|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On August 08 2025 09:29 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2025 09:17 Billyboy wrote:On August 08 2025 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On August 08 2025 03:09 Billyboy wrote:On August 08 2025 02:49 Nebuchad wrote:On August 08 2025 02:22 Billyboy wrote:On August 07 2025 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2025 18:16 Jankisa wrote:
This semantic arguments are exactly what the people who stan for Israel's imperialist brutal campaign want, just drown the discourse in semantics and arguments about opinions.
When faced with a clear timeline of actual war crime, irrefutable step by step plan announced and executed by Israel which resulted in malnourished kids dying of starvation, more then a thousand people gunned down as they are funneled to 4 aid distribution points which replaced more then 200 UN ones, they will simply ignore it and wait to catch an opportunity for some stupid inane gotcha, or, once again try to bog everything down with talking about genocide scholars.
Who the fuck cares what we call what is happening, honestly, nothing is going to change with calling it genocide, Israel will always have some people ready to say it's not, you will never win this kind of an argument, and this argument is easy for people who still probably like to think of themselves as decent people to make.
What they can't and won't do is engage with facts of planned starvation, countless instances of murdering of aid workers, complete disregard for getting the hostages back, leveling of 80 % of structures in Gaza, not letting any journalists in.
There is no strategy we can employ in which this wouldn't happen, you'll never get the engagement you want because this isn't an honest debate in the first place. Faced with that, I'd rather just stick to saying things that are true. It is probably the case that as the world goes more and more rightwing, being correct loses value, but that's fine, we're only some dudes on TL we aren't producing a ton of value anyway. I do not think that assuming the worst of people, treating it as fact, and then being mad about it is a good strategy. Sure you are right sometimes, but lots of times you are not and you miss out on actual conversation and the chance or learning things and influencing people. It is the way most everyone, especially in the age of social media acts, but it is also shit. I don't see it as assuming the worst of people. Everyone has different ideas about morality, that's how it works. It's neither a good or a bad thing, it's just a thing, and sure I can get mad about it sometimes like everyone else but I try and control that. Since I can't get people to change their moralities, I find it less useful to talk about that, so I try and stick to factual claims, that's how I've been operating. I guess I see value in doing it like that because of my own experience, that's how I changed my politics. Breadtube didn't tell me that the rightwing was good and pure and we needed to befriend them, they told me that their ideas were obviously wrong, their influencers were morons and/or dishonest, and their goals for society awful. They made convincing arguments, I didn't enjoy being obviously wrong about politics, so I changed my positions. That won't work on everyone, but it's impossible for something to work on everyone, so... I think sticking to the facts is a great strategy, and has a higher chance of success than attacking. I just think that you will get honest debates (not 100% of the time) if you engage honestly. And I agree that focusing on whether it is genocide or not is kind of missing the point. There will be plenty of time for that when the conflict is over. It is clear that the starving people pictures moved the needle, so there are appeals to emotion that work. Anger is just not that emotion because it is almost always just returned. When the conflict is over, yeah... Not for the first time, "the greatest crime of the left is being correct too early, when there's still time to act"... Anger is returned but that doesn't really matter, you're not trying to have an effect on the person you're talking to you're trying to have an effect on the audience. You want to show that what they're saying makes no sense so that others can recognize it. If you're having a beer with a conservative obviously your strategy will be different. Labeling it genocide does absolutely nothing to stop it, it is a dumb pissing match. And you can certainly go to early and lose credibility. Like for example accusing Israel of genocide during the Oct 7th attack. Or judging people as evil for not instantly agreeing with you and stopping fruitful discussions before they start. Well we've had ten years of discussions by now, I think it's pretty clear that they aren't going to be fruitful, we don't need to try again every time to see if this time is the one. You don't believe in doing that either as we see from how you engaged with Zambrah in the other thread or with GH for the entirety of your life. As already explained in the last few posts, the goal of my posting on TL isn't to stop genocide, I am under no delusion that we are doing anything important here. I just see arguments that don't work and I correct them as well as I can. The last sentence is just silly, obviously I am not "judging people as evil for not instantly agreeing with me", but it's a cool sentence I'm sure you felt proud as you wrote it.
