• 0 Posts
  • 160 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle





  • It really depends on what a Trump reign will look like, right?

    Will he be able to round up tens of millions of people and deport them, as he has promised? Will he institute another Muslim ban, as he has promised? Will he stay in office after his next four year term, as he has said he wants to? Will he use the office of the president to persecute political opponents, as he has promised? Will he “root out” all the “vermin” in the United States, as he had promised? And if yes: who will get declared to be “vermin?” How will they be “rooted out?” Will he make torture legal, as he promised? Will he bring back family separation and child detention camps? Will he threaten nuclear war again? And if yes, will some crazy regime take him up on the offer?

    And if all of that or even just a fraction of that comes to pass, will you still sleep well, knowing that you might have been able to stop all of that but voting for the lesser of two evils was just beneath you?

    Because ultimately, that’s the decision you’re making.


  • It’s probably just a definition thing.

    To me, constructive criticism means that the criticism doesn’t just point out failure, but that it then also shows how to correct that failure.

    By itself, “you’re doing it wrong” is just destructive: it takes something apart, it destroys it. Without a subsequent “and here’s how you would do it right,” it doesn’t become constructive, it doesn’t help in putting things back together in the correct way.

    Sure, as a first step, “you’re doing it wrong” is completely justified when something is actually wrong.

    But without the second step - the constructive part - it just doesn’t constitute constructive criticism. By itself, it’s just criticism.



  • Dude, we’re having a personal, one-on-one conversation. If I didn’t want to hear your opinion, I wouldn’t have bothered asking you a question in the first place.

    I’m just interested in why people have a radically different standard for Israel than for Gaza or Hamas or Palestine. I’m interested why people are a-okay with saying “fuck Israel” or “Israel is a terrorist state” or “Israel is committing genocide,” but then don’t have the heart to use the exact same standards for Gaza/Hamas/Palestine.

    And clearly, you don’t.

    When asked a fairly straightforward question, instead of saying something like “if Hamas does the exact same thing that the IDF is doing, then they deserve the same label,” it seems that you’re getting all defensive. As if you simply don’t have it on your heart to say something like “fuck Hamas.”

    I may be wrong, but that’s certainly how it comes across. And I don’t mean to pick on you personally, either. There’s a ton of people around who will say “Israel is a terrorist state because they’re murdering innocent civilians,” but those same people just can’t bring themselves to say anything negative about Hamas, even when it’s pointed out that Hamas has absolutely zero problems murdering hundreds of civilians and even though Hamas keeps loudly telling everyone that they will keep on murdering innocent civilians in the future, and that anyone who murders innocent Israeli civilians is a hero.

    I think that’s worth noticing.



  • Saying Fuck Gaza is like saying fuck Wyoming, so sure why not? We say fuck Texas, or fuck Florida all the time.

    The West Bank is ruled by Fatah. Gaza is ruled by Hamas, partly because after Israel withdrew from Gaza, removed all Israeli settlers in Gaza, tore down illegal Israeli settlements and handed over other Israeli infrastructure to the Palestinians, Hamas got into power and never held elections again. Oh, and they also murdered Fatah members and instituted a de facto dictatorship.

    So it makes sense to look at Gaza separately from the West Bank.

    Saying fuck Palestine would be the equivalent to Saying fuck Israel.

    Well, all right then: are you okay with people saying 'Fuck Palestine" if they just dislike Hamas?


  • Just because no one said that about America doesn’t mean this one isn’t genocide. Just because one nation got away with it in the past does not make this any less genocide than it is.

    That’s right.

    However, if incredibly different standards are being used depending on the nation in question, that certainly raises suspicions that people are not actually criticizing the act (a military intervention to combat a terrorist organization), but rather the nation itself.

    If two countries can have the exact same experience (a terrorist attack that killed hundreds of its citizens), react to that in the exact same way (a military intervention determined to root out there terrorist organization at any cost, willingly accepting that thousands of civilians are being killed as “collateral damage”), but one gets accused of committing genocide while the other one gets celebrated (remember “Mission Accomplished” or the spontaneous celebrations when bin Laden was killed?), doesn’t that warrant the question why identical actions get treated so differently?

    It took decades to build a strong case against genocide in Israel. It’s not a word people toss around lightly.

    America occupied Iraq and Afghanistan for decades. Why wasn’t the same “strong case” never built against America? Why are people accusing Israel of genocide for killing thousands, but nobody has ever bothered accusing America of genocide for causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands?

    You say that America is to powerful, that nobody could stand in it’s way - but that shouldn’t have stopped human rights organizations from saying that America is committing genocide, that shouldn’t have stopped the UN from accusing America of genocide, that shouldn’t have stopped people to demonstrate in the streets with Iraqi or Afghan flags demanding “free Afghanistan.”

    Why did none of that happen?









  • Most people will buy a computer, that computer will have Windows 11 on it, they’ll start using that computer and the pre-installed OS that came with it, and maybe, occasionally, they will complain that “this is different now” and that “they always change things, it’s so annoying” and that will be the end of it.

    If you’re talking about people who install or even just upgrade the OS on their computer by themselves, are aware of such a concept as “alternative operating systems,” engage in any kind of conversation about operating systems on social media, and then care enough about the topic to downvote people who disagree with them on purely ideological grounds, you’re already talking about a tiny, tiny minority of computer users.