Wow, I’ve been browsing Twitter, Reddit and Lemmy for the past few hours. I’m surprised to see such breaking news first in Lemmy instead of Twitter or Reddit.
Awesome! Hope the Fidiverse keeps on growing to become bigger than Reddit and Twitter.
Reddit hot sorts more by popular, so things take a long time to rise up.
Lemmy hot seems to be (too much) biased to new. Can be a bad thing because it looks like things don’t get popular. They do but you don’t see it by hot, you see it by top 12 hour.
Early 2010s Reddit was so addicting, if there was something in the world it was on the front page in 15 minutes. I remember being excited to check on Reddit after waking up to see that was the event of the day.
After 2016 the algo was screwed up and it became a cesspool of reposts and news were late to show up.
The one thing current Reddit seems to do right is give smaller subreddits a chance to show up on Hot. Lemmy tends to be a little too simple, and the frontpage gets dominated by the one or two big groups.
Yeah, I’m pretty happy with the sorting algorithm in general for the way content gets presented, but some weighting to better include smaller communities would be great. Lemmy is still struggling with getting a critical mass in users to support niche interests, and a better post sorting could help a bit at least.
I think it’s only a matter of time. The enshitification of reddit is guaranteed, it’s really inevitable and it’s going to keep getting worse. Long live the Fediverse!
Thankfully, it’s not the commentary I was afraid he’d offered. JB sounds spineless in this, it was a joke and an honest expression of the very real existential fear people feel towards Trump rule.
I fucking hate this. Trump gets on mic everyday to wish death on some innocent groups of people but we’re fucking forbidden from joking about it towards him?
Edit: I hope everyone who downvotes me gets very peacefully and nonviolently re-educated.
I think it’s complicated a bit by the fact that this was said on stage at one of their shows. I think canceling the tour is a gross overreaction, but with the current political climate (even ignoring the assassination attempt) I can understand some hesitancy to proceed if anyone is going to be associating them with calls for political violence.
All that said… based birthday wish, fully agree with Gass’s joke.
Yeah like he’s not wrong, but maybe don’t say it on stage in front of everybody and God at your job that you and your coworkers are depending on to pay the bills. I’m sure none of them are living paycheck to paycheck but art also doesn’t make as much money as people like to think, especially in this day and age, and I’m not going to fault any one individual for playing it safe these days.
Agree. Absolutely not a joke. Former president has caused, is causing, and will continue to cause active violent harm to the country, but it’s not appropriate to talk about how justified it is to stop him?
He’s literally above the law now; there is no peaceful way to adequately deal with him in a timely manner. He, his conservative judges, and the republicans in power have backed the American people into a corner of violence.
He murdered thousands of people with a willful mishandling of a pandemic virus for stupid and shortsighted reasons. He is a mass murderer and terrorist who may become President again. And people are worried about fucking decency.
Politicians are always responsible for deaths of their constituents as an indirect result of their actions, it’s just a question of how many. We set up legislative and judicial systems to address this question rather than relying on mobs and vigilantes. It’s called living in a civilized society. It’s not about decency, it’s about creating a safe society we want to live in. Personally I don’t want to live in the wild west where anyone with a gun can play judge, jury, and executioner; you may feel differently.
But I agree that the recent SCOTUS ruling is worrying, because it does appear to put the president above the law. As JFK put it, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”. Not good, not preferable…but inevitable.
I would have much preferred the government do it’s job and protect us from this literal fucking comic book villain. But it hasn’t happened, and it probably won’t. So this is what happens.
I was hoping the “excitement” of almost being killed would have lead to a heart attack, but who am I kidding? This is The Worst Timeline™ everything goes to shit and the absolute worst of us live forever and get everything they want…
To be honest. I think all famous people right now are preparing for the real possibility of a fascist dictatorship in america very soon.
They are trying to stay off of Trump’s assassination list. If they stay in the mode of “we condemn violence towards trump” then trumps ego doesn’t get hurt by them and they end up having a mysterious heart attack, drug overdose, or 3 in the back of the head “suicide”
Yeah, this guy (Trump) vahemently opposed the largest American protest in our history. The idealogy he opposed was simply “black lives matter”. He and his cronies vilified the entire movement by labeling the movement “Antifa”, and making it synonomus with terrorists looking to destroy America.
