Takapapatapaka @ Takapapatapaka @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

241

Joined

2 yr. ago

As you explained in your post, because of some bullshit german law and admin decision. It's bad. We agree on this.

Your title should still be 'bans calls for end of Israel and calling Israel nazis' or at the very least 'bans some criticism of Israel'.

Genocidal : again, genocide is NOT a nazi-only thing. And yes it's bad to not be able to equate, yet alone compare Nazis and Israel government. But you can still say 'Israel is genocidal'.

Palestinian territories : this is my bad, not an expert on the matter + did not think through. I meant territories destined to Palestinians in previous two-state solutions and at least recent territory annexion. From what the message says, you can still say that.

Military intervention : you can support the intervention without supporting people doing it. Also, you can support official interventions of other countries instead of guerrillas groups. The fact that most of those groups use terrorists methods, like targetting civilians (yes, those one that Israel and most states in the world also use) does not help with terrorism part, and i think we all agree that there should be no support for hamas or hezbollah directly, though they fight for objective we should defend. (and yes, Israel is doing worse for religious and racist reasons too, and they have a kind of immunity partly because of the anti-antisemitism rethoric partly because they are a state and states are rarely condemned for use of terrorist tactics, all of this is compatible).

Overall agreeing with you, you should at least be able to defend this pov.

But that should be the title instead of 'bans all criticism of Israel'.

Not 100% sure what your exact point is, but i think it's a good one as in 'minimizing genocide is on the spectrum of genocide denial'. That i agree, think the comment i responded to can fall in this category depending on the interpretation, and mine too by extension, and for that i apologize. Thanks for pointing it out.

I still hold on the fact that no one said 'there is no genocide', which is different from genocide denial from your definition (or rather, is the extreme version of it). That was my intended point, and the comment i responded to did not claim 'minimizing is denial' but jumped to 'you say there is no genocide'.

Yes, of course, this law and its appliance in feddit.org is bad for Palestinian support, and it's okay for Palestinian and their supporters to wish for the end of Israel, especially in this situation of a very recent state.

My point is, end of Israel is not the only thing you want when Palestinian. You can also want, and should want more, things like end of genocide, authorization of aids to enter gaza, etc.

They still allow you to call out on the genocide, how are they supporting it?

They never said it's not a genocide. They said its not the Holocaust. We all agree there is a genocide in Gaza carried out by a far-right Israeli government.

They never said it's a matter of number. They halfly imply it though, i agree, but what they actually explicitly said is it's a matter of it being systemic or not. It's debatable, the use of daily bombing is both quite industrial and not as efficient as death camps, so it's perfectly fine to target on that point. But do not hide behind the number things, which we all agree to be dumb, as a way to avoid considering the potential gaps in a comparison between Nazis and Israeli government.

I think it's okay to say both have huge similarities that they never should have, but you don't need them to be 100% the same for the point to be pertinent, so you can accept it when someone points out differences.

"they will ban criticism of Israel" : they will only ban calls for end of Israel and equating Nazis and Israel. You can still criticize Israel. Its like saying "They ban fruits" when they only ban oranges. It's still a problem, but you're making it larger than it seems, that's on the path of clickbait/sensationalism (i do not think that this was intended of you though, it's just what comes out of the way you wrote it).

It does not strictly punish antipathy towards a genocidal state, but rather antipathy towards a genocidal stage when they take the forms of call for an end of this state or equating this state with Nazis. It's a problem, it's bad, but please stop saying 'they won't let me say Israel is bad' cuz that's not the case (for the instance, don't know about actual german state itself)

Calling a state criminal, expantionist, genocidal, brutal, saying that they should answer for their crimes, give back palestinian territories immediatly, be boycotted by the whole world, even be subject to military intervention is still perfectly fine, and that's clearly not "slight discontent". If you were conscious of this, you message is huge bad faith.