When did I say me? This is the way you operate regardless of poster, I do not think I'm special. And I'd obviously assume that any response to me was some sort of trap and attempted gotcha, because that is how you operated for years. You called this "not an honest debate", assuming you meant RJ gooner, but given how easily and often you come to this conclusion I feel the statement is a lot more true then false.
|
On August 08 2025 09:36 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2025 09:29 Nebuchad wrote:On August 08 2025 09:17 Billyboy wrote:On August 08 2025 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On August 08 2025 03:09 Billyboy wrote:On August 08 2025 02:49 Nebuchad wrote:On August 08 2025 02:22 Billyboy wrote:On August 07 2025 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2025 18:16 Jankisa wrote:
This semantic arguments are exactly what the people who stan for Israel's imperialist brutal campaign want, just drown the discourse in semantics and arguments about opinions.
When faced with a clear timeline of actual war crime, irrefutable step by step plan announced and executed by Israel which resulted in malnourished kids dying of starvation, more then a thousand people gunned down as they are funneled to 4 aid distribution points which replaced more then 200 UN ones, they will simply ignore it and wait to catch an opportunity for some stupid inane gotcha, or, once again try to bog everything down with talking about genocide scholars.
Who the fuck cares what we call what is happening, honestly, nothing is going to change with calling it genocide, Israel will always have some people ready to say it's not, you will never win this kind of an argument, and this argument is easy for people who still probably like to think of themselves as decent people to make.
What they can't and won't do is engage with facts of planned starvation, countless instances of murdering of aid workers, complete disregard for getting the hostages back, leveling of 80 % of structures in Gaza, not letting any journalists in.
There is no strategy we can employ in which this wouldn't happen, you'll never get the engagement you want because this isn't an honest debate in the first place. Faced with that, I'd rather just stick to saying things that are true. It is probably the case that as the world goes more and more rightwing, being correct loses value, but that's fine, we're only some dudes on TL we aren't producing a ton of value anyway. I do not think that assuming the worst of people, treating it as fact, and then being mad about it is a good strategy. Sure you are right sometimes, but lots of times you are not and you miss out on actual conversation and the chance or learning things and influencing people. It is the way most everyone, especially in the age of social media acts, but it is also shit. I don't see it as assuming the worst of people. Everyone has different ideas about morality, that's how it works. It's neither a good or a bad thing, it's just a thing, and sure I can get mad about it sometimes like everyone else but I try and control that. Since I can't get people to change their moralities, I find it less useful to talk about that, so I try and stick to factual claims, that's how I've been operating. I guess I see value in doing it like that because of my own experience, that's how I changed my politics. Breadtube didn't tell me that the rightwing was good and pure and we needed to befriend them, they told me that their ideas were obviously wrong, their influencers were morons and/or dishonest, and their goals for society awful. They made convincing arguments, I didn't enjoy being obviously wrong about politics, so I changed my positions. That won't work on everyone, but it's impossible for something to work on everyone, so... I think sticking to the facts is a great strategy, and has a higher chance of success than attacking. I just think that you will get honest debates (not 100% of the time) if you engage honestly. And I agree that focusing on whether it is genocide or not is kind of missing the point. There will be plenty of time for that when the conflict is over. It is clear that the starving people pictures moved the needle, so there are appeals to emotion that work. Anger is just not that emotion because it is almost always just returned. When the conflict is over, yeah... Not for the first time, "the greatest crime of the left is being correct too early, when there's still time to act"... Anger is returned but that doesn't really matter, you're not trying to have an effect on the person you're talking to you're trying to have an effect on the audience. You want to show that what they're saying makes no sense so that others can recognize it. If you're having a beer with a conservative obviously your strategy will be different. Labeling it genocide does absolutely nothing to stop it, it is a dumb pissing match. And you can certainly go to early and lose credibility. Like for example accusing Israel of genocide during the Oct 7th attack. Or judging people as evil for not instantly agreeing with you and stopping fruitful discussions before they start. Well we've had ten years of discussions by now, I think it's pretty clear that they aren't going to be fruitful, we don't need to try again every time to see if this time is the one. You don't believe in doing that either as we see from how you engaged with Zambrah in the other thread or with GH for the entirety of your life. As already explained in the last few posts, the goal of my posting on TL isn't to stop genocide, I am under no delusion that we are doing anything important here. I just see arguments that don't work and I correct them as well as I can. The last sentence is just silly, obviously I am not "judging people as evil for not instantly agreeing with me", but it's a cool sentence I'm sure you felt proud as you wrote it. When did I say me? This is the way you operate regardless of poster, I do not think I'm special. And I'd obviously assume that any response to me was some sort of trap and attempted gotcha, because that is how you operated for years. You called this "not an honest debate", assuming you meant RJ gooner, but given how easily and often you come to this conclusion I feel the statement is a lot more true then false.