He gassed his way through the middle of protesters and the very clergy of a church he visited to hold a Bible upside down, and later re-tweet a video about a golfer yelling “white power”. These are fascist actions, and all while theoretically attacking “Antifa”.
And now we’re never supposed to even JOKE about him dying?
To be fair, they need the bandage just as much as trump does.
Like. A day or two after the attempt he was out golfing and didn’t have a bandage or anything.
I think it was just a small nick and the blood thinners he’s likely on just makes you bleed like crazy since they prevent clotting. A small scratch looks like a war wound, and would explain why there was blood everywhere but he still has a functional ear.
Like, if he really got shot in the ear, he’d be missing a part of his ear like in Preacher. It won’t just heal back.
Yeah, but he was stripped of all of his power. Wagner group is being rolled into the state military. The opportunity for Wagner to push back and or give Putin the boot has passed.
And, this dude was also an evil corrupt piece of shit. If he overthrew Putin, Russia would’ve still been an authoritarian disinformation state.
He was a straight-up Neo-Nazi and named the group after Hitler’s favorite composer. So yeah, he would have been infinitely worse than Putin… and that’s saying something.
Anything you hear from Russia, you can just as well forget, it’s nothing but propaganda, lies, spin, and disinformation. They use Nazi guys like Wagner to fight what they call “Nazis” in Ukraine. It’s the “we fake it so hard that people couldn’t believe it someone would lie that bad” tactic. Never engage with Russia / Russians who aren’t publicly opposed to Putin and the status quo. You can only waste time.
When the short insurrection by Wagner was going on, I had hoped so much that Prigo and Putin somehow annihilate each other, or at least the hardliners in military and mercenaries perish in infighting. Sadly, all we got was confusion on that day.
At least if Prigo’s death now ends up being confirmed, there won’t be that much confusion on why it happened, only some details will remain unclear.
Wagners are straight up fleeing into neighboring countries and Africa. They must have read the history books about what happens when one warlord assimilates another’s forces (they kill them quietly and easily now that they’re disarmed).
Seems like most reasonable folks didn’t think he’d reform Russia. The only “good” he’d cause would be unrest that would force Russia to pull out of invading their democratic neighbors.
But it would have been a comparatively bloodless coup by a powerful military figure that would likely have ended the current war in Ukraine. As opposed to the likely outcomes of
putin finally loses it and hits the red button (which is actually a lot harder in russia, to my understanding, but is still a threat)
Some less powerful individual(s) attempt a coup and we end up with warlords vying for control of russia’s nuclear arsenal
Like, there is no good outcome of this. But prigozhin probably would have been the lesser of the evils as it would start another cycle of russia preparing for war (and ravaging The Global South but… nobody cares about them) and allowing The West to try and prop up a more palatable person to take control in a future coup.
There would be no clean replacement. It would get very bloody and chaotic. Not a bad hypothetical scenario. But that ship has sailed when Prihozhin surrendered (he didn’t stand much of a chance anyway).
It’s not like Putin and his closest cronies are in any way competent. They are removing anyone who dared to criticize. Before the coup Prigozhin, Girkin were allowed to say whatever they wanted as long as they did not undermine the general effort. Now Putin’s inner circle will ultimately disconnect themselves from reality: govern the country and the war from a bunker filled with scared yes-sayers with no alternative voices.
The most surprising thing here is that nine people were willing to get on a plane with Prigozhin. That's arguably much closer to actual suicide than any of the convenient window deaths that keep happening.
His plane has crashed and he’s on the passenger list, but it’s not proven yet that he was on the plane. He’s the person, who faked his death in the past.
It seems like oddly coincidental timing that Russia also officially relieved Surovikin as head of the airforce today (he still hasn’t been seen since the mutiny): theguardian.com/…/russia-removes-sergei-surovikin…
Not saying he’s definitely dead, but I doubt this is him faking his own death so much as him slipping an assassination attempt if he’s alive.
Projection is how Republicans roll. Remember when MAGA accused Joe Biden of wearing diapers and they found out their dear orange felon/rapist cult leader wore them instead, and started wearing them?
which is hilarious, because if you’re whining about someone “taking away your masculinity,” (OR if you’re having panic attacks about someone else’s masculinity) then you were never masculine in the first place.
