. To pretend that information access on the internet can be regulated through parental controls is ridiculous.
Interesting. Are you saying all the concerns raised by the proponents of ID verification are invalid and meritless? For example,
1. Foreign influence campaigns
2. Domestic influence campaigns
3. Filtering age-appropriate content
I’m sure there are many other points with various degree of validity.