I tend to believe that people are dishonest faster than I assume people are stupid, you're right. I even have a blog post about that from years ago. It doesn't follow that I "judge them" for being "evil" after that, that's silly. I just move on with my day.
|
On August 08 2025 09:43 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2025 09:36 Billyboy wrote:On August 08 2025 09:29 Nebuchad wrote:On August 08 2025 09:17 Billyboy wrote:On August 08 2025 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On August 08 2025 03:09 Billyboy wrote:On August 08 2025 02:49 Nebuchad wrote:On August 08 2025 02:22 Billyboy wrote:On August 07 2025 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2025 18:16 Jankisa wrote:
This semantic arguments are exactly what the people who stan for Israel's imperialist brutal campaign want, just drown the discourse in semantics and arguments about opinions.
When faced with a clear timeline of actual war crime, irrefutable step by step plan announced and executed by Israel which resulted in malnourished kids dying of starvation, more then a thousand people gunned down as they are funneled to 4 aid distribution points which replaced more then 200 UN ones, they will simply ignore it and wait to catch an opportunity for some stupid inane gotcha, or, once again try to bog everything down with talking about genocide scholars.
Who the fuck cares what we call what is happening, honestly, nothing is going to change with calling it genocide, Israel will always have some people ready to say it's not, you will never win this kind of an argument, and this argument is easy for people who still probably like to think of themselves as decent people to make.
What they can't and won't do is engage with facts of planned starvation, countless instances of murdering of aid workers, complete disregard for getting the hostages back, leveling of 80 % of structures in Gaza, not letting any journalists in.
There is no strategy we can employ in which this wouldn't happen, you'll never get the engagement you want because this isn't an honest debate in the first place. Faced with that, I'd rather just stick to saying things that are true. It is probably the case that as the world goes more and more rightwing, being correct loses value, but that's fine, we're only some dudes on TL we aren't producing a ton of value anyway. I do not think that assuming the worst of people, treating it as fact, and then being mad about it is a good strategy. Sure you are right sometimes, but lots of times you are not and you miss out on actual conversation and the chance or learning things and influencing people. It is the way most everyone, especially in the age of social media acts, but it is also shit. I don't see it as assuming the worst of people. Everyone has different ideas about morality, that's how it works. It's neither a good or a bad thing, it's just a thing, and sure I can get mad about it sometimes like everyone else but I try and control that. Since I can't get people to change their moralities, I find it less useful to talk about that, so I try and stick to factual claims, that's how I've been operating. I guess I see value in doing it like that because of my own experience, that's how I changed my politics. Breadtube didn't tell me that the rightwing was good and pure and we needed to befriend them, they told me that their ideas were obviously wrong, their influencers were morons and/or dishonest, and their goals for society awful. They made convincing arguments, I didn't enjoy being obviously wrong about politics, so I changed my positions. That won't work on everyone, but it's impossible for something to work on everyone, so... I think sticking to the facts is a great strategy, and has a higher chance of success than attacking. I just think that you will get honest debates (not 100% of the time) if you engage honestly. And I agree that focusing on whether it is genocide or not is kind of missing the point. There will be plenty of time for that when the conflict is over. It is clear that the starving people pictures moved the needle, so there are appeals to emotion that work. Anger is just not that emotion because it is almost always just returned. When the conflict is over, yeah... Not for the first time, "the greatest crime of the left is being correct too early, when there's still time to act"... Anger is returned but that doesn't really matter, you're not trying to have an effect on the person you're talking to you're trying to have an effect on the audience. You want to show that what they're saying makes no sense so that others can recognize it. If you're having a beer with a conservative obviously your strategy will be different. Labeling it genocide does absolutely nothing to stop it, it is a dumb pissing match. And you can certainly go to early and lose credibility. Like for example accusing Israel of genocide during the Oct 7th attack. Or judging people as evil for not instantly agreeing with you and stopping fruitful discussions before they start. Well we've had ten years of discussions by now, I think