Just a reminder, jd vance, trumps newest vp pick, has on many occasions been quoted in the past of saying “I didn’t vote for trump”, “I never liked trump”, and “I’m a never-trump guy”.
NOW he sings trumps praises, and kisses trumps ass.
vance is just another vapid muppet who’ll get thrown under the bus the instant shit goes sideways and trump needs someone to blame for…whatever. just like all the other used-to-be-never-trumpers who are now fighting over who gets to be first to be facialed by trump
I hear that “Gallows humor” excuse every single time and it’s only ever used so assholes can feel good about being assholes. It’s basically the “Women like getting r–ed” excuse that incels use to justify their shitty behavior. Yes sometimes they say that, but it’s not a justification.
You know full well nobody here was saying that to “get through hard times” you’re all safe on your computers punching down at dead people.
What are you the gallows humor police? Can I still joke about Hitler’s death or is that taboo now? I’m German so I have a Hitler given mandate to make fun of him and all the other nazis scum.
It’s not a typo when its a correctly spelled, but incorrect word. A typo is where you mash keys or type them in the wrong order - a typographical error. Writing the wrong word entirely is an error.
If anybody wonders how, it’s because vaccination means the immune system reduces viral load, so you spread much less virus and thus others exposed have a better chance of avoiding infection.
I’m aware of that but the comment I replied to says the virus is preventable. You really think I understand how the vaccine works but not what people die from or did you just need to make a degrading comment?
Currently COVID-19 is not preventable through vaccination on its own, especially not at the currently recommended once-per-year schedule, because they don’t last anywhere near that long.
It is not preventable to get down with it, but the vaccines reduce its effects so much that even people with chronic breathing illnesses or organ transplants can handle it like a moderate flu. Mileage will vary from person to person, of course.
Your direct point stands, but it is still a huge win for pro-vaccination.
Law is not some immutable force. Many countries have laws.
In some of those countries, Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. In others, it is not, and even considered and ally (or has been previously, such as Afghanistan, Algeria, Iran, Qatar, Syria).
Hamas its self is a government. They have their own laws. So whose laws should we defer to?
The point is that who is or isn’t a terrorist depends on the context and point of view you are speaking from.
There is no universality in that kind of word, and so its appropriate that the BBC isn’t using it.
I get the emotionalism behind this moment. But words matter. This was a state sponsored effort.
If there is any delineation between a terrorist act and state violence, it should be the existence of a state.
A state exists, Palestine. This was a state action, not a terrorist action. It was an act of open war, but not an act of terrorism. That’s a different thing.
Definitions and words matter. It can’t be “Everything I hate is terrorism”. Look at how the American right has done this with the word ‘fascism’ (largely to obscure their clearly fascistic approaches).
What Hamas did was not an act of terrorism. They have done that previously. This was an act of war.
This dude writes 50 comments a day on multiple accounts. From what I’ve seen they are completely filled with hatred and spitefulness and their personal conviction is more important than deliberation or compassion. It must be exhausting.
Critically, though, not the U.N. I linked to the same thing above before I saw your comment but came to a different conclusion. I personally call them terrorists but I’m not a journalist trying to be impartial on a global network. I think it’s fine for the BBC to just say which countries do label them terrorists without taking a side.
Kinda weird that New Zealand takes the time to differentiate calling the political arm of Hamas not terrorists and the militant arm of Hamas (Qassam Brigades) terrorists. Maybe someone should look into why.
I agree they shouldn’t parrot the views of the UK government blindly. But the BBC are not above the law. Stop that nonsense.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. They organize and commit acts of intentional violence against civilians with the express purpose of spreading terror.
Calling them anything else other than that is a disservice to the readers of the BBC and implicitly condones their actions by not labelling them as such.
Hamas has been the government in Palestinian since 2006.
No theyre not.
The Palestinian Authority is in charge of the West Bank and Hamas is “in charge” of Gaza (even tho Israel controls everything).
If you think Hamas is the government of Palestine, it actually makes sense. Israel loves pretending that’s true in the media. And probably the only reason they haven’t done anything about Hamas despite controlling every aspect of life in Gaza
Journalists should never label a group of people with an adjective. It’s Journalism 101. Your writing should be free of personal bias and report the facts and quoted statements. No assumptions are allowed.
Lmao, you’re seriously linking to a deleted comment to try to make your case?
