|
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. |
Northern Ireland25757 Posts
On September 20 2025 00:36 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 21:44 Jankisa wrote:States go as far as the other, more powerful states allow them to. Russia invaded Ukraine and Israel took note. Trump did January 6th and got away with it and understood that blatant political violence is now tolerated. Every step of the way humans have been under-reacting to insane shit, and now we are in a state where tens of thousands defenseless people who have nothing to do with Hamas are being slaughtered while people on forums make comparisons to WW2 and argue semantics. People voted for this, people in Israel voted for Nethyanahu and Smotrich and Ben Gvir, I can't do much, but I will not look at Israeli's in the same way ever again. People voted for Putin, time after time after time, they voted for him after he leveled Grozny, they voted for him after he seized Crimea and his "rebbels" downed an airplane full of Europeans, they voted for him after he left hundreds of sailors die horrible deaths in Kursk submarine disaster. People in the US voted for Trump after he was convicted for sexual assault, they voted for him after 2 impeachments and January 6th, they voted for him despite him being "best friends with Epstein". I'll always have love in my life for individuals, but if you are someone I work with, be it American, Israeli or Russian, I will judge you based on who you voted for, and if you voted for this I will work with you but I will have no respect for you and will actively work to distance myself as much as possible from you and yours. You guys can keep on yelling Hamas this, Hamas, that, but the vast majority of Palestinians who are dying every fucking day did not vote for this, the last elections in Gaza were held in 2006, all the children and most adults in Gaza (median age is 18) weren't even alive then. This is not about Hamas, they tried to negotiate, they tried to find a way where they survive and give hostages back, there was a done ceasefire deal, Israel broke it. This all could have been over since May 5th. Israel decided against it, because of their, according to most experts, unachievable goal of exterminating an organization that with every murdered child, every tank shell hitting a hospital and killing nurses, responders and journalist, every bomb in a refugee camp, every child sniped at a food gathering point gets more and more recruits. It's a perpetual conflict, and Israel wants it like that. This is not about humans being broken, it's about a number of broken humans trying to kill as many of "the enemy" as they can while caring about absolutely nothing else. There is so much wrong with this post and much of what you post, but you really jumped the shark with Putin being democratically elected. Whatever media you are consuming you need to stop. You might already be to far gone, but if there is hope it will require you to stop all social media and youtube. Good luck!
Where did they say Putin was democratically elected?
|
On September 20 2025 03:20 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2025 00:36 Billyboy wrote:On September 19 2025 21:44 Jankisa wrote:States go as far as the other, more powerful states allow them to. Russia invaded Ukraine and Israel took note. Trump did January 6th and got away with it and understood that blatant political violence is now tolerated. Every step of the way humans have been under-reacting to insane shit, and now we are in a state where tens of thousands defenseless people who have nothing to do with Hamas are being slaughtered while people on forums make comparisons to WW2 and argue semantics. People voted for this, people in Israel voted for Nethyanahu and Smotrich and Ben Gvir, I can't do much, but I will not look at Israeli's in the same way ever again. People voted for Putin, time after time after time, they voted for him after he leveled Grozny, they voted for him after he seized Crimea and his "rebbels" downed an airplane full of Europeans, they voted for him after he left hundreds of sailors die horrible deaths in Kursk submarine disaster. People in the US voted for Trump after he was convicted for sexual assault, they voted for him after 2 impeachments and January 6th, they voted for him despite him being "best friends with Epstein". I'll always have love in my life for individuals, but if you are someone I work with, be it American, Israeli or Russian, I will judge you based on who you voted for, and if you voted for this I will work with you but I will have no respect for you and will actively work to distance myself as much as possible from you and yours. You guys can keep on yelling Hamas this, Hamas, that, but the vast majority of Palestinians who are dying every fucking day did not vote for this, the last elections in Gaza were held in 2006, all the children and most adults in Gaza (median age is 18) weren't even alive then. This is not about Hamas, they tried to negotiate, they tried to find a way where they survive and give hostages back, there was a done ceasefire deal, Israel broke it. This all could have been over since May 5th. Israel decided against it, because of their, according to most experts, unachievable goal of exterminating an organization that with every murdered child, every tank shell hitting a hospital and killing nurses, responders and journalist, every bomb in a refugee camp, every child sniped at a food gathering point gets more and more recruits. It's a perpetual conflict, and Israel wants it like that. This is not about humans being broken, it's about a number of broken humans trying to kill as many of "the enemy" as they can while caring about absolutely nothing else. There is so much wrong with this post and much of what you post, but you really jumped the shark with Putin being democratically elected. Whatever media you are consuming you need to stop. You might already be to far gone, but if there is hope it will require you to stop all social media and youtube. Good luck! Where did they say Putin was democratically elected?
