ping 1.1.1.1 -n 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

You call my claim wildly wrong and have only this to say?

You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of newsrooms. That you can point to the instances in which they were wrong does nothing to argue that they don’t do their best to verify sources, you’re missing the fact that it’s hard sometimes, missing the fact that mainstream outlets retract statements that turn out to be false later and hedge their bets with wording. Dan Rather lost his career over an unverified source. The NBC headline about the beheaded babies literally says “Unverified reports” in the title.

I think you should read this article about the difficulties of getting the news right in the 24 hour news cycle and educate yourself instead of spewing knee-jerk nonsense which your argument fails to prove. https://www.npr.org/2023/10/24/1208075395/israel-gaza-hospital-strike-media-nyt-apology

False equivalence between Twitter news and mainstream news. Mainstream news has to verify their sources and have a reputation to protect. They retract stories that turn out to be false. As you saw with Dominion, mainstream news has money to protect from slander lawsuits too. It’s not perfect and there is certainly bias, but on Twitter there are no guardrails for misinformation besides community notes.

On the one hand that’s good and on the other it makes misinformation extremely easy. Misinformation spreads like wildfire on Twitter and the corrections don’t. The corrections get buried in “nuh uh, YOU lie” bot spam unless it gets the community notes treatment.

I’ll explain now why it’s such a dishonest question. It’s a false equivalence that sets the bar for agreeing with an opinion at being willing to die for it yourself. That is incorrect, logically speaking. The bar for agreeing with this opinion would be whether or not I’d be willing to fight and die for MY country if it was being invaded by Russians. That’s the core dishonesty of your question, that if I support their cause, I should be willing to fight and die for it myself.

I also wouldn’t personally say that every last able-bodied man should fight. Say we have a Ukrainian man whose brother was killed, his brother’s wife is disabled, and she has 6 kids. I would have nothing to say about what that individual man should do, and if he chose to help his sister in law get her orphaned children out of Ukraine, away from the war, and take care of them, that’s his honorable choice. That brings us to the second dishonest part of your question, it sets the implied bar at a point where if one supports a country that continues fighting for its freedom against a violent aggressor, that we must naturally support the notion that every individual in that country should fight as well. It’s taking a macro level question and trying to apply it to every individual; attempting to turn a nuanced opinion into a black and white one by disregarding the contextual realities at the individual level.

Your dishonesty is embedded in the question.

Removed by mod

I said what I said, you’re not in charge of shit here. Nobody needs to answer your stupid question first in order to speak their mind. How about you start by acknowledging that Russia is the fascist aggressor in this war, could stop it at any minute by returning to their own territory, and admitting that they’re simply the bad guys in this war? Can you say that?

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

“You oppose Russia yet you don’t want to go fight them yourself, why?” is a ridiculous question that you’re pretending is a rational one. You’re intellectually dishonest af here, and you say you’re “not arguing” simply because you’re putting your absolute bullshit in the form of a question.

You’re calling someone else a weasel while calling this “offer” a peace deal? Look in the mirror.

Potato colored in my case.

Yeah, I don’t see OpenAI losing that case, there are plenty of others developing AI, including much bigger companies like Google. It’s hard to argue with a straight face that they’ll prevent anyone else from entering the market.

Nobody is excusing Oct 7th, we don’t need a retelling of it. I don’t think shooting civilians is any more barbaric than bombing them to pieces from above. You’ll have to excuse me for not recognizing it as the civilized way to kill your enemies.

And, yes, Hamas, as the government in Gaza, also happens to be tallying casualty figures that Lemmy eats up without question.

Go count them yourself then. You seem to have no self-awareness of how absolutely disgusting it is, morally speaking, to insinuate “there haven’t been THAT many innocents killed” with nothing but your own doubt and bias to argue the point. But this is how you folks tend to work, you don’t have to prove anything, just cast amorphous doubt and leave it at that.

Setting all opinions aside, Hamas is the elected government in Gaza, ofc international aid workers will have to coordinate with them.

around 1,200 of UNRWA’s roughly 12,000 employees in Gaza have links to Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and about half have close relatives who belong to the Islamist militant groups

Weasel words in “have links” and “close relatives.” Mary Trump for instance recognizes the threat Donald Trump poses and speaks out against him constantly, but you could instead say she’s a close relative and imply the opposite. Same with Paul Gosar’s family. Would I “have links” to Hamas if I worked at a hospital they ran?

I have come to dislike

I’ll tell you what I dislike, this trend in the world where as soon as you “officially” label someone a terrorist, you’re allowed to bomb them…and whoever is in the vicinity of the blast simply becomes “collateral damage.” It’s purely a matter of perspective. When I consider the perspective of Palestinians…what their daily life must be like…having hell rained down from above on a people with no real defenses after their homes have been flattened has to be far more terrifying than feckless rockets, suicide bombers, beheadings…etc. I’m not saying anyone is the good guy or the bad guy here, just that “terrorist” has become shorthand for people that don’t have billions of dollars worth of equipment on their side.

“Oh nooooo…anyway…”

I totally agree, I just think this is purely posturing by Blinken. Policitally, Biden is on a tightrope here. He can’t risk thumbing his nose up at Israel, and he can’t risk pissing off any more young electors as you called them by being too soft on Israel. Sanctioning the ICC members would piss off a lot of those electors.

My first thought of a response to the top level post was:

(Narrator voice) They’re not going to sanction shit here.

I use it to scream into the void and be completely uncivil because I’m civil and soft-spoken in the rest of life. In other words, I go to the dumpster when I feel like treating Trump supporters like trash :)

Biden administration last week: We think there’s good reason to believe that Israel has used our weapons in a way that violates international law.

That same day: “Are you still going to give them weapons though?”

A: Oh, of course we are…nobody said anything about that. We’re talking billions with a B.

Exactly, the author was like “How dare they not both sides this.”