Pips @ Pips @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

43

Comments

297

Joined

2 yr. ago

More than anyone, they knew Mr. Blue Sky.

It's a 20% increase and 10% of the total, which is massive.

Arguing that there's only one definition of Zionism or that yours is the correct one is disingenuous at best and antisemitic at worst. I personally prefer to just believe you're uninformed given your inability to cite a source that supports your claims.

Additionally, Israel is by no means unique in having its right to exist questioned. I'm not sure where that particular bullshit talking point came from but it's sort of racist? Ukraine, for example, is waging a war for its right to exist in the face of Putin trying to restore the USSR. Georgia too. Maduro recently said Venezuela should just conquer Guyana. Taiwan has been under threat from mainland China for its entire existence, itself having a pretty similar story to Israel where an outside group moved in (Chiang Kai-Shek and the Kuomintang), who proceeded to control the indigenous population (who had already been through many rounds of occupation).

Finally, you're making a huge leap when you claim that people calling out the self-proclaimed Zionists controlling the government of Israel for committing war crimes equates to calling for the death of all Israelis and all Jewish peoples. Anyone can criticize the Israeli government, doing so is neither antisemitic nor is it wishing death on anyone.

What do you mean "isn't that much greater"? The Haaretz study shows a civilian death rate of around 61%, whereas prior conflicts in Gaza had a civilian death rate of 33% to 40%, and the article says the 61% level is unprecedented. A 20%-30% increase is an insane number of additional dead.

Sorry, can you point me to the specific part of that article that says many of the doctors are Hamas? Because what I read is this:

In the first three weeks of the current operation, Swords of Iron, the civilian proportion of total deaths rose to 61%, in what Levy described as “unprecedented killing” for Israeli forces in Gaza. The ratio is significantly higher than the average civilian toll in all the conflicts around the world from the second world war to the 1990s, in which civilians accounted for about half the dead, according to Levy.

“The broad conclusion is that extensive killing of civilians not only contributes nothing to Israel’s security, but that it also contains the foundations for further undermining it,” Levy concluded. “The Gazans who will emerge from the ruins of their homes and the loss of their families will seek revenge that no security arrangements will be able to withstand.”

The study confirms an investigation 10 days ago by the Israeli-Palestinian publication +972 Magazine and the Hebrew-language outlet Local Call, which found Israel was deliberately targeting residential blocks to cause mass civilian casualties in the hope people would turn on their Hamas rulers. The figures will make uneasy reading for the Biden administration, which is facing global criticism and isolation for vetoing a UN security council vote for a ceasefire on Friday.

It depends on what you do. As an example, legal contractors with law degrees/licenses make significantly less than their equivalents on the GS scale. They'd make more at a firm, but law firms don't really contract for the feds.

Well, yes. Its hard to investigate something from a distance that's not entirely online or financial. Even then, physical evidence is at a place you'd need to go to. And for police, we do want them in the jurisdictions they're policing.

If there exists a being that experiences time the same way we experience space, do we have any less free will just because the being can continue knowing about it before it happened? The person is making the choice, not the being that knows about the choice.

I, for one, hope they don't deify illegal orders.

Any source for that?

It's the name John Smith gave the area when he landed there that was later adopted by Pilgrims in Plymouth Colony who rode over on the Mayflower.

Jan. 6 was a test run and went further than they expected. The real thing is probably coming and it's going to be bad. There's a chance of saving this country, but it requires a contingent of people realizing they're wrong and those people aren't you or I.

Wasn't he also a winner of the Beijing Film Festival's coveted Crying Monkey Award?

The American Troubles: Part III

Games and alternative media formats for journalists have always been a part of journalism. I'm not sure how embracing modern technology makes them any less of a news organization. Would you prefer only the crossword and only in print?

A newspaper having a word game, a radio presence, and publishing books is not really a gotcha.

Nothing, it's not about what they're doing but who's doing it and why. Americans tend to forget that our individual votes do have global consequences in a way that no one else in the world's votes do. Google and Meta don't care about any message specifically, they care about engagement with their platforms and how that translates into revenue. But TikTok is not a private company like Google or Meta, it's almost certainly controlled by a state actor: the Chinese government.

China cares about engagement only to the degree that it spreads a message that in turn promotes their worldview and political agenda. And the best way to spread their agenda is engaging with Americans because, again, the things we decide on a micro level can have insane global consequences on a macro level that no other country can match. That's not to say China is solely focused on Americans, TikTok is obviously in more than two countries, but it's why the federal government in America is concerned. States tend to hate it when other states influence their citizenry, and America, having much experience fucking with other countries' citizens, is no exception. There's obvious First Amendment concerns, after all, there's nothing immediately illegal about agreeing with China, but that gets balanced against safety and fraud for their influence campaign, for lack of a better word.

So basically, Google and Meta only care about money. When Meta causes a genocide, it's due to reckless disregard but they don't want or really even care about the geopolitical event except to the degree it hurts their bottom line. China doesn't care as much about the money, they care about influencing geopolitics.

The US? We do grow sugar. But many farms in America hire child laborers. This isn't solely a problem with imported agricultural goods.

I mean the player is being asked to do it. The DM isn't doing it for the player. The player can say whatever they want as "true" or "false," and if they only want true rumors, just tell the DM?

I'm probably missing something, but I'm confused as to how asking a player for some additional information in their character building that gets shared with the group to facilitate the game can be triggering in a way that goes beyond the game. I really do hate the "if you don't like it, don't play" response, but there are some things where the trigger is inherent to the activity.

This quote is about never wishing a man dead. Clarence Darrow was a famous late 19th to early 20th century litigator who vehemently opposed the death penalty. He'd never wish anyone dead, he's fundamentally opposed to death as a punishment, but that doesn't mean he's sad when a bad person dies.

Rules are rules.