it's pretty clear that they aren't going to be fruitful, we don't need to try again every time to see if this time is the one. You don't believe in doing that either as we see from how you engaged with Zambrah in the other thread or with GH for the entirety of your life. As already explained in the last few posts, the goal of my posting on TL isn't to stop genocide, I am under no delusion that we are doing anything important here. I just see arguments that don't work and I correct them as well as I can. The last sentence is just silly, obviously I am not "judging people as evil for not instantly agreeing with me", but it's a cool sentence I'm sure you felt proud as you wrote it. When did I say me? This is the way you operate regardless of poster, I do not think I'm special. And I'd obviously assume that any response to me was some sort of trap and attempted gotcha, because that is how you operated for years. You called this "not an honest debate", assuming you meant RJ gooner, but given how easily and often you come to this conclusion I feel the statement is a lot more true then false. I tend to believe that people are dishonest faster than I assume people are stupid, you're right. I even have a blog post about that from years ago. It doesn't follow that I "judge them" for being "evil" after that, that's silly. I just move on with my day.
See to me there is so many more than two options, including that I might not be completely right or right at all, or a miss communication, or that it is an opinion, or that the actual facts are not known, and a whole bunch of other ones. No wonder we will never understand each other.
|
On August 08 2025 10:57 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2025 09:43 Nebuchad wrote:On August 08 2025 09:36 Billyboy wrote:On August 08 2025 09:29 Nebuchad wrote:On August 08 2025 09:17 Billyboy wrote:On August 08 2025 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On August 08 2025 03:09 Billyboy wrote:On August 08 2025 02:49 Nebuchad wrote:On August 08 2025 02:22 Billyboy wrote:On August 07 2025 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
There is no strategy we can employ in which this wouldn't happen, you'll never get the engagement you want because this isn't an honest debate in the first place. Faced with that, I'd rather just stick to saying things that are true. It is probably the case that as the world goes more and more rightwing, being correct loses value, but that's fine, we're only some dudes on TL we aren't producing a ton of value anyway. I do not think that assuming the worst of people, treating it as fact, and then being mad about it is a good strategy. Sure you are right sometimes, but lots of times you are not and you miss out on actual conversation and the chance or learning things and influencing people. It is the way most everyone, especially in the age of social media acts, but it is also shit. I don't see it as assuming the worst of people. Everyone has different ideas about morality, that's how it works. It's neither a good or a bad thing, it's just a thing, and sure I can get mad about it sometimes like everyone else but I try and control that. Since I can't get people to change their moralities, I find it less useful to talk about that, so I try and stick to factual claims, that's how I've been operating. I guess I see value in doing it like that because of my own experience, that's how I changed my politics. Breadtube didn't tell me that the rightwing was good and pure and we needed to befriend them, they told me that their ideas were obviously wrong, their influencers were morons and/or dishonest, and their goals for society awful. They made convincing arguments, I didn't enjoy being obviously wrong about politics, so I changed my positions. That won't work on everyone, but it's impossible for something to work on everyone, so... I think sticking to the facts is a great strategy, and has a higher chance of success than attacking. I just think that you will get honest debates (not 100% of the time) if you engage honestly. And I agree that focusing on whether it is genocide or not is kind of missing the point. There will be plenty of time for that when the conflict is over. It is clear that the starving people pictures moved the needle, so there are appeals to emotion that work. Anger is just not that emotion because it is almost always just returned. When the conflict is over, yeah... Not for the first time, "the greatest crime of the left is being correct too early, when there's still time to act"... Anger is returned but that doesn't really matter, you're not trying to have an effect on the person you're talking to you're trying to have an effect on the audience. You want to show that what they're saying makes no sense so that others can recognize it. If you're having a beer with a conservative obviously your strategy will be different. Labeling it genocide does absolutely nothing to stop it, it is a dumb pissing match. And you can certainly go to early and lose credibility. Like for example accusing Israel of genocide during the