https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/circle
Bonus comic : https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/real-3
Godel proved you can't prove anything. Don't think about it too hard.
Your answer for the past is that Israel should have been allowed to take "back" these (holy )lands, important for all the "children" of Abraham, perhaps that the arabs are also attached to these lands and would prefer to see them ruled by arabs/muslims, and not israelis/jews, they also had/have an importance for christians(, crusades). If they ever agree to lose one of their "hearts", then fairness would require to give one of our "hearts" in exchange to palestinians(, with a lot of money, e.g. 0.1% of the g.d.p. of every country for a year, as well as the promise to leave the Middle-East alone, to lift sanctions, to ensure the security&'total separation' of both Israel and this state, etc.)
I think that it is the root of our disagreement, you're starting from their right to take these lands to explain that the sins done by Israel were necessary(, if so are they still sins ?,) since they had hostile neighbours who wanted their destruction. Destroying Israel would be awful, but destroying Palestine is justified because they didn't accepted Israel in the first place. Perhaps, i think that their desire to expand their borders is more important than their desire for security, but to get back to the "root" of our disagreement, you've seen that i'm not among those who want israelis to g.t.f.o., but i can't blame those who do(, would you have accepted if they took one of our "hearts" by force ? It's not Mecca or Medina but still).
You may think that it's not such a big deal to take/keep these lands, perhaps you're right, everything is relative, then perhaps that in the same sense it wouldn't be such a big deal to give them a territory as well(, it could be the occasion to seal an alliance).
If you'd like a one sentence summary : You probably wouldn't have accepted it either if islamists took a portion in the heart of our lands, not by might at least, but possibly if you/we were given something which would 'be satisfying'/'made it acceptable'.
Now that i think about it, i can't resolve myself to say that they don't have any legitimate right to revive their culture on their ancient lands(, still don't agree with their refusal to be christian or muslim as well though, John and Muhammad ﷺ were prophets, the disagreements aren't worth such profound schism, we follow Abraham, and more importantly (virtues and )God, christianity and judaism could be considered as sects of islam, or all of them sects of abrahamism(, that's diversity without unity here)), but i know that we(sterners) wouldn't owe arabs anything in exchange if it was totally just/fair to take these lands, so i'll stay with my conclusion : the problem isn't that Israel's existence isn't accepted by palestinians&muslims, but that we didn't made its existence acceptable, in other words it's up to us to make this right.
You'll probably say that we won't make their loss acceptable, then i don't see why they should accept it, or why they should care if Israel disappears, if it's the law of the strongest then they have a chance to win( for all i know).
Hey, i'm visiting some family currently and they're watching another one of these news channels owned by billionaires, they're regularly saying that crimes are done by immigrants and totally ignoring that the poors 100% french hated the police as well 100 years ago, and did more crimes than the wealthy, it's so obvious that it isn't linked to being black or arab, that their solution of being even more cruel towards them(, social benefits, authority, police, ...,) is f*cking ignorant. They're talking all day about islam and insecurity(, which isn't growing in %, it only gives such impressions because the laws changed, surveys should be trusted instead), yet such experts would be absolutely unable to explain why these behaviours were exactly the same in the past with "true" french poors(, e.g., they called cops "les cognes", etc.). When i'm pointing the obvious(, going back millenias in the past), they'll just shrug it off and continue to call it a civilizational problem, history goes in circles.
Is it more or less the same in the u.s.a. ? I'd be interested to know your vision of their propaganda.
Jews started out legally buying lands in Mandatory Palestine until they were massacred and had war waged on them on when they declared statehood. Any lands annexed was a result of this.
The Ottoman Empire forbade them to buy these lands during the XIXth century, and would never have accepted the british decisions, were the arabs just supposed to let them declare statehood ?
Polling indicates Palestinians want intifada and a one-state solution where Jews are denied equal rights, and they outnumber Israelis.
And what do israelis want ? A two-states solution ? Why won't they put an end to the settlements then, and why is it anything else than a net gain for them and a loss for palestinians ?
What are the compromises that we(sterners) are making ?
Anger will not change their situation, it has led to it being this way.
The anger of israelis led to them killing thousands of people, no ?
But yeah, you're probably right, i don't really know what they expected, some kind of victory perhaps, they're at war as well, and seized an occasion.
If ummah were a factor here I suspect Egypt wouldn't be keeping Rafah closed, they clearly care more about using them as pawns with claims to land than they do the lives of Gazans stuck there.
If Egypt cared about palestinians they would help Israel in deporting them ?
While there is only one Jewish state there are many Arab/Islamic ones in the area and none of them seem willing to help Palestine, probably because those who did suffered for it with coups and terrorist organizations within their borders.