Laws are, by definition, a legal opinion— which can be overturned, by the way, by another legal opinion. The only fact here is that it is, is some jurisdiction, a law.
That just is not the point. I mean, if you are involved in the conflict you can totally believe in anything, but the point is in the moment you call them terrorist and call it a day you lost any possibility to analyze the situation and understand WTF is happening and why.
BBC is not saying they are NOT terrorists, but it does not matter in this context.
The well known phrase is “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. I Imagine from their point of view, Israel is the ‘terrorist’ group, routinely bombing apartment buildings etc and that their actions are a proportionate counter (recent events nonwithstanding!)
Both sides of the current conflict have/are committing atrocities, but the reporting of those atrocities should be as factual and unbiased as possible.
But redirecting attention away from the topic being discussed just so you can whine about someone else doing the same makes it appear as if you’re justifying it so long as someone else does it.
Stop doing this. It’s juvenile and muddies the water. You want to discuss how shitty America is, do it in its own post where that can be discussed in full. Here, it doesn’t belong.
I’m not trying to do that, I’m trying to understand how to international interests interact with the war, if you really want to understand international conflicts you should do this all the time.
Saying “Hammas bad” is much more juvenile, and is equivalent of saying “fart” for the discussion
Only one involved was convicted as stated, but then completely let off so who cares? The higher ups that enabled it were completely let off. Others who were involved in the cover up completely let off. The whistleblowers, etc were shunned and ostracized by the military for decades.
The best way I’ve heard it described is that they both view the other group of people as existential evil. Far beyond enemies, something which is evil just for existing. Not just the militaries, but the nation, race, state, religion, whatever classification. With that viewpoint, any action you take can be justified. Just as nobody would think twice about killing a million mosquito larvae in a country that has thousands die from malaria, killing a few thousand of the other side is morally neutral at worst.
This is going to continue to be horrific for a while.
Did you see the big red letters that say “banned” at the top?
There’s nothing in the mod log because you weren’t banned from this community, you were banned from every community on lemmygrad.world by the instance admins.
You want to prove me wrong? Sign in to that account and comment fucking anywhere in this thread.
This has gotten old tho, enjoy lemmy.world while you can, I’ve heard they actually can IP ban now. And since you’re bragging about how many alts you have already to evade bans, I’m sure a lot of people have already reported you.
Bro I’ve literally linked the fucking comment i made from Shitjustworks, its not my fucking fault that “bans” dont federate correctly and since its not in the modlog im effectively not banned how the fuck should i even know?
And the alts aren’t for banevasion, they are to avoid downtime and to strain the server less, most people have alts, also to access stuff not available form certain instances.
Furthermore… IP bans are a joke… Just saying. If not even reddit could do them properly, lemmy isn’t going to either, and they are easily avoided by a VPN, Tor, and just restarting your router, also its not going to work if you use accounts from a different instance because then you would need to block the entire instance the user is coming from, wich would be very overkill.
But don’t worry, I’ve reported you all for antisemitism as well.
Hi I’m not related to that individual I just found your comment thread doing searches, I haven’t heard of the Lemmy software being able to do IP bans anywhere, would you mind sharing where you heard this information.
As far as I know the only way to do “IP Bans” on Lemmy is to manually block them from the server’s firewall but that’s not a Lemmy software feature, it’s a server feature, and it was also always possible.
Your SJW account is super banned, which should be visible if you copy and paste the link they posted directly (it’s probably getting converted to your instance where the account isn’t banned). You can comment on LW posts on SJW, but they’ll only be seen locally (and I’ve heard maybe some other servers due to bans not working correctly). LW itself will just drop your posts.
The reality is that they’re the militant faction of the de facto government of a quasi-state under Israeli occupation. It is complicated so the BBC just says who thinks they’re a terrorist group. That seems reasonable for journalists striving to be neutral.
“Everybody wants to occupy ‘the holy land’ and everyone who is taking part of that sucks”
While Israel has been basically a terrorist state, attacking Palestinians nonchalant, bombing civilian districts, and Hamas has grown in number, also basically being a terrorist state (the iron dome exists for a reason), it feels like we are forgetting that this whole argument comes down to religious rights. The argument will never end. The conflict will never end. Both groups are thumping their book claiming it’s their land. The war will go on for centuries until there’s nothing left to claim. That’s how religious war works, unless some other great motivator stops it.