What they do not allow is calling for the end of Israel, in any way. That's indeed a major crackdown on freedom of expression, but it does not leave you wordless for Israel criticism, unless your only goal is to be against Israel, and you don't care being alongside Palestine.

France - never got some since i always was in internship/short/seasonal contracts. I have huge free time in unemployment periods though, and some are 'paid' by social aids, around 1 week each month if i worked the previous one. The legal basis is 30 days otherwise.

I interact with people that way, and find this very pleasant : trying to guess what subject they will be happy to talk about is a fun game, makes people happy, and is interesting most of the time. And from my experience, most people end up doing the same thing with you, and offer you some time to talk.

Now as you wisely said, we are a lot of different people with a lot of different way, so you're right defending that there's no 'superior' way, but there definitely is a way where being a people pleaser is pleasant :D

I mean i get your point and i'm with you, but on surface, watching Doctor Who and wondering 'Who is that Doctor' seems like a win to me.

From what i can read on Wikipedia, it seems to be a forum. The bad part is its use in a lot of harassment/doxxing against users on other parts of the Internet. It is bad enough to be blocked by some internet providers.

Dude, people under authoritarian regime dont allow anything. It's not like we can blame them for not revolting, otherwise the entire world population is to blame for the sins of their governments.

Edit : i hope those drones get as much infrastructure/military fuckers and as littlt civilians as possible.

I used the profile thingy to go from one OS to the other and I think there were no additional steps (or at least they were unsignificant enough so that I dont remember them).

It's a bit clunky, i think there's 2 directories to copy/paste, one for profile, one for cache (though 2nd one is probably optional), and i remember having to erase some manually when i choose wrong folder when copying. From Firefox about:profile page, you can open the folder it's actually using as profile folder to avoid confusion.

I agree with you that the the sentence "the view in Germany" could be interpreted as "one view in Germany" (the one you were talking about before in this case). But calling it "the" instead of "this" gives it a very universal tone that may lead a lot of people (including me at first read) to intepret this as "the one and only view in Germany".

Ofc fascising medias and politics have an influence on people in Germany (and thz opposite is also true, its a vicious cycle), and ofc there are a lot of different opinions, some fascists, some antifascists, in a country with tens of millions of people, i think we both agree on that.

I think people, including me, reacted relatively vigorously to the wording of your post (and not its meaning) because a confusion between Nazis and Germans have been observed a lot after WWII, and it's something we (at least I) try to fight.

This right now is just hypocrisy: the AfD is but the tip of the iceberg which is the view in Germany that the way people are treated should depend on their race and even the most horrible of deeds are excusable if one's race is the right one.

You may have intended this as not targetting Germany as a whole, but saying "the view in Germany" is to be first interpreted as "the view all of Germany holds".

I was very sceptical at first, but this article kinda convinced me. I think it still has some bad biases (it often only considers 1 chatgpt request in its comparisons, when in reality you quickly make dozens of them, it often says 'how weird to try and save tiny amounts of energy' when we do that already with lights when leaving rooms, water when brushing teeths, it focuses on energy (to train, cool and generate electricity) and not on logistics and hardware required), but overall two arguments got me :

• one chatgpt request seems to consume around 3Wh, which is relatively low
• even with daily billions of requests, chatbots seems to represent less than 5% of AI power consumption, which is the real problem and lies in the hand of corporates.

Still probably cant hurt to boycott that stuff, but it'd be more useful to use less social media, especially those with videos or pictures, and watch videos in 140p

Having read the entire post, i think there's a misunderstanding :

• this post is about ChatGPT and LLM chatbots in general, not AI as a whole.
• This post claims to be 100% aligned with scientists and that AI as a whole is bad for the environment.
• What they claim is that chatbots are only 1-3% of AI use and yet benefit to 400 million people (rest is mostly business stuff and serves more entreprises or very specific needs), therefore they do not consume much by themselves (just like we could keep 1-3% of cars going and be just fine with environment)