I'm not trying to argue that it's okay. I'm not a military expert or analyst. However, people that are those things don't make this argument and so I'm not willing to unless I'm provided evidence of a viable alternative. A better example might be the Ba'athist defense of Iraq during the unjustified 2003 invasion (not that the Ba'athist regime wasn't a nightmare for the Iraqi people, it just wasn't the US's place to involve themselves on false pretenses). Iraqi cities are being invaded, they simply don't have the military infrastructure to have their forces entirely separate from civilian targets, and so civilians end up getting hurt by airstrikes and artillery because of their proximity to military targets. Of course, party extremists also used extreme violence to prevent civilian retreat, but I've seen no evidence of this in Ukraine. Convention is all well and good until said conventions would require surrendering territory to avoid conflict in civilian areas. Governments will take any action they deem necessary to survive a conflict. Both parties in a conflict can be immoral.
erin
The human shield argument has never really passed the smell test for me, especially when used as condemnation against Palestinians. It's very difficult to defend against the invasion of a civilian area without occupying said civilian area. Existing military infrastructure typically doesn't exist at the scale a frontline needs in invaded territory. Strikes targeted specifically against civilians are obviously unacceptable and immoral regardless of perpetrator.
Regardless of the truth of that statement, do you contradict the many, many Russian drone and missile attacks against Ukrainian civilian targets? I'm curious if the condemnation for violence against non-combatants goes both ways.
This doesn't pass the smell test, as someone that has followed the Greens for years. If you thought his actions were "tone policing" then I'm immediately questioning your actions, since all I've seen is a standup guy and educator. I'm happy to be corrected with a link, but I'm not seeing what you're talking about.
That isn't the name of the community for me, this just seemed like rage baiting.
I mean this is a clear parody of the cowbee post. Bad trolling attempt.
The 38 hangings were far from the worst of the Dakota genocide. Lincoln's role was one of reducing cruelty while still punishing those guilty of massacres of civilians. Originally, hundreds of men were going to be hanged, but Lincoln commuted the sentences of all but the worst offenders. Unfortunately, two of the hanged men were innocent, and it's unclear how the mistake was made. Far worse was the banning of Dakota people from Minnesota and the internment in camps, leading to widespread death by disease, though these were the actions of the Minnesota government.
There are very legitimate criticism to be had of Lincoln, like being the sitting president as one of the states committed genocide, or the appeasement tactics to slaveowners before civil war became inevitable. I do not think this one makes sense to be top of the list, as by all accounts Lincoln was attempting to reduce cruelty where possible and yet still punish mass murderers.
For a bit of additional background, the Dakota war, during the Dakota genocide, was an uprising of some Dakota, attacking anyone of white or "mixed-blood" descent. The state of Minnesota had broken numerous treaties and continued to seize land from the Dakota people, leading some to fight back. However, the massacring of civilians and anyone of non-pure blood is evil, and many Dakota who did not join the rebellion rescued hostages and helped resist wholesale slaughter. The Minnesota government is absolutely at fault for the conditions leading to and the execution of the Dakota genocide, but the rebels chose to commit racially motivated massacres of non-military targets. This does not make the later retaliation justified, but it does explain the hangings.
As for number two, I cannot speak to the other commenter's beliefs or intentions, though I do not believe women were combatants in the Dakota war.
Note: Some historians object to the term Dakota war, as only a small faction joined the conflict, while a much greater number did not. I'm using the term as the consensus name for the conflict, not out of belief that it is accurate.
I've used a variant of melatonin for my online handle in various spaces, your name threw me off for a second. Was like, I'm pretty damn sure I'm not melatonin here.
Jargon was an example from an analogous situation, that of someone knowledgeable explaining to a beginner. OP didn't understand you. My contribution explained it to them. You care more about pedantry than effective communication. I don't know what else to tell you. Seriously, find me anyone doing science communication that uses technical language rather than general. I'd love to provide as many counter examples as you need. My point is that your communication wasn't as effective as it could be, and rather than accepting a helpful addition to the conversation, you made it defensive. Again, I'm not suggesting you are using jargon. What you are doing, assuming meaning from a beginner's usage of general speech, is the same as an expert choosing jargon when interfacing with a member of the general public. In good communication, it just doesn't happen.
If the group chat thinks absolute specificity is more important than effective communication, that is, communication that the other party understands, then they can be wrong too. OP did not understand you. My followup with them confirms this. This is a waste of my time.
You're being deliberately obtuse, or trolling. Are you seriously trying to suggest that science educators use jargon? Watch a TED talk. Attend an open lecture. Open youtube or your preferred equivalent. You're so wrong it's funny. Good communicators reach their audience where they are.
Additionally, it's pedantry to the extreme to pretend that me saying "I use deepseek," referring to my self-hosted solution, is incorrect, when it absolutely is deepseek. Yes, you could be more specific, but it absolutely is correct to refer to deepseek in any of its forms as deepseek. Chat-GPT is Chat-GPT, regardless of version. You've made up rules you're expecting others to follow, and the rules themselves are inconsistent with how people speak.
You care so much about being right that you'll move any number of goalposts and define things any way you like just to be absolutely, technically correct. The idea of saying, "You know what, I didn't think about that. I could've been more nuanced," must be a nightmare to you.
Right, which is why science educators use all the most specific and correct terms rather than tailoring their speech to their audience. Don't be such a pedant and realize that the OP clearly didn't know the difference from the outset. You're so concerned about being correct that you fully missed being right.
Right this conversation isn't worth having lol