shoo @ shoo @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

82

Joined

2 yr. ago

These aren't people being tried for their crimes, not even people being picked out and put in front of a firing squad. This is an explosion in a city. You have no clue who might have been in that area any more than I do.

How many residents have fired a weapon against a Palestinian? 30% if you're being generous? That's about the same as the population of children.

You're OK with those odds? Or does your form of communism always cheer at indiscriminate death so long as some of the right people get caught in it? If X% of the population drinks the apartheid propoganda kool-aid it's open season? What's your number?

Nobody expects the state to relinquish power without violence, but that doesn't mean it's OK to cheer clips of massive explosions within lethal range of civilian houses.

I have yet to see anyone share hard evidence that these are targeted at military areas, let alone actually hitting them. Just a bunch of equivocation about military reserves and public opinion polls. Isreal rightfully caught shit for their pager attack being too indiscriminate but an explosion clearing half a city block isn't?

Total population of Israel: 9.2 million Total IDF personnel (including reservists): 500k Total settler population: 700k Total Isreal police force: <30k

But sure, let's glass them all. Especially the 86% that have no active involvement with what's going on. You sound like a goddamn fool.

Edit: let me cut off the horseshit collective punishment argument before you make it: you're still cheering for your own class to be slaughtered

Here's a fun fact, did you know that 65 other countries also have mandatory military service, including Iran? Being a class traitor by the law of the state doesn't make you not proletariat.

Abandoning massive chunks of workers based only on their place of birth or the bubble of propoganda they live in is the opposite of every reputable leftist ideology. If your empathy for the people crushed under the rubble of an apartment complex depends on the flag out front then just admit you're a frothing nationalist and stop pretending.

For an instance nominally based on worker solidarity and elevating the proletariat, everyone sure is pretty quick to throw that out the window for tribalism and nationalism

Where is that evidence? I'm not denying it, I'm asking for it and nobody provides it.

Edit: from what I can tell that F35 rumor started in 2024 as a meme mocking Israel's claims of apartments hiding Hezbollah weapons. Why would you stack up $100m planes in a place extremely hard to scramble them and perform maintenance?

How? Nobody dies and the neighborhood ends up destroyed? It's the exact same thing.

By all means, I'll take evidence that they've been hitting military targets. My issue is with people cheering videos like this lacking any of that evidence at all.

And no, having a bunker doesn't make a civilian population fair game. It's the same thing as crowding people into internment camps while you level their neighborhood.

Comment sections have been absolutely fucked since this started. I've seen some reports that these are hitting military targets but apparently I should be cheering about rockets landing a few dozen meters from this apartment?

I remember a video of an Israeli rocket hitting just outside a shop window in Yemen/Iran at a similar distance and people were balking that it could be hitting anything of strategic importance. Suddenly pictures of collapsed apartments and hospitals are fine because it's the guys you don't like?

Apparently it's a bad take for me to think civilians shouldn't be bombed regardless of how much Zionist brainwashing they have. People talking about "they deserve it" and pointing to Isreal opinion polls showing 60% support X awful thing. Last time I checked, a rocket doesn't take a survey before it explodes. So 4/10 people in that explosion deserve to die by association?

You all make me sick, down vote away.

A lot of this hinges on partisan officials choosing (often) black box software and private verification companies. But that's not even the main problem.

If your Ballot System contains source code, the source code is researched and code reviewed, and then complied by the company and the verification agency. Both checksums must match.

It all falls apart exactly here. With digital voting, all other security is as performative as the TSA. It doesn't even matter if either party in this step is malicious or if the source is open/closed.

A code review can never make any guarantees. And if there is a bad actor, checksums are not bullet proof. Especially when we're talking about state actors, who have access to supply chain attacks and unknowable cryptographic abilities.

And all of this uncertainty extends just as far with the hardware. Even if a voter knew what a machine should have in it, they'll never get the access to verify it themselves.

Even checking a ballot print isn't foolproof. In a secret ballot system there's nothing tying a print to your actual tallied vote other than your faith in the process.

Stealing an election isn't as easy as one might imagine.

Stealing an election doesn't have to be easy, it has to be possible with a minimal circle of secrecy. And digital voting/tallying makes that possible.

As others have said in this thread, the most important thing is the ability for any voter to understand and personally audit the process. That's just not possible without paper ballots and simple counting.

Counterpoint, I know lots of people that do/have done lots of those things who also aren't complete psychopaths

Must be a reading comprehension issue, I specifically pointed to genetic [biological] fitness in that context. The definition is right there, I'm not wrong. I can reword it if you want: "my argument is explicitly not supporting eugenics"

And still, no actual counter argument. Just responses that might as well be "I don't like what you're saying" followed by a short philosophical essay. What humans morally should or shouldn't do is completely orthogonal to what humans are as biological creatures.