Most of them are still suffering because of their support/principles. Every single one of them is willing to help Palestine, but the more you're trying to put pressure and the more you're exposing your citizens for reprisals, so the extent of their actions may vary, i still think that they could win but what do i know really.
(And realpolitik don't look at morals, it is machiavelism, looking for what's fair/right/virtuous and then the realist ways to do this seems a better practice)
I have much to learn by talking with a pro-israeli, my sincere thanks for engaging.
[The claim that "if you kill their leaders they'll just elect new ones"] has yet to be established
As i said with Benjamin Netanyahu : killing him won't destroy Israel, just as killing their leaders wouldn't destroy Hamas.
We have to solve the root of the problem, because "Hamas"(palestinians) have the moral high ground here, « If israelis are unwilling to pacify themselves, the destruction of Israel seems like the most humane remaining option that keeps Palestine safe. », wouldn't you agree ?
« Palestine was annexed because israelis declared war on Palestine and won, funny how the Anti-Palestine crowd always conveniently forgets this and portrays the israelis as victims when they were absolutely the aggressors. »
« If israelis are reasonable, yes [killing them would be enough to deter them from killing more palestinians and occupying (more&more of )their land]. It would encourage them to find a path to peace. Perhaps they are not reasonable, their history of poking the bear, popular support of settlers and a one-state solution where they deny rights to palestinians certainly seems to indicate an unwillingness to compromise, which led to their present situation. »
I can't understand how you could paint the israelis as the victims here : they were the ones who stole the lands(, and are continuing to steal more of it), they're killed way less than they're killing, both before and after Oct.7, with less material destructions, yet i can't wish for them to permanently excuse themselves for existing, even if they should. There's a few solutions possible other than a two-state solution, i can only regret that public debates don't turn around this research of solutions instead of simply supporting one side, the anger of palestinians is legitimate, but what's the plan. Israel is asking for a lot and can't offer much in exchange, if i was arab i could consider that such weird locations could have a weird civilization different from the rest there, after all the muslims have expanded so much that they could accept to 'paint in another color'/~lose one of their heart, but not without consequences for israelis/westerners, it should result at the very least in a huge boost for the ummah, something deemed worthwhile by all of them, which won't happen since we(sterners) won't give any of our "hearts".
A crazy idea would be to plan for all countries to ally together in order to colonize and terraform Mars(, with commitments to certain realizations), from 2070 to 2177 for instance(, or longer if necessary), and our collective effort will be entirely done in order to give the whole planet Mars to countries claiming to be islamic. It's a good situation in the solar system, and despite many problems and uncertainties could be deemed a huge gain without being more than a financial loss for other countries. Other possibilities exist even if this one may seem/be far-fetched.
You're evidently right, but many articles for the 2021 elections(, 1, 2, 3, ..., including the one cited), said that it has been 15 years since the EU sent observers.
In any case i would like to emphasised that this debate isn't useful : even if westerners systematically sent observers they would still claim that the results are illegitimate because of the overall process(, which deserve some explanations/debates because our own system is far from perfect, and we're blending the consequences&causes of the sanctions, etc.). I should have deleted this post like i intended at first once i realized that.
A few more minutes of research wielded these results :
I didn't write that we refused to send international observers to Russia, but that « i've read such suspicions about Russia and Iran, we even showed videos of a ballon in front of the c.c.t.v. for Russia », despite « the reasoning that when you're so overwhelmingly popular there's no need to miscount the votes in your favor ».
It appears that we did send international observers(, until 2021), but my point is that it wasn't necessary, yet we're still showing suspicions(, e.g. the balloon in front of a c.c.t.v. to take an example).
I'd just like to end by saying once again that this whole debate is pointless because it doesn't change anything in the end, whether we systematically refused to send observers, or always sent them while accusing the whole "democratic" process instead(, it's apparently in-between, but much more the latter than the former, contrary to what i initially thought).
I should have deleted this post from the start like i first intended once i realised, in the selftext, that « In the end sanctions would stay in place so it wouldn't be useful in any way, and doesn't matter, i should probably delete this post but i'm leaving it in the off-chance that some find an interest in it. »
Sorry if you felt that i wasted your time.
random tweets
He's the director of the World Health Organization, and many articles are talking about many U.N. schools, the most recent one has been linked to this video, and when you look at one of these schools, here, it's not hard to imagine it being bombed in regard to the surrounding desolation. It's more symbolic of their unwillingness to create safe zones than anything else, they even bombed refugee camps, and are used to kill innocent civilians in order to settle on their lands anyway.