The war will go on for centuries until there’s nothing left to claim
The US is older than Israel. My grandfather is older than Israel and he’s still alive. There was no state of Israel in 1920 and the Jewish population in the region was ~11%. This hasn’t been going on for centuries. It’s been going on for century.
The history of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel has its origins in the 2nd millennium BCE, when Israelites emerged as an outgrowth of southern Canaanites, During biblical times, a postulated United Kingdom of Israel existed before splitting into two Israelite kingdoms occupying the highland zone
The Crusades, the Ottoman Empire, thankfully those only lasted a century and that’s when we determined who got what.
Yes I’m sure that since they didn’t have it before, they wouldn’t try to have it again. My point is not about nations that rise and fall. It’s that they will continue to rise and fall for this holy war on what they consider to be “their land”
Are you really sure that without US intervention, and the nation of Israel starting, there wouldn’t be orthodox Jewish terrorists on the other side of the border claiming it was “their land?”
Those claiming it’s “their land” will continue to fight, until everyone is dead. That’s my point.
There’s a reason every country that bitches about the BBC also gets accused of being far right authoritarians…
BBC calls them out, but pulls just short of saying it. And there’s nothing far right authoritarians hate more than someone calmly telling the world exactly what they want. If we flat out called them nazis, they’d argue they’re not technically nazis they’re sparkling fascists.
I’m really sorry, but in case of Armenia, Artsakh and Azerbaijan BBC has been extremely pro-Azeri for many years, all the way to using Azeri place names which literally were invented 30 years ago when they were attempting (then unsuccessfully, now successfully) to depopulate those places.
Now they seem to have made a 180 degree turn (still using Azeri place names, though), but that can be explained by there no longer being Armenians in Artsakh, so lying is no longer that necessary.
Now, about nazis and Azerbaijan … you comment seems asinine in that context.
Bullshit. They’ve used the word ‘terrorist’ for every other attack in the past two decades (9/11, London Bridge, Manchester Arena, 7/7, etc.). Was that not ‘choosing sides’ then?
They just can’t admit that the UK fucked up and condemn Israel because the lawyers told them not to
The purpose and function of the police and the courts is the protection of capital from the people. Some cases illustrate this more clearly than others. This is one of them.
Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army. You know what I mean?
Turns out that in their demands on Sweden to change the way they apply the law when it comes to PKK demonstations, what Turkey is doing wrong is making it a quid pro quo for approving NATO membership rather than just helping the Swedish upper classes get richer.
Clearly freedom of speech CAN be traded in Sweden, as long as its for cold hard cash.
I could demonstrate to you That every single bank robbery That in every single case practically The cost of the police was more than The actual money that the robbers took from the bank Does that mean, 'Oh, you see There’s really no economic interest involved, then They’re not protecting the banks The police are just doing this ‘cause they’re on a A power trip or they’re macho, or they’re control freaks That’s why they do it’ No, of course, it’s an economic… Of course, they’re defending the banks Of course, because if they didn’t stop that bank robbery Regardless of the cost, this could jeopardize The entire banking system You see, there are people who believe That the function of the police Is to fight crime, and that’s not true The function of the police is social control And protection of property…
That’s amazing, I hope all journalists and government alerts have their own instance. It’s way better than a blog because it can be updated so easily, they’re used to twitter and their alerts and it’s open to see while they control everything about it. Happy to see it.
even if that’s true, which it isn’t, wouldn’t that still be a hundred times bettee than shit like Fox News? or what Bezos did with news company he bought?
If you look at the structure of the BBC, it’s an INDEPENDENT, publicly funded news organisation. The government has no say in its editorial. It has exposed many British government scandals in the past.
While the person you’re replying to seems to be trolling, there is a legitimate argument that the BBC is influenced by the current government. The argument is that the current government has had a hand in appointing the current BBC director, and he’s a member of the Conservative party or a donor.
I haven’t looked into it for a while, so am not up to speed on the details, but if the detractors are correct, it’s not a good look for the BBC.
Unfortunately, BBC news has been corrupted from the inside. It used to be impressively independent of the UK government. It was happy to hold any politician’s feet to the fire. This is why the conservative party worked so hard to put their own stooge at the top. Careers now stop progressing, if you are overly critical of the government, at least in the news department.