If I'm misunderstanding the dozens of hours of conversations I've had with personal friends who professionally research animal+human evolution and behavioral neuroscience, please enlighten me. To summarize my understanding:

• Sex is a widely researched topic, it's mental health benefits are well established and there are dozens of studies on the physiological benefits in multiple species.
• Neural pathways for sexual behavior have ties to drug addiction and violence.
• Disrupting or over stimulating those pathways has very clear behavioral implications.

All of this points to a very reasonable statement: humans are designed for a non-zero amount sex and large deviations from that can negatively impact social behavior.

People in this thread hallucinate that as an endorsement of regressive public policy or toxic ideology. It's possible (if you reeeeally really stretch your mind) to want more healthy sexual behavior in society without also supporting sexual enslavement.

The paprika app does this

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but if you can't relate to mental images existing in a visual sense you probably have some degree of aphantasia.

Some research indicates that it may be a spectrum from complete lack of imagery to full five-sense detail, which might be why it's hard to relate to either extreme. At any rate most people fall in the category of seeing an image, to the point that hyperphantasia is even more common than aphantasia.

I have it*, but not as severe as others. Imagining an apple starts as a very abstract concept, I can't visualize it without concentrated effort. Other people might be able go on to describe the stem, the leaves, the shade of red, the glossy wax exterior, etc... I can't automatically build to any of that, even if I subconsciously default to a red apple the "image" may just as well be green.

*edit: checked the vviq test and discovered the label is hypophantasic

Depends which table

One of us is misunderstanding for sure.

Fitness is a quantitative representation of individual reproductive success.

You're conflating metaphysical goals with the literal biological goals of propogation. It has nothing to do with survival, plenty of animals sacrifice themselves after reproducing, either as a food source or lack of evolutionary pressure to stay alive. The human exceptionalism that our awareness puts us above these natural processes is part of the problem.

In this case the logic is sound. Evolution doesn't often occur, it always occurs. And we're not talking about secondary or tertiary reproductive fitness (ie: humans are efficient at running so they must run, men are physically strong so they must defend), we're talking about actual reproductive encounters.

Its the entire goal of the of all life on earth. There's a carrot for anything getting you closer to reproducing and sticks for anything that moves you the wrong direction. Despair and discomfort can be caused by plenty of things, but you don't have to disentangle the entire human experience to draw the line from a lack of healthy sexual experience to an ideology based on extreme sexual frustration.

Edit: again, down votes with no counter argument. For some reason people agree that abstinence in sex ed is a bad policy but turn around and say sex isn't part of normal human function. Which is it?

None of my argument is about regressive bioessentialism. There's no inherent violent masculinity or genetic fitness or any stance about what relationships are "supposed" to look like. Men are just having less sex than women.

24% of men aged 22-34 did not had sex in 2022-2023 vs 13% of women. That's a much larger cohort to propagate that frustration. You can argue that there are other social factors that make it manifest in this specific toxic ideology (as opposed depression, anxiety and body image issues) but the root cause is the same.

More sex means less frustration about lack of sex, less sex means more. Why jump through hoops to make it about personal failing or some other indirect cause?

What is the core of the issue? "Society bad"? There are a lot of comorbid social ills but you can't reduce everything to your favorites.

Economic frustration will likely manifest as anti immigrant sentiment. Extremist groups provide inclusion as a cure for social isolation. Degrading healthcare systems are fertile ground for anti-vax and pseudo-medicine. Digital echo chambers give a space to amplify every toxic narrative.

Occam's razor says the guys preaching the fatalistic misogyny gospel are probably experiencing some strong sexual frustration. If they didn't have that problem they could find something else to be mad about.

No toxic ideology precludes the others, but a racist with a stable marriage isn't going to be blackpilled. He already knows minorities are the real problem.

Self-worth can be a result of societal expectations.

Sure true, but you can't ignore that humans have millions of years of evolution that have honed our physiological and social behavior to act a certain way. Just because it's not rational doesn't mean you can flip a switch and shrug it off.

For example, peer pressure in teens is more than a normal learned behavior. The need to conform to an in-group that (historically) will be your lifelong community is immense. The pain of exclusion and embarrassment is amplified, closer to actual physical pain, compared to what an adult/child might feel in the same situation.

The only reason a person would feel bad is because society is pushing the narrative

...is because reproduction is a core part of animal evolution. An asexual person saying that core discomfort is invalid is like a person who can't feel physical pain rolling their eyes at touching a hot stove.

The comment was about self worth not societal worth. Being asexual shouldn't matter with that argument because you wouldn't feel the same sexual drive; your self worth isn't impacted.