Oct 7th attack. Or judging people as evil for not instantly agreeing with you and stopping fruitful discussions before they start. Well we've had ten years of discussions by now, I think it's pretty clear that they aren't going to be fruitful, we don't need to try again every time to see if this time is the one. You don't believe in doing that either as we see from how you engaged with Zambrah in the other thread or with GH for the entirety of your life. As already explained in the last few posts, the goal of my posting on TL isn't to stop genocide, I am under no delusion that we are doing anything important here. I just see arguments that don't work and I correct them as well as I can. The last sentence is just silly, obviously I am not "judging people as evil for not instantly agreeing with me", but it's a cool sentence I'm sure you felt proud as you wrote it. When did I say me? This is the way you operate regardless of poster, I do not think I'm special. And I'd obviously assume that any response to me was some sort of trap and attempted gotcha, because that is how you operated for years. You called this "not an honest debate", assuming you meant RJ gooner, but given how easily and often you come to this conclusion I feel the statement is a lot more true then false. I tend to believe that people are dishonest faster than I assume people are stupid, you're right. I even have a blog post about that from years ago. It doesn't follow that I "judge them" for being "evil" after that, that's silly. I just move on with my day. See to me there is so many more than two options, including that I might not be completely right or right at all, or a miss communication, or that it is an opinion, or that the actual facts are not known, and a whole bunch of other ones. No wonder we will never understand each other.
So which one do you think is going on in this case?
|
I now think that the occupation is going to happen. If deliberate starvation does not cause quick and strong action against Israel, then accepting full occupation is not a bridge too far. The starvation can easily be used as a reason for the occupation.
Even if Israel does not have proper resources for full occupation, forcing a shitty solution in Gaza will tie the hands of the next governments. They will have to either continue the occupation or pull out of Gaza. Both will be problematic and unpopular. Settlers will also insert themselves into Gaza, as that furthers their goal. Pulling out will make the government look weak, which is likely to make the election after next way too close. Especially, any successful attacks will be very damaging. Sounds great if you are the current government and are likely to lose power in the next election.
Any third parties that insert into Gaza are very unlikely to actually put Palestinian interests first, instead of using Gaza as a bargaining tool with Israel. They are unlikely to treat Palestinians any better than Hamas. Any freedom is likely to be used to criticise Israel and the other occupiers, who are again unlikely to prioritise the will of the people in any negotiations.
Occupying Gaza will also kill any possibility of having a deal with the Palestinian Authority. Denying PA a role in Gaza while expanding settlements in the West Bank simply means that Israel does not view PA as a legitimate representative of Palestinians. Elections will not fix that.
|
Yeah, seems like full steam ahead for occupation and they will likely hand Gaza to this guy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Abu_Shabab
Can't wait for the resident Israeli defenders to explain how reasonable it is to first go on with a full scale occupation, killing more people, yet again, and then handing it to ex-ISIS smuggler warlord backed by them and the US.
I'm sure they will, after this inevitably fails because Gazans won't really be onboard to be ruled by a guy who is propped up by the people who bombed the fuck out of them again blame the people of Gaza because they are refusing to work with Israel and only want Hamas.
|
|
|
An article that's going to be published tomorrow on Gaza is crazy, it sounds similar to what I've written on this forum it's that uncompromising. Who would have guessed that the only thing we needed for journalists to start doing their job again is our governments deciding to back Netanyahou a little less (it was me, I would have guessed)
|
Thank you for posting this news. It helps keep hope alive and it's an important step in the right direction.
|
On August 08 2025 19:49 Legan wrote:
I now think that the occupation is going to happen. If deliberate starvation does not cause quick and strong action against Israel, then accepting full occupation is not a bridge too far. The starvation can easily be used as a reason for the occupation.
Israel can't admit to starvation as that would mean admitting co-responsibility.
That and 'full occupation' doesn't have to mean street fighting or IDF troops on every corner.
It can just as well mean starving the place until something gives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
