underisk @ underisk @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

583

Joined

2 yr. ago

There has, to my knowledge, not been a single first-hand account of a woman saying "I was raped by Hamas". All of it is based on anonymous eye witnesses, dead bodies Israel assures us were raped, or doctors speaking on behalf of returned hostages they refuse to name and have yet to come forward.

For as much rape as supposedly went on it sure is strange that there aren't at least a few victims speaking of their experiences, if only just to confirm it happened. I'm happy to believe women when there are women to believe.

Egypt is essentially preparing a concentration camp in Sinai to house refugees from a seemingly inevitable Rafah campaign. I have some doubts about how well they're advocating for Palestine's interests.

this guy will do anything but write the third book. did he train under GRRM

Wizard of Oz is an isekai

Imagine a cape on an escalator.

Not to mention Israel doesn't exactly have a stellar record when it comes to respecting ceasefires.

Hamas has repeatedly rejected any kind of temporary ceasefire. I can't see why this would be any different.

Was Hamas even involved in the drafting of this deal or did the US and Israel just throw this together to paint Hamas as unreasonable when they reject it again? None of the articles I've read have made any effort to clarify who drew this up beyond vaguely gesturing at Israel, US, and Egypt.

You keep jumping to extremes and putting words in my mouth. I’ve never said we should “disregard the whole thing as an unreliable source” when it comes to the Gaza health ministry. Their data is a valuable resource, even if they are not a neutral third party.

I meant "whole thing" as in the whole quote. You cited part of a quote you apparently believed to have been incorrectly translated and instead of finding another source for that translation or a corroborating statement you just presented it without any kind of caveat about what you believed to be a potential inaccuracy. Apparently, it's fine to omit context that calls accuracy into question but only when it supports your disingenuous arguments.

Ah, so you were just being redundant by saying “neutral facts,” got it.

Sorry, I thought when you said "It’s a factual and neutral statement." what you meant was that it's neutrality was intrinsic to it's factual nature, rather than just listing that it was both factual and neutral. In my defense, I assumed this because you made this statement in a context where no one has questioned the factual accuracy of "hamas-run". If that was not your intent then please feel free to ignore all the points I made regarding the inherent neutrality of facts.

The only complexity is caused by the specters of doubt you’ve invented to justify your own biases. You’ve given one example of a single potentially misreported demographic statistic that is tangentially related at best to the death toll number we’re discussing and that somehow represents a shift from decades of established methodology that has consistently reported accurately literally every single time this exact same shit has happened. Israel themselves trust the numbers out of Gaza!

Yes. I did read that and I suspect there is a translation issue

If you thought it was a translation issue why did you cite it as evidence for your argument rather than discarding the whole thing as an unreliable source? You seem have no issue doing that when it comes to the information from the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry.

I keep repeating neutral facts to try and drive home how fucking absurd that phrase is. It’s tautological; facts are all neutral: they are descriptions of reality. How you present facts and frame them determines bias, not the facts themselves. Do you think people are manipulated and propagandized with only lies?

You keep insisting that it’s mere the addition of context but it’s not because it’s only the subset of context that presents the situation in a certain perspective rather than providing the whole picture. If you’re so concerned about gathering different perspectives I think you’d be more eager to insist on the additional context of Gazas historical integrity in these matters alongside the political affiliation of its government and the state of its healthcare infrastructure. Instead you’re keen to just let the incomplete picture painted by “Hamas-run” slide because you agree with the intent behind adding it. Which is to cast doubt, not illuminate context.

Their numbers have repeatedly been independently confirmed and shown to be largely accurate in the past. They have never given any cause to doubt them and calling into question their methodology now is disingenuous at best, and malicious at worst.

I'm glad, at least, that we seem to have agreed that the addition of "hamas-run" is purely meant to cast doubt on the numbers but you seem to think this is justified despite all evidence to the contrary. Even the article you linked seems to reach the conclusion that the numbers are likely mostly accurate, if not under counted. It's far more likely that any discrepancies that may exist are due to the difficulties of maintaining a health system while a hostile nation bombs your health infrastructure into rubble rather than a literally unprecedented manipulation of the data by Hamas.

