Spzi @ Spzi @lemm.ee

Posts

11

Comments

641

Joined

2 yr. ago

This order would be in line with their founding charter. From article 7:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Of course it wasn't a byproduct, but a central objective. It's even one core reason why Hamas exists at all!

I don't think we were talking about the same thing. You're talking about restricting your behaviour, "focus on your niche", "stay away from propaganda media". My proposal was to use an instance which makes it unecessary for you to restrict yourself to certain areas, if their moderation policy aligns with your default behaviour.

Of course it ultimately comes down to similar things, since instances which do not care wether you're nice aren't allowed in all places which require you to be nice. The key difference is still that you don't have to be wary yourself. It sounded as if you would not like that.

Iran, like Hamas, wants Israel to cease to exist for religious reasons. So they are natural allies with Hamas, and natural enemies with Israel.

Thanks for your insights! I think I learned one or two things here. Please comment more on topics like these, if you like.

India and Pakistan, which like I said is the best analogy. Implacable enemies with religious and territorial disputes, screwed over by colonialism, and ongoing low level violence.

Sounds good indeed. I spotted another parallel between the two conflicts: Both can use the same abbreviation. At first I was confused when you started talking about "The I-P conflict".

From a Sci-Fi show about dyson spheres and habitats: "Where man goes, war will follow." Made me sad, because I guess it's true.

I've seen it fairly often by now; many people seem to enjoy posts with moderately long comment sections. I believe this is what contributes to a more wholesome experience.

Similar to how groups meet a natural breaking point when they grow too big and people cannot know each other anymore, I imagine huge comment sections create a sense of being meaningless and unheard. This discourages sensitive voices, and may appeal more to people who don't care anyways, which isn't exactly a great attitude for social encounters.

I can further imagine large comment sections create FOMO for the reader, and can overall be more stressful, which leads to aggression.

Just guesses and impressions. No idea if true. Also no clue how to foster that environment in a growing network.

Agree to everything but the doom. Yes, most people will only give 1 chance to a platform, but we haven't churned through most people yet. Most people are yet to honor Lemmy with their first visit, at some point in the future. We will be better prepared than ever. This wil be true for a long while. So I think we should make (reasonable) haste, but nothing is lost yet. In the long run, we're still growing.

This place bans you for “not being nice”, which is an arbitrary metric that changes from mod to mod and let’s all be honest, being nice is exhausting.

Lemmy is many places (individual instances with individual moderation policies). If it's important to you, you can find a server which matches your expectations, or host your own.

The lawyers told them not to because everyone’s scared of being called anti-semitic, that’s all

Honest question, how would labelling the Hamas as terrorists get them to be called anti-semitic?

Anti-semitic, as far as I know, means "against Jews" both in academics and colloquially. Hamas aren't Jews.

Maybe you meant something like islamophobe instead?

No-one can possibly defend the murder of civilians, especially children and even babies - nor attacks on innocent, peace-loving people who are attending a music festival.

No-one, except for racists who work for the genocide of that population.

But this doesn't mean that we should start saying that the organisation whose supporters have carried them out is a terrorist organisation, because that would mean we were abandoning our duty to stay objective.

That makes it sound as if the Hamas was a regular, military organization with legitimate goals, which eventually settles their dispute at the negotiating table. And I think that's giving a false picture of that organization. But let's hear what they have to say about themselves:

Quoted from article 7:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Quoted from article 13:

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

These people (Hamas, not Palestinians) see it as their religious duty to kill all Jews.

I think the BBC's position makes sense in most conflicts, but not in this one. They probably just try to appease both sides, with an explanation that sounds reasonable, if you don't look too much behind the curtains.

I'll try in a less hostile manner, if I may.

You're right that Lemmy is decentralized if we view it from far away. Individual instances may disappear, the network itself still remains.

The other person's perspective was more zoomed in. If we look at individual instances, they can very much disappear, and users of that instance will have lost functionality. That includes both people with accounts on that instance, and users of communities hosted there.

For big instances, we can imagine they are both. So even if one of their instance servers goes down, no functionality or data is lost, as they continuously internally mirror their data.

However, most instances are monoliths.

Big instances could be decentralized services as you describe. So one of their servers could go down without any functionality being lost.

So while federation does not imply decentralization, it also does not exclude it. In theory. In practice it excludes it a bit, since the fractured nature means more instances remain under the threshold above which it makes sense to have a decentralized instance over a monolith.

Not sure how a (de)federated Wiki would look like.

Partially defederated comment sections of Lemmy posts can be pretty confusing. Users coming from different instances can see entirely different comment / reply structures.

I'm not sure if that would be a problem with a Wiki, but it's certainly something to think through before starting.

Another point: Why? Who gains what if a Wiki is federated? What problem does that solve?

There is no fundamental difference between between:

• People cant be together because of their sign and
• People cant be together because of their skin color

The difference is, people cannot choose their skin color, but they can choose which ideas to follow.

True atheism is just not believing in god(s). That’s it. Nothing more.

It's an umbrella term. Different versions of atheism exist. They're all atheism because they're all about not believing in god(s).

Each can still have their own emphasis or extras. You're obviously still an atheist if you don't believe in god(s), and think that this would be an extremely stupid thing to do. For example, consider this venn diagram:

Explanation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

This implies that there are forms of atheism which are no belief, and other forms of atheism which are a belief.

I agree about your general observation, and am myself guilty of that. Many comments of our crowd lack the intellectual depth and honesty they would need to be in a position to make such statements. One should also ponder over the question wether this approach works as intended, and even if, wether it's a good thing to do so.

I guess you meant to respond to another comment, since OP does not claim the Bible was the problem.

But yours appears as a top-level comment to me.

I honestly tried, thanks for the impulse.

on each 360 degree spin, it will be facing up for the first half of the spin.

Yes, and that's decisive if the coin is stopped during that phase. It will be facing down for the second half of the spin, which is decisive if the coin is stopped in that phase instead.

Since coins can spin with different speeds and can be stopped after different periods of time, this should be somewhat random, once it's spinning.

I think I got your point that on average, the coin is facing more up than down, since it started facing up. But I think that's only relevant if the coin is stopped in that initial phase, before making at least half a spin.

Wait, are we approaching the same argument from different sides? If we assume a random distribution of spinning speeds and a random distribution of toss durations. Then there will be some coins which experience very slow rotation, and which are also caught early enough that they don't complete even half a spin. These have to face up.

All the other combinations of spin and toss produce random faces.

There's a wide spectrum of available stances and options between "accept it right away" and intentional, declared genocide. That's no excuse.

I guess we summed up two main arguments for both sides in neat one-liners.

It can be worth to set a counter-point. But I wouldn't do so in hopes of changing the tankie's mind. Rather to help the audience.