Overall the BBC still leans slightly left, and produces a lot of good material. I no longer trust it to report evenly on our government anymore. It’s still a lot better than most news organisations overall however.
Why an instance instead of joining an existing one? They can join the effort and do few ones where several publishers can use to create official accounts
Edit. Why you guys are downvoting a discussion? Is this place becoming reddit? We are just chatting, relax
Because they can control who is on it, they’re journalists only, and still be out in the open with no sign ins. What would be the benefit of them joining other instances? That would be an odd choice.
exactly this, they can control what is on it, give their journalists, shows, etc accounts and it being a self contained hub for everything bbc, while interacting with rest of the fediverse.
Im guessing they will also get more statistics and information from hosting it themselves as well. its a no brainer.
Because then someone else would be able to control and censor their content. Really every business should make their own server to ensure that they’re the ones fully in control of their content - this is the entire point of federation.
Having their own instance as a public organization adds more legitimacy to their publications. Think of government officials using the organizations domains for email instead of gmail.
If you look deep enough you’ll see caveats like “supplemental service provided by NWS” and “Twitter feeds and tweets do not always reflect the most current information”, but the truth is that a lot of people (and news organizations) depend on Twitter as their main interface to the NWS, and rarely if ever go to their website.
That obviously creates a tension, which bubbles up in scares like this:
Before last weekend’s storm, the National Weather Service’s Baltimore-Washington office sent this tweet saying that because of a new Twitter policy, automated tweets that show advisories, watches, and warnings might not load.
Contrast that to a world where NOAA (the federal administration which runs NWS) has their own instance: they get the benefit of being able to disseminate updates in a consumer friendly ‘social media’ style and they retain full control of platform and can be sure the service won’t be held hostage, or go down in the middle of a storm.
Finally: if you’re reading this from the USA, consider contact NOAA/NWS to let them know you’d like a fediverse presence, I did!
Finally: if you’re reading this from the USA, consider contact NOAA/NWS to let them know you’d like a fediverse presence, I did!
Good idea! I just emailed [email protected] to ask them not only for a Mastodon instance to replace this stuff, but also for a PeerTube instance to replace www.youtube.com/ .
One of Germany’s public broadcasting services also started running an instance for anyone part of the federal media network: ard.social/about
Translation:
ARD.social is a basis for ARD’s appearances in the #Fediverse network, an amalgamation of various platforms and projects. Regional and nationwide brands, broadcasts, programs and institutions of the federal media network can create profiles at ARD.social. The Mastodon instance ARD.social is operated by Norddeutscher Rundfunk (NDR).
Also the Tagesschau, which is the most important television news show in Germany, is there.
I think the person you’re replying to is being facetious based on your comment. Saying no good guys, alluding to the fact that the actors involved are all guilty of atrocities in some way. Not that they’re trying to be “politically correct”, but then again, I could be entirely wrong… ¯\༼ •́ ͜ʖ •̀ ༽/¯
I don’t think the Netanyahu regime are the good guys, but I didn’t think the Trump regime were the good guys either. I don’t endorse blaming a nationality for the actions of shitty leaders, especially shitty leaders who have directly undermined democracy in their countries.
Wild to me that you conflated Netanyahu and Trump, rather than Israel and Hamas. But either way, I agree.
I don’t think what Hamas has done is “cool, chill and dope”, but I certainly understand living under the violence of apartheid and becoming violent yourself.
Especially when your prayer, worship and protest are met with military action by your “supervisor”(?)
What else are you supposed to do if you’re a Palestinian? They can’t even live a normal day of peace, that doesn’t exist for them.
This is disingenuous. Israel (and the international community) have offered concession after concession, compromise after compromise. Palestine/Arab orgs/Hamas have rejected them out of hand.
In case any reads this as affirming their belief that communists are fans of genocide, other communists from Vietnam invaded Cambodia and stopped the genocide referred to by the ‘killing fields.’
It’s so hard though, people really want to pick a side and I get that because it makes it much easier to think about and emotionally deal with but the reality is it’s a painfully complex situation.
The same question exists for Israelis, the only reason they aren’t being massacred is because of their hugely expensivel security systems and the fact every citizen does three years of military service - if their whole existence wasn’t focused on protecting themselves there would be a very different political climate and far better people in power.
