stembolts @ stembolts @programming.dev

Posts

5

Comments

497

Joined

2 yr. ago

They will certainly come here, but as a defederated website we don't have to defend against them with one approach, everyone can take a different approach, see what frustrates them the most, then mass adopt that. I see this as the ideal.. no idea how it will unfold in practice.

Nah, they nuts. I am def a fan of classic journalism, and sorry if my comment came across as confrontational, hard to avoid in text sometimes. Have a nice day!

Which I assume is why her familial relationship was not the focus of the article.

Oh yes, I totally agree with the person calling for attacking the media, how dare they see a thing that happened and tell me about it! Truly deserving of a death sentence.

It's an interesting wager that more people hate than not. I don't think it's compatible with the upcoming generations' perspectives, which is why I assume they are investing so much into radicalizing children on social media. More soldiers for the culture war.

^ disinformation.

The way this post is written is a lie.

Journalists aren't moonlighting as terrorist, what Israel actually said in the article was that they don't care if you are a journalist or a terrorist, even telling Hamas's story makes you a valid target for state-sponsored murder.

This opinion conflicts with international law and makes Israel the one worthy of scrutiny.

Asked about the al-Aqsa network casualties, a senior IDF spokesperson told reporters in the Gaza project consortium that there was “no difference” between working for the media outlet and belonging to Hamas’s armed wing, a sweeping statement legal experts described as alarming.

“It’s a shocking statement,” Adil Haque, a law professor at Rutgers University in the US said, describing the position as showing “a complete misunderstanding or just a wilful disregard for international law”. ‘Reporting is not direct participation in hostilities’

Almost as soon as Israel began its aerial bombardment of Gaza in response to Hamas’s assault on southern Israel in which 1,200 people were killed and about 250 taken hostage, the al-Aqsa headquarters were evacuated as executives believed the IDF would target the organisation, two sources said.

Please stop lying.

Under the laws of war, a journalist can lose their civilian status if they engage in planning, preparing or carrying out combat operations. Simply working for an organisation such as al-Aqsa does not make someone a legitimate target to be killed.

“Reporting the news is not direct participation in hostilities,” Janina Dill, a professor at the University of Oxford and expert in the laws of war, said. “Even if they reported the news in a biased way, even if they did propaganda for Hamas, even if Israel fundamentally disagrees with how they report the news. That is not enough.” Combatants and civilians

Multiple Israeli sources said there had been a permissive approach to targeting across the IDF in a war aimed at the “total destruction of Hamas”.

Israel is a pseudo-Nazi state carrying out a Holocaust.

Lol. I guess it's hard to tell when you haven't seen the site change over time but.. yeah?

It uses to be "argumentless" discussions on esoteric tech and philosophy issues.. then a few years later it was people commenting the same 9 memes for 9,000 comments.. then a few years later suddenly everyone's anecdotes are praising China, or capitalism, or offhandedly mentioning some product or influencer.

Tbh tho, most of Reddit now just reads like Subreddit Simulator. All of the site's value regarding sincere, unique, and detailed user content.. yeah, that's gone. They're just coasting on past laurels, will be fun to watch the wheels fall off as the data stays locked in 2023, before the LLM Ouroboros.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/americas-hidden-duopoly-2/

Listen to this then tell me what your choice is.

Just one of those days.

So cool.

Go to a local video game bar and play socially there.

That is actually great. Are there more of these? I'd love to read the whole fake "feud" if it's ongoing, sounds hilarious.

This application looks fine to me.

Clearly labeled sections.

Local on one side, remote on the other

Transfer window on bottom.

No space for anything besides function, is the joke going over my head?

Omg you're right. That means I can check Wikipedia, he is 82 years old.

Now please OP, update the image. For no one shall disrespect THA HAWWWWGGZ THAT'S RIGHT I WAS ONE THE WHOLE TIME CRAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNN..

When you get caught not doing your job.

I agree with the comedy image.

The only thing worse than the squalor of addiction is the unearned confidence of people with glasses.

Yeah but how old is red face white hair man.

It would be more accurate if you said, "This is not about right and wrong (for me)."

If you say it's not about right and wrong, dead stop, then you are pledging full faith to the institutions, the very ones we are critiquing.

Basically, you are dismissing my opinion as misguided, dismissing me as missing the point and I am telling you it was expressed exactly as intended.

In short, you are arguing on the wrong conceptual meta-level for me to respond without dismissing my own claim. If I take as True that "this isn't about right and wrong" (it is), then I am setting aside the power I have in a democratic society to say, "Fuck this I'm changing it." Maybe we've just been stuck in gridlock politics, with a ruling class that strips and monetizes every aspect of humanity that the society today doesn't realize the power citizens wield.

Not sure. Been fun to think and share thoughts with you though. Thanks for your time and have a nice night.

An impasse is a perfectly acceptable outcome on a sane platform like Lemmy.

It's a quote of an opinion, so in general I ignore them. I'm usually more interested in distilling ideas constructed with some line of reasoning.

But I guess we can look at this one. Find it's essence. Tho it doesn't seem very deep..

"Societies with rule of law are dictatorships. How leaders are selected and the existence of fundamental Constitutional rights is not a factor."

So in short.

Having laws at all is a dictatorship.

Yeah, that is one of the opinions I'd ignore. It's easy to have that opinion inside the walls of a lawed society.

Luckily it is valid to respond to an opinion with an opinion, and mine is that I imagine everyone (except the strongest with the most resources) would abandon that perspective as soon as they lived in a world with no laws.

I had nothing to say to that. I agree with it.

One paragraph discusses action, the other discusses philosophy. I only took issue with your regressive philosophy. I'm open to correcting misunderstandings, elaborate if you feel I continue to miss something.