You can't depose Hamas, even if they managed to kill all of their leaders(, who don't reside in the Gaza strip anyway), they'll just elect new ones, i thought that this was obvious to everyone else. Even if Hitler was killed the third reich would have continued existing, the same goes for Israel if you kill Netanyahu, or the u.s.s.r. if you killed Stalin, there are a few modifications but the state doesn't suddenly disappear, sry but i shouldn't have to explain such obvious things and i'm afraid that a lot of other people think like you even if it's so obviously delusional.
Game theory ? They were attacked because they stole these (holy )lands, and were continuing to steal more and more of them, committing atrocities almost every day(, or at least week,) in a complete silence from "the free world". What's the point, would killing 100 persons in retaliation deter palestinians from fighting back ? 1000 ? 3000 ? 5000 ? When does it stop ? I wouldn't think that someone really say that the more Israel kills and the safer they'll be, how could it make any sense, they'll only be hated even more, do you think that they're acting guided by their emotions when they're expressing themselves so calmly ? Are palestinians allowed to "deter" israelis from acting like they do by killing even more of them ? Westerners had even more attacks on their territories once they wanted to "avenge" the first attacks by killing so much more people, in truth it's obvious to almost everyone that vengeance wasn't our goal, but our objectives were geopolitical, and were attained by burning everything held by the islamists, and torturing&killing the prisoners. I hope that they're not thinking that their only way to prevent such attacks is to mass murder thousands of innocents, especially considering that their walls were effective for decades.
Netanyahu is already at the end of his political career, your explanation is awful if true, but i've already talked about the blinded desire for revenge without any aim, i can't think that they're only guided by emotions when acting so rationally, they're head of states not teenagers in a video game, if they're doing something like that it's in order to gain something that couldn't be obtained otherwise.
I don't agree with you because i can't see the point : is it really a blind/stupid desire of revenge ? Just killing innocents everywhere without any other goal than that ?
If the most recent death toll wasn't enough, here's something else showing that they don't really care about keeping an appearance, as well as another U.N. school, i don't know what to say or do, everyone knows that they won't destroy "Hamas" :
If their goal was only to send a message, then there's no point to be that extreme, the only reason left that i can see is that they want to keep the Gaza Strip, it's always a bet but they considered that they'll be allowed to(, in which case their security would indeed be increased by getting rid of all palestinians).
Their neighbours would have to be quite desperate to think that embracing Israel and the west is still their best option, but if they do it'd probably be for economic reasons, and/or perhaps fears of retaliations, i.d.k., we'll see how it'll evolve in the future, but i can't believe that they would kill all of these people and destroy everything without a real goal, sending a pointless message isn't one, nor is the unrealistic aim of destroying "Hamas", i find it hard to imagine them simply going back to their side as if they accomplished something by pointlessly mass murdering thousands of childrens&humans on the other side of the wall, awful that this senseless option of a useless massacre is the most desirable.
Previous title apparently :
Yup, Microsoft has made criticizable choices and i'm pro-Linux, but :
I'd have preferred if citizens, religious, or public organisations filled this role, but they're not powerful enough(, states excluded, and some humanitarian associations, who always lack donations), so i'm glad that some capitalists fight against preventable diseases/deaths in ~~poor~~exploited countries, it could be worse since our "morals" are celebrating the "virtue" of capitalists' selfishness, so double yay for B.Gates, W.Buffet, and other philanthropists, unironically(, because even if it's not ideal it could be worse and their donation/wealth/power is needed).
It seems like an irrefutable point of view to claim that you can rank humans/billionaires according to the virtue of their deeds, and that putting all of them on the same scale is dishonest, just take random examples like the Walton family among others, they're your typical billionaires, others are even worse since they're supporting political/media/educational/.. views increasing the economic inequalities in their favor, or even the so-called "anarcho"-capitalism, we're far from our previous ideals of equality(, social reproduction/determinism : private education, inheritance, ...). So yeah, i unapologetically rejoice that some of them are using their stolen wealth/power for greater causes.
One is a government punishing you for saying something. The other is a company saying, "not on my platform."
Oh, ok, i could eventually agree with this definition.
My own definition is that you can moderate without censoring(, kinda like you can neutralize without killing), even if most social medias aren't using things like warnings before censoring, or overall participation of the (unpaid )mods in the forums to guide newcomers, straighten flamewars by words, answer questions, register complaints and advices, create special events, bots on discord, and as many collective events than can be thought of, almost to the point of being more like a supervisor than a moderator. If such a distinction makes sense a moderator would be between a censor and a supervisor, a manager would be yet another word but i could mix these four into the same word, censorship is only the last resort of the moderator, it's usually enough to point out the mistake for the user to amend h.im.er.self by acknowledging h.er.is faults and leaving the community or keeping the rules more in mind, it shouldn't be a surprise ban but that's commonplace on reddit, it's not my philosophy but w/e, i've talked about it with 2-3 mods in the past and they don't agree, it's taking them a lot of time as well so they're not thinking twice nor engaging.
That was a long introduction, hope it wasn't too boring, i'll take your definition and say that unfortunately the government is using the word moderation in its speeches and is making laws to censor illegal speeches on the internet, like defense of what they'll choose to call terrorists, or denial of what they'll call genocide, or the counter-informations that they may falsely deem disinformation(, covid could be an example, some conspiracies as well), E.Musk is annoying because the Community Notes also debunk our disinformation, and i'll only mention astroturfing.
Do you want a short excerpt of my long list of examples of government censorship ?
Furthermore, what's the censorship by companies if not the censorship by the wealthy/powerful for written("legacy") medias ? Don't you think they have enough power like that. States should protect us from their censorship by allowing us some rights, like a proper explanation before being banned or the right to keep a copy of their data afterwards, or not i'm against government interference in one way or another(, except if our declared enemies can use this against us, but we're going beyond that and are clearly aiming to prevent people from speaking uncomfortable/convincing proofs, WikiLeaks is emblematic of a larger movement, and the "cancel culture" has destroyed careers of some people for false reasons, our governments don't trust the population to make their own conclusions.
Funny because i don't think you understand my point of view either, especially if you're equating all christians with literalists, if you read the Bible you'll be forced to interpret it allegorically, which is why being raised in a nonreligious environment doesn't prevent from having misconceptions either.
But sincere thanks for your polite answer though.
The title is false, it's only a judgment in court on whether member states should be allowed to ban such visible signs for public servants or should be deprived of that right.
Yeah, it's one less freedom for the citizens(, and more freedom for the member states), but as someone (still )living in France it's probably for our security or whatever(, this says it's our guarantee for freedom).
It's not worse than when they killed the Church, religion is too important and now it's gone, and our lives ~solely guided by/for virtue/'(the city of )God' with it, they can ban all religions now for all i care, religion's places aren't for the private lives only, it shine's/d' mostly when it's the main pillar of our state. What is supposed to guide us when it's gone, the "realism" of a selfish quest for power ? No consequences for sinning if you're not caught(, since morality is relative/inexistant) ? Looking at "our" feet, satisfied, instead of the humiliating highness of the skies/Sky ?
What is religion if not realising we'll never be enough because our eyes 'look at'/'are searching for' Perfection/Maximum ? We killed our link with God and replaced it with idols, our downfall was announced and our decadence has been visible in the last centuries, poets were the first to disappear, we're so decadent that we don't even realize that people from the past wrote hundreds of time better than us, the scientific explosion was already unstoppable before the XVIIIth century, it isn't linked in any way to our destruction of the benevolent Church.
It'll just be one more deserved downfall after all, i wouldn't cry over it if we didn't try to bring others down with us, the sooner we disappear the better, we've long assumed our dishonesty in the name of "realism" or whatever, we're not christians, nor are we even trying to be, it's for irrealist goody-two-shoes, not for serious people, and i'm fed up currently, there are still a vast majority of good people but i'm angry, hopefully it'll pass like all things, are we even trying to build a better world ? What's our plan/vision ? What am i supposed to support here, capitalist "democracy" with depoliticized citizens and owned private medias, what else ? The "rule of law" that changes according to whoever obtained power/wealth ? What else, our innemurable murderous ventures in every single non-western country in the last 100 years, and irrecoverable cultural annihilation through colonisation before that ? Our propaganda against "unfree" "regimes" needing to be liberated ? What am i supposed to support if we're not even aiming&acting for a better world for all ? It doesn't seem like we're trying, just a nationalistic "America/France/.. first" all around, short-term visions and widespread fear&hate, not any ounce of love towards our designated enemies, no plan for living in a mutual peace, what makes us on the right side if not our pitiful/disdainful lies against our so-called enemies ? If we(sterners) don't support humanity then why would i support us ? Our duty is to make a better world for all, not for our group, neo-colonialism is a shame, and we're lying about it like with so many other things, it's not clever to lie we're so despicable, we should help each other, for real, we should f*cking change, now. If not our downfall is to be hoped for, and the rest of humanity should cheer for it if it means the advent of a better world for all of us.
I don't understand people like you.
For me, it's impossibly naive to believe that our disinformation( doesn't exist, or) will be censored as much as the disinformation of our opponents, yet that's apparently the new mainstream opinion.
And x.com is the only social media to have implemented Community Notes.