This is what he said, after saying the same about Israel, unless he doesn't think Israel is a democracy. Like what are you reading?
People voted for Putin, time after time after time, they voted for him after he leveled Grozny, they voted for him after he seized Crimea and his "rebbels" downed an airplane full of Europeans, they voted for him after he left hundreds of sailors die horrible deaths in Kursk submarine disaster.
And I mean most of his posts in this thread are just filled with shit he just plain makes up. Like Hamas is so disorganized they couldn't have even planned this attack it is just lone terror cells working on their own. This is just pure head cannon he creates to justify his position. And not only is it false, Hamas even has communication people. But it would counter his whole argument that Hamas was negotiating until this attack. How could a disorganized set of terror cells have any sort of negotiation? They couldn't deliver on anything, nor could they even do it.
He has a totally warped version of how this relates to Ukraine and Russia, basically the opposite of every Ukrainian war blogger.
He has no basis of reality when it comes to this topic, just spewing hate. KT said nothing remotely pro Israel, and when I read it, I was like " shit guy is about to be attacked by the ghouls for not hating hard enough". I was saying it tongue and cheek, but then in it comes. It is impossible to have an actual conversation on this thread unless all you want to talk about is how evil and awful Israel is and how they also would be even more evil if they could. Heck if you even talk bad about Hamas you get attacked.
And of course, you are there to jump in and attack first chance you get. So that is fun too.
|
On September 20 2025 02:25 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2025 00:19 Nebuchad wrote:On September 13 2025 14:32 PremoBeats wrote:On September 13 2025 04:39 Nebuchad wrote:On September 13 2025 04:37 PremoBeats wrote:
Of course you don't care if I answer your questions or are interested in answering mine. It is clear that you are not here to actually engage but are simply trying to set traps and "show my true colors". Yeah, I know. I'm glad it worked. Funny how you think you achieved something, while in reality you publicly deconstructed your own argument perfectly. As KwarK and I explained, absolute/categorical judgements and relative judgements are different things with different meanings - a distinction you still don’t seem to grasp. If you want to come back to the conversation, answer why you think that having good food and being hospitable, when you also want to oppress women and kill infidels and minorities, makes you morally "good but not as good as the West", as opposed to, you know, "evil". No, I don't want to come back to this conversation, as I explained everything I had to say to you in the post you circumcised once again. As others understand my POV, I am content with that post and if you are still not able to grasp what I am saying, there is nothing I can do. Plus, as you already admitted to only accepting Islamophobia as my motive and are only discussing with me to set traps as you wrote before, I don't see much sense in talking to you. Show nested quote +On September 14 2025 02:18 Magic Powers wrote:On September 13 2025 18:48 PremoBeats wrote:
Looking at the circumstances can add a layer. But I wouldn't want some kind of moral relativism (not that you are arguing for it) to stand in my way to stop the Aztec shaman from performing a human sacrifice, from helping little girls that are about to get their clitorises cut off or a battle against homophobia/legal inequality (or even the things you mentioned about the West). I don't want context to become a shield against criticism.
At that moment I don't care if the rationalization is a voice someone heard in their head, a century old traditional, cultural practice or a principle a human supposedly got from god a couple of hundred years ago.
These circumstances also wouldn't change the actual result. But it would give us more room for understanding and how to deal with the situation.
Because if we'd do an IQ test with the billionaire and the McDonald's worker, the context explains the disparity but the present result would be a reality; the same is true for a culture that has more inhuman or immoral traits incorporated than another at this point in time.
Thus, context should be not about excuses but about understanding why practices exist and deciding the best course of action to stop them. Simple condemnation wouldn't work most probably.
