DogMuffins @ DogMuffins @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

5

Comments

1,190

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's just not analogous though.

I am loathe to defend hamas, but the UN stats just don't portray them as the aggressors.

If Australian aboriginals started terrorising the rest of us, of course we would use reasonable force to bring that to a stop. We would also be negotiating, and compromising. If we decided that peaceful solutions had been exhausted, I can assure you other countries wouldn't be sending us billions of dollars worth of hardware with which to exterminate them.

We seem to have been invaded by them in the last 2 years or so. I don't see why regular utes and 4wds have been fine until now, but suddenly every tradesman needs one of these.

Ok mate. Believe it or not, I'm not looking for an argument about who is most awful between Palestinians and Israelis.

My question is, why the world feels the need to take sides in this conflict rather than simply condemning the violence perpetrated by both sides.

The hatred violence, and wrongdoing does not need to be equal between all combatants in order for the hatred, violence, and wrongdoing to be condemned.

That's not really an answer though - obviously there's a question of degree.

If there were 20,000 terrorists with access to advanced weaponry then a few hundred civilian casualties is probably acceptable. If there's 100 terrorists with access to some home made rockets then a few thousand civilian casualties probably isn't acceptable.

Is the present campaign against Gaza with the mode of engagement by Israel really the surest path to peace with the least civilian casualties? Hard to believe given that there was a stale mate just a few weeks ago.

Besides which, you can't kill all the terrorists, that's not how extremism works.

I'm from Australia.

Hmm... it seems like the disparity of "badness" you describe would've been true a few months ago, but no longer is?

Most of what you've said about Palestinians also describes israel now? Seems that way anyway.

If we were looking for the path to peace with the least casualties, this doesn't seem like it.

Can someone give me the straight talk on why western countries, who usually at least try to look like they have the moral high ground, are falling all over themselves in support of Israel?

What is the non-conspiracy nutter reason why the US feels the need to provide billions of dollars in support to Israel?

Clearly actions on both sides are reprehensible, some more-so than others. There's no goodies and baddies here. There's aggressors, innocents, and victims on all sides.

"We've tried nothing and we're all out of solutions, so we'll have to genocide them"

Does anyone actually use crypto to make actual purchases though?

The tankies haven't gone anywhere, it's just that the content they're posting has been diluted by other content. Also some instances have banned lemmygrad.ml

Much better.

The "all" feed was almost all lemmygrad.

Yeah releases > assets

Before the reddit exodus lemmy was overrun with tankies.

Personally... I wouldn't switch to something chrome based but you could take a look at bromite or ungoogled.

I doubt FF forks are going to solve the problem.

What's it doing all day? Does closing tabs make any difference?

Was there any discussion about this change? Or is this it.

I can see why you would think this, but this is a very unusual case. Particularly so given the decision in this article.

You're dead right in that rich people don't go broke like the rest of us - because they have accountants and lawyers set up complex business structures so if something falls over they can just walk away (or drive away in their nice car to their nice house).

This article is pretty much saying that all that usual dance isn't going to work in this case - he still has to pay $1.1b.

Also, there's no law that prevents him from going on making money. That may not feel "right" or just but that dynamic is the same even for poor people. That said, at 100k per month it would take him 916 years to pay $1.1b soo... he might curtail his luxurious lifestyle, maybe not.

The thing is... every one of these issues could be addressed if people didn't vote against their own interests.

I think it's just timing, the phrase arose around the time that it was becoming obvious that covid vaccines were perfectly safe, had no 5g chips, did not cause infertility, et cetera.

The various social groups that had coalesced around covid related conspiracies needed something new and un-disprovable to use as an outward manifestation of their internal feelings of persecution, so they just lapped it up.

This is the same chicken / egg thing as plastic pollutions.

Sure consumers choice of whether to discard or recycle a plastic straw is nothing compared to the decisions of corporations, but then consumers invest in those companies, buy their products, and elect representatives who do not hold them accountable.

Big tech has ruined the internet because people were willing to trade their privacy and their attention in order to watch gifs of cats playing the piano. I'm not "blaming" people for that - hell, I was one of them, but you can't solve the problem without understanding how it's perpetuated.

There's no need to answer.

Stop whatever it was they detected. Don't do that any more.