In addition, they intentionally assign all deaths to “Israeli aggression,”

Here's some context for you, from your article:

the death toll only includes people killed by the "occupation bombardment," Boyza says. The health ministry describes its casualty figures as those resulting from "Israeli aggression."

I guess you didn't need this lesson on how to lie by omission with "neutral facts"; you already knew what you were doing.

They were asking for a permanent ceasefire though, right? This one seems pretty temporary.

I see, so providing context is conjuring up the image of a boogeyman and using it to call into question the exact death toll of a genocide, but not looking into the accuracy of those numbers or the record of those who provided them and how they held up over time. It's not really fair to question accuracy when they have no history of fabrication or misreporting in the entire time they've been "hamas-run".

You seem very insistent that neutral facts are just de-facto unassailable but there are so many ways to present "neutral facts" in a way that is absolutely biased. The most simple of which is simply curating which "neutral facts" you choose to present. What important context is provided here other than a flimsy bullshit reason to question the legitimacy of something which has no reasonable justification for being questioned? Why isn't the context that they have been providing accurate reporting for literal decades also being mentioned when the very thing being questioned is the accuracy of the numbers and not their political association?

That man consciously chose to put the phrase "hamas-run" in there. What do you propose is the reasoning for doing so, if not to call into question the accuracy of the numbers through that association? It is absolutely not a neutral statement; context exists.

I have never once seen the phrase "Likud-run" next to any of the statements, tallies, or intelligence from Israel that the media reprints without any fact-checking or investigation.

https://scitechdaily.com/global-genomes-scientists-rewrite-the-story-of-human-genetics/

The key thing about this project is that they aren't trying to piece together some sort of ideal set of genes into a "flawless" set to present as a key to identify deviations from that set.

In contrast, the human pangenome reference contains nearly full genomic data from 47 people, representing different populations globally. This accounts for 94 human genomes, since each person carries two copies, one from each parent.

I'm unclear if they even exercised any discrimination in the selection of these individuals, or if they're just a random sampling from their respective populations. The intent of the project seems to be pretty much a continuation of the original human genome project and an attempt to more completely document genes and their various expressions.

To be clear, I'm not ideologically opposed to genetic manipulation or even some degree of genetic engineering. I'm against establishing or enshrining a particular set of genes as any kind of baseline or default, that is where eugenics lies.

Hamas-run is sure a weaselly way of implicating disinformation. Their numbers have been consistently confirmed to be very accurate and trustworthy. Which is probably why Israel keeps bombing all those hospitals; so the deaths will stop being tallied accurately.

Do you prepend all information coming out of Israeli institutions with "Likud-run" or everything that comes from the US with "democrat run"?

We've already collected DNA samples from people around the world to map the genome, it's how we even know what genes may cause disorders in the first place. This did not require us to create some genetically 'pure' hypothetical gene sequence for the ideal human. What you're suggesting is still eugenics and still bad for all the same reasons.

There may be such a thing as an "average" human genome though I doubt such an amalgamation would be able to produce a viable or even desirable organism. There is absolutely no such thing as a "clean" human genome, and attempting to create one would be a damning demonstration of a deep misunderstanding of both evolution and biology in general.

My dude I’m not arriving at any conclusion about what specifically happened. I saying even the most favorable interpretation toward Israel is damning. It doesn’t matter when or how they shot into the crowd, the only reason a starving crowd on the edge of panic existed in the first place is because Israel created it. That, for me, is enough to lay all the deaths at their feet regardless of whether they were shot, trampled, or run over.

If you’re concerned that I might be taking Israel at their word for some reason, let me assure you: I do not buy their version of events for even a second.

I don’t care if it works or not I still want them to do it. I will take futile benevolence over callous apathy any day.

None of those really sound all that far removed from the classic "loan forgiveness for pell grant recipients who operate a small business for three years in a disadvantaged community".

On the off chance that they do have some shred of real power, I would prefer they use it to try and end the genocide, rather than ignore it.