If that is what you are proposing I can agree wholeheartedly. I'm arguing the inverse. I'm not trying to justify Palestinian terrorism such as that of Hamas. I am trying to show that the alleged "superior morality" is more of a myth, because I think it's a consequence of the circumstances (or the lack of certain circumstances). The immoral fraction of a population is revealed under certain pressures. Sometimes the pressure is real and tangible, other times it's propaganda that causes radicalism. Sometimes both. When we don't observe the immorality of a population, that's what I consider the true oddity. Many people are immoral, and the chance of a person developing immoral values is equal given that the circumstances are also equal. So why don't we see equal immorality in every population? It is an oddity, not a normality. It could be that people are well fed when growing up in a wealthier region and thus have less reason to act out. It could be that they're less exposed to lies and misinformation of a propaganda campaign. Or sometimes we don't notice their immorality because we're blind to it (e.g. it remains unreported or we close our eyes to it), but the people exist nonetheless. I believe in something akin to the tabula rasa. The realization that a population doesn't show the same immorality as some other populations makes me understand that immorality is created, not born. I get what you’re saying, though I’m still not sure about calling the outcome a “myth” even if it’s shaped by circumstances. The same as in your IQ example, the manager’s higher score may be due to upbringing or environment, but the difference is still a real outcome we have to deal with. I feel the same with morality - even if context explains it, the results aren’t just an illusion. On non-immorality being an “oddity,” I tend to be a bit more optimistic. We see plenty of cooperation and kindness in everyday life, so I’d consider that the norm rather than the exception. That said, I really agree with you that context is crucial for understanding why practices exist and how to change them. Since you’re not using it as an excuse, I don’t see a conflict. I’d just be curious how you see the role of individual responsibility if immorality is mainly circumstance-driven. Show nested quote +On September 17 2025 17:21 Jankisa wrote:
You can, as you often do, insult people who disagree with you
Although not directed at me, this is pretty rich coming from someone who equated me to a holocaust denier a couple of pages ago, don't you think? Show nested quote +Jankisa wrote:
There was a 3 phase ceasefire in which phase 3 was the end of war and release of all hostages.
Israel signed it, 2 phases were done, people were being fed and not bombed until Israel unilaterally broke that. So, you are, once again, lying to play defense for Israel.
There was no consensus or completed agreement to move into phase 2. Hamas and Israel rejected proposals each side viewed as deviations and phase 1 expired without phase 2 being actually agreed upon. I think it would be more accurate to say that Israel made decisions after phasr 1 ended when Hamas did not agree to some terms or where Israel saw no agreed phase 2 under its conditions. Both side accuse the other of violations, but the agreement was conditional from the start and was not put on paper completely until phase 3. It was a process in stages, but each step was build on the other. Phase 2 should include a permanent ceasefire... as that was never agreed upon, I don't understand how phase 2 should have ended successfully. And to simply give you a glimpse of the "fairness" of this agreement: 33 Israeli hostages (25 alive, 8 dead) were released in return for 2k - in part life long - prisoners. Mind you, the faction who got a much better deal is the massively losing side in this war, that they started.
Individual responsibility, well. Of course, it's very important. But when collective experience is ignored, then individual responsibility is an unusual concept, sometimes to the point of absurdity. For example we can wag fingers at homeless people all we want, it changes nothing about the fact that they exist for reasons we can't comprehend. They have a collective experience that isn't the same as ours.
So I ask myself: what if I was part of the homeless collective? Should I face the same repercussions for my actions as if I was a rich person? Some people would say: yes, much bigger repercussions. Others would say: no, there are mitigating factors that may not apply to rich people. Say a rich person and a homeless person break into a bank. Who should face the harsher sentence? Should it be equal? Who requires rehabilitation? Both, perhaps? Things can get fairly unusual when we view responsibility and justice from such an angle.
Justice is not blind.
|
On September 20 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
The four nations hockey tournament was a North American invitational set up by the NHL to replace its all star game. It was already politically charged just between usa and canada. I can't imagine the logic thinking that it would have been a good idea to have a russian team there.
The level of cultural damage to the image of russia and Isreal is pretty similar I would say. As much as Trump wanted to make putin his public friend you're not going to get over the warcrimes footage being so plentiful and in such high quality.
throughout the ~8 year Soviet Union invasion and decimation of