nova_ad_vitum @ nova_ad_vitum @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

1,061

Joined

2 yr. ago

You don't have a point. Antisemitism exists therefore criticism of Isreal is illegitimate isn't a point worth entertaining.

The upside to Israel’s actions over the past year is sending a clear message that the Jewish state isn’t going anywhere, and if you try to kill us you will suffer greatly.

"Isreali bombs killed and continue to kill thousands of children, but at least they sent a message" lol. Tell us more about your moral superiority. Isreal gets to do whatever they want so long as unquestioning, uncritical support from the US remains. I think that particular type of support from the US may be more fragile than you think.

And I’m sick of people falling back on the “criticism of Israel isn’t antisemitism” bullshit.

And yet, regardless of your level of fatigue, it remains true and nothing else you said refutes that.

You have to love conspiracy theories that imply that humanity is a Kardashev 2 civilization.

You don't even have the courage to state your point bruh, you're far from actually having one lol

"You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" - the guy who should have taught you to spot false dichotomies.

I remember the first time I used MapQuest and I was absolutely amazed that it could just figure out the route automatically.

Biden is so staunchly pro Israel that its completely independent of how he's treated by Israel. If the US stopped (or even strongly considered stopping) all arms shipments to Israel Netanyahu's government would fall and their plans of conquest would fall apart in 3 days. But even talking about this is apparently antiemetic or whatever. Israel is playing a very dangerous game in the long term. They have a stranglehold on American politics, but they're also completely dependent on unquestioning, uncritical American support. I think that kind of stupid support may have a shorter shelf life than they think.

Even if the journalist recommends a better title their editor will just optimize it to be the best clickbait it can be. Ambiguity probably drives clicks due to sheer curiosity.Such is reporting in the digital world.

I don't know how many of these people are actively pushing this for that specific purpose, but the thinking here is definitely medieval. It's the old human desire to make sense if events bigger than ourselves and grant ourselves some illusion of power over them and our own fate. In the past it you might have explained a hurricane by saying it's the divine judgement of Zeus/Odin/Indra/____; now it manifests by blaming it all on democrats. The old way was more entertaining.

I liked Loki (esp the season 2 ending) but I can understand why others didn't. It's slow and attempting to be more cerebral than it really is. But IMO it's still far better than all the films. I watched the whole Antman quantumania movie and I honestly couldn't tell you what it was about.

"unrealized gains" that you can somehow live off of indefinitely.

2/10 trolling. Come on bruh the election is 32 days away. You can do better.

2. I posited that entire media eco system behaves this way but we society turn a blind eye

1. Ridiculous assertion. All it takes is a single person not acting in bad faith to disprove , which is the problem with absolute statements. You can be 99 percent right (you're not) and still be wrong. Can you prove that literally 100 percent of news media is acting in bad faith? If so, why all this bullshit? Just lead with the proof.
2. Prove it. You're asserting bad faith on the part of thousands of people (which implies knowledge of literally everyone's intent. Are you god? Lol) without evidence.

3. We had an exchange on what I meant by this, with you highlighting that "media" is varying and explaining away how media behavior is not the same. Essentially creating dichotomy "media is ok" but these rando's are the enemy. You did not provide facts to turn my opinion though.

Using the vocabulary of logic doesn't mean you're actually doing logic dude. My statement does not in any way create a "dichotomy". It could right, it could be wrong, or anywhere in between. Nothing said implies "media is ok". Nothing you said implied they're wrong. Using the vocabulary of logic doesn't mean you're thinking logically. Try harder.

My position is that you are still working within the standard politics framework... muhh team good/right, other team bad.

Nothing I said implied that. You literally just imagined it, like you did the "dichotomy".

I fundamentally disagree with this approach. I can't change your mind and that's fine. I think readers had a decent exchange to read.

Of course you can. You make a logical argument, backed by evidence. Why is that so hard? You haven't even tried.

4. you proceed to engage with a bit of charge which cool by me... but i would want he key issue addressed. Why does main stream media gets a pass for this from avg person?

This is not the question you originally asked, and assumes several assertions that you haven't backed up with anything let alone proven. It's also such a vague question that an answer is impossible. You have assumed that your read on "the media" as a whole is right (apparently 100 percent of them are acting in bad faith? Lol), that somehow people know this (proof?) and give them a pass( what does that mean? People complain about the media all the time).

5. I would posit that the media and idiots on twitter are prolly funded by the same bad faith actors, well a soup of them from different sides. But what they are not funded by is avg people.

I would posit that you're dazzled by the true complexity of the world and so you simplify and imagine things in order to fit it into your head and make it make sense. "The media " is not funded by one person or the same people. This is trivially probable.

But what they are not funded by is avg people.

Who are these average people? Aren't they the ones giving media a pass for all acting in bad faith?

Study epistemology dude. The questions you're asking aren't all bad. But you literally don't know how to think. You just simplify until things make sense to you. That's not how you find truth. The question of "how do I know what I think is true is actually true" is an extremely important one. Smart people have been asking it for thousands of years. Try learning from literally any of them. Epistemology is important.

If you think this, you don't understand the media and the role it plays within the regime.

...? Was there any argument in there somewhere? It's barely an assertion. As expected, even on an anonymous forum without any consequences you're still unable to actually assert a rational position and back it up lol. Do you think maybe that's because you're full of shit?

You explained nothing. I clearly answered your one trivial question and you have no follow up lol.

You guys always prove to be completely incapable of rational thought. It's why the article triggered you so much.

Owners of the US have fake news run propaganda that has no basis in fact.

Generalizing this far is not rational or productive. There are varying degrees of quality in US media with varying problems within. Zooming out this far isn't productive. Might as well go further and say "people lie, therefore nothing can be trusted". Sounds deep, but is just a futile meaningless statement. Most problems with news media stem from distortions of fact, but obviously do have some basis in fact so right off the bat your premise is faulty.

Do you hold these people as accountable

If you're asking whether I hold media accountable for lying or for bad reporting (no, they are the same. If you can tell the difference that's on you), then yes I do.

You're now far off topic. Spreading baseless conspiracy theories constantly and having some of them be sort of adjacent to the truth isn't a vindication. It doesnt mean you were right to say what you said.

Can you ask a coherent question? Who is my regime? You're not being charged by the word. Be specific.

I'm convinced that's exactly what they want you to believe.