And yes it’s easy to say ‘they shouldn’t be there in the first place’ but that’s also very reductive, a lot of things in history shouldn’t have had to happen but it’s too late now - what are they supposed to do just stop existing? Of course that is what a lot of people want to happen, the countries funding Hamas and Hezbollah for example…
The hard truth is Israel would never be in the position Palestine is, they’re either strong enough to defend themselves or they all get killed - I wouldn’t want to be in either sides shoes.
I think a defining moment of your comment was at the end, when you said, “ they’re either strong enough to defend themselves or they all get killed - I wouldn’t want to be in either sides shoes. “
One IS strong enough to defend themselves and the others are the ones getting slaughtered.
But you agree if Israel couldn’t defend themselves they’d have all been killed long ago?
What are they supposed to do just sit idle and accept that powerful nations are going to continue to train, supply and support terrorists attacking them? That they’ll never feel safe and will regularly have to accept the deaths of loved ones in terror attacks?
I don’t think Israel is acting well but also I have experienced the reaction of people when terrorists attack the city they live in and simply can’t believe any nation would respond much better - and again I want to say that im only talking about the Israelie perspective and likewise were any other nation in the position of Palestine they would react pretty much how Palestine is reacting - and of course you can go back and say well this happened because of this and that happened because of that… At a certain point it’s of course England’s fault but they had literal boats full of emaciated victims of histories most brutal oppression with no where to put them that wouldn’t cause decades of chaos and violence.
The raw truth is history is ugly and messy, the Jewish people have been victims for centuries so it’s really not hard to see why a portion of them are going to be very obsessive about self defence. Why a portion of them aren’t going to have patience for the 763rd group of people to say they should be pushed into the sea and eradicated entirely.
If we could draw a line under history and say the past doesn’t matter that would be great but of course it’s not that simple, it’s never simple.
Yes, they are. My CEO sent out an email this morning about how he’s saddened by “the attacks on Israel” and glad “all our Israeli employees are safe”. He closed with “we stand with Israel”. No mention of any sadness or fucks given for all the dead Palestinian civilians.
Heh, I had a similar reaction when reading a similar email. There certainly have been “Horrific terrorist attacks”. Except from all sides… for many decades…
God I remember during the George Floyd protests our CEO sent an email statement that was basically “blue lives matter”. I was happy to leave that company.
CEO suddenly emailed out a “terrorism is never ok” email early this week expressing concern and acknowledging the pain of the Hamas attacks…as if anything has occured in a vacuum there in the last 60 years.
I do not apologize for the murders by Hamas over the weekend, just as I do not for the now even more retaliatory murders by Israel. Montagues and Capulets both were assholes. The idea any organizational head from some random industry in a foreign country could even understand the basic dynamics, let alone decades of murder and loss on both sides, and still make a statement that would in any way walk a line of objectivity is so startlingly naive it boggles the mind. And other than their fucking irrepressible egoism, they would claim they’re doing this for their employees? Company? Just STFU when you don’t know the field of play!
There was a controversial and sexist bait letter someone at Google wrote before being let go and it was heavily propped up by right wing media as an example and justification that everything Google does from now on is left wing because they’re cancelling this poor sexist man.
My first long term job’s company instructed HR to print out the letter and give a strong endorsement of it for seemingly no reason. It basically just read to me as, “Women have strongsuits other than business success like emotions and raising children and their lack of pay is actually justified and good.” that they wanted to come from our female head of HR as opposed to our do nothing remote from Florida male CEO. These rich people are no smarter than anyone else, they just use bigger words as they stick their foot down their own throat.
I was arguing with someone about that. Their unwavering position was that population in Gaza is growing, so it cannot be a genocide. UN genocide definition was wrong in their eyes. I tried to compromise to call it “only” ethnic cleansing, they seemed unimpressed. Then they called me a tankie.
Just take that in: it’s not a genocide because not enough evil sand people died. What the actual fuck?
What the fuck. Who are they listening to? I have also heard the “UN genocide definition is wrong” argument - but because it’s incomplete. The UN definition is too strict to categorize all genocides into.
Shooting from tbe hip on this exact stat, but 10 - 15% of the population of Gaza is over 25. Gaza is basically 2 million children and teenagers. Whom all have PTSD.
bbc.co.uk
Top