First, I am not on Israel’s side in this matter. I denounce their historical and ongoing oppression of Palestinians to say the least and generally see a two state solution as an ideal outcome, along with the outcomes you mentioned, dismantling apartheid and establishing self-determination for Palestinians. However I would not condone atrocities to achieve this goal. Just as I am in support of Ukraine’s resistance against Russia, I would not condone any war crimes if they were to commit them. How we achieve our goals matter.

Sure, neither of us are directly affected won’t be the ones deciding, yet here we are expressing our opinions and hopefully having a worthwhile conversation about it. Perhaps all of social media is just political noise, yet us humans seem to like to weigh in on world events.

Removed by mod

What does destruction of Israel as a genocidal settler-colonial ethnostate look like to you? Does it look like Oct 7 writ large across all of Israel? Does it look like the massive bombing campaign, displacement, and destruction of capacity for civilians to live that Israel has perpetrated in Gaza?

Okay, so let’s go with your position that attacking soldiers with explosive weapons in civilian areas are not justifiable.

Based on your beliefs, what do you see as a justifiable response to Hezbollah’s year long barrage of rockets and missiles into Israeli cities. Keep in mind Hezbollah by and large conducts these strikes directly embedded in or right beside civilian sites. And they also store weapons in civilian sites.

The goal now is not to say which is worse, there’s plenty of blame to go around. The goal is to understand how you think about conflict and the principles you believe in that shape your views.

That doesn’t answer the question. Let me rephrase to be more direct.

What do you believe makes for acceptable and unacceptable civilian casualties (e.g. children) in urban warfare and what principles do you draw on to form these beliefs? Please use an example from a side you feel are “the good guys”.

If you’re a pacifist or believe not a single civilian casualty is acceptable, what would your approach be to resolving a conflict where your civilian population is being attacked with rockets/missiles?

Serious question, would you condone assassinating Putin with an IED even if several children were killed? Would it be better if they used a missile strike with 5x the civilian casualties because at least it isn’t an IED? Would it be better to do nothing and allow an opposing military force to continue bombarding your cities and your children with rockets and missiles?

I abhore the mass bombings and utter destruction Israel has wrought over the last year. It is beyond the pale. I would genuinely have prefered it if they could’ve taken out all of Hamas by blowing up cell phones in their pockets instead.

Oh snap, that’s awesome! I wasn’t aware of this. I assumed NATO would be consistent with the US on mines. Thank you for sharing this.

I’ll modify my argument to “Even the US and Ukraine use mines”

It’s interesting though, according to my research the distinction between mines and weapons lie in how it’s activated. For example, the C19 ex-Claymore is now remote detonation only to comply with the Ottawa treaty because it can only be activated remotely and cannot be used with an indiscriminate activator like a tripwire. Therefore it is a weapon. With this les, the pagers/radios are more akin to weapons rather than mines.

So booby traps are allowed, as long as someone is there to decide when to press the button, which the Israelies clearly did.

Did you forget that every “responsible” western power(Edit: Ottawa treaty) the US and Ukraine (who was a signatory of the Ottawa treaty) also has an arsenal of anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines which are specifically meant to be hidden and disguised? Quite literally booby traps with long-lasting risks for civilian lives. Many children have lost their lives due to mines, yet they are still deemed acceptable in war.

Anything that risks civilian lives is pretty messed up. But even compared to the mines being used in Ukraine, the pagers/radios were far more targeted and posed less risk to civilians.

Yeah no, the exploding pagers and radios, which were from an intercepted supply specifically for Hezbollah, was far more targeted than anyone could reasonably ask for.

Like yes, Israel’s overall actions in Gaza and Lebanon have been horribly ruthless and against civilian well-being. And there is the broader context of Palestine. But this is what you’re outraged by?

If everything between bombing Hezbollah and targeted attacks like the pagers/radio are off the table, like what would you actually do if a non-governmental military was indiscriminately firing hundreds of rockets into your cities for an entire year? Seriously, how would you actually respond if you were in the leadership position?

TIL, be a noun, don’t be a fucking adjective.

Who said AI was gonna put people out of jobs? Look here, a whole new industry of gig work where people can market themselves as “best buyers”. Is your Kroger algorithm fucking you over with horrible prices? Not to worry, with a low low subscription fee, you’ll have access to our best buyers whose meticulously curated profiles will buy your items for you with guaranteed lowest price every time. They’ll even deliver it to your door for a small fee, or upgrade to our premium plus preferred plan for unlimited free deliveries. We also offer a comprehensive algorithm consulting service to help you reshape your algorithm for optimum purchasing power. Be the best buyer your can be ;) /SARCASM

Cute, but no. They used a theoretical model, not a large behavioural simulation. You could probably run their calculations on a TI-83.

On comment threads, every day.

1. Do I want to put this out into the world?
2. Do I need this in my life right now/is it worth the time?

This reflective exercise has saved me many excessive fixations. And yes, sometimes I do need to make that snarky overly-researched comment that nobody will see.

I read this comment thinking it was satire, then got to the end and was disappointed it wasn’t a joke.

I could go without for a day… but if I had dependents, I’d be worried for not just the day, but every day after that too

That’s what we expected when Biden won in 2020, then Jan 6 happened and Trump is running again. There’s an implication that things will gradually return to some 2007/2008 status quo (which was also very polarized) and right-wing extremism will simmer down. But there’s no reason for it, no cultural forces for it. Right now there’s no reason to think another Trump or someone worse won’t take up the mantle of owning the libs by grifting the right.

I heard he was a democrat in the past and looked up some of his ads/debates during the 2004 election. He criticized tax breaks for the rich and advocated for affordable education and equal opportunity for minorities. Jesus it’s like he got replaced by a lizard person.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?183616-1/louisiana-senate-campaign-ads

Again, if we read it as he literally said that, then sure I’d agree the behaviour is not okay. Given the context of the quote, I’d want more evidence to take that quote literally.

It just reeks to me of him being jealous of people who don’t have kids and/or him regretting being a parent?

Perhaps. I don’t think there’s much here to substantiate that reading though, even with the context. I’d want a bit more evidence if I were to incorporate that into my appraisal of him.

You can judge someone to be morally repugnant without interpreting everything they say/do as an extension of the things that make them repugnant. It doesn’t lessen the repugnance.

This has nothing to do with going easy on JD. It has to do with the things we chose to criticize on principle. It’s about who we choose to be. You gave two great examples of things we should judge him for. I’m happy to focus on those and the next oppressive thing he says. If you want to be someone who criticizes parents for getting exasperated by their kids, that’s your perogative, but that’s not me and I don’t think people should.