u/dx1

MAGA-level conversation.

It's not a hobby. It's not subjective. Something is either good or bad, in total (some real number value on that axis, to be specific). The kind of thing you said is literally a cop-out of confronting that. The need to put some "ist"/"ism" label on it just avoids dealing with the question entirely. That's not the definition of pacifism, what I said is the framework to situationally decide whether pacifism or something else is more ethical.

The mentality where you think people "deserve" things, I think it's just irrational. If your goal in politics is to do best by all, then you're working against your goal. If that's not your goal, then it should be. Wishing harm on anyone is literally a last resort when there is no preferable option and where more good comes out of that harm than bad - otherwise it's an ethical negative. It's alarming to me how few people seem to have thought through that logic.

What you wrote is gone. From what I remember of it, if that's what you were trying to say, you needed to word it better. To be generous.

What are these "sides" comprised of in your mind? Who specifically are you accusing of being a "terrorist"? In Palestine - the entire population? The ruling political party "Hamas"? The militarized subset of it, the "Al Qassam brigades?" Or only the specific members thereof who engaged in war crimes at any point - the few of that group who are still alive? What definition of "terrorism" are you using - the "using violence to influence political opinions" which characterizes every government that's ever engaged in war? The Palestinian people have had their country stolen and have been corralled off from the surrounding world by a military occupier in the tiny subset of it that remains - they have a legal right to self-defense, and the very existence of "Israel" as a state has come at the cost of the absolute violation of their sovereignty and human rights, solely to impose the imaginary, invented sovereignty of an immigrating colonizing population, that was hoisted on them against their will by *another* colonizer (the British). Using the word "terrorist" used in this context is insane. It seems to hinge on the relationship of Hamas with Islamism, which isn't even absolute, because it's a pluralist, "big tent" party. Beyond there, what, it's based on them having darker skin or being Muslim, which is what that word evokes for the more brainwashed Americans anyway. Rather, armed resistance in their case - as much as we'd all like to avoid violence of any kind - is legally sanctioned self-defense against a militarily aggressive entity, who has their territory and people under military occupation.

You need to educate yourself more on this topic and clarify your thinking.

The facade of having souls is the only thing holding them back.

Not really "appeasement" of course, more "capitulation" - by all indications he's a plant.

The abyss in the enforcement of international law, and the absence of any conscience, gives rise to the "just one more chip" approach to land seizure. The settlers also largely have an insane sense of entitlement to the land based on their religious mindset.

No, I'm talking about the electorate. As for the issues where the politicians have a bipartisan consensus, usually that's when the electorate starts making doublethink-style excuses to find a difference where there isn't one.

Probably takes a whopping 5-10 developers to set up the systems in question from scratch with FOSS. "From scratch" as in, not accounting for whatever insane backwards compatibility requirements exist, though that's not some impassable obstacle either.

I'd say, of the ruling class. Said fascist movement being basically a stage production of their creation. Said neutered opposition (Democrats) likewise being a stage production of their creation.

People often disagree with this framing, but honestly, spend a few years comparing viewing events through this lens vs through the D vs R lens. Things will make a lot more sense.

Americans are ruled by a politics of opposition. Anything Trump does, the opposite must be good. Anything Biden does, the opposite must be good. Nobody thinks about anything from scratch.

This is single-handedly the biggest contributor to the longest period of peace in our history.

...

How's enabling genocide working out for you? The world is collapsing.

This hideous reality was here before I was born. God knows what will happen to it in my lifetime, but if it goes away, it will be because of the solidarity of the people, not because of cowards continuing to rubber-stamp every crime against humanity the system wants to commit.

Me? Own WHAT? A lifetime of never supporting mass murderers? I'm not the cog in the genocidal system, fuckwad. Own the fucking mass murdering politicians you keep voting for out of your own self-instilled sense of helplessness. A world of people like me actually WORKS. A world of people like you dies in a rapidly approaching nuclear holocaust. And the most insufferable part of all is you actually presuming to speak down on US. That's a firm "fuck you", to you, from me.

First, our entire system is made up. The fact that we've spent centuries entrenching traditions and imaginary institutions around it has no bearing on the fact we could collectively throw it out tomorrow. Second, there were options besides D and R in the election, regardless of whether or not the population collectively chopped its own dick off and decided not to vote for any of them out of paralyzing fear of the other party winning.

Think the main point was, "let's not, as a population, vote for ANYONE who commits genocide." But noooooo. That was too much to ask.

I don't know if you're purposefully misunderstanding me or what. Not gonna bother.

Due to the article's failure to make its claims explicit, that doesn't explain all of this:

Indeed, data revealed here for the first time shows that during the fighting on October 7, the Air Force fired 11,000 shells, dropped more than 500 heavy one-ton bombs and launched 180 missiles. According to the data, during the battle the Air Force eliminated 1,000 fighters. Even if this is an exaggeration, these are impressive numbers.

Where are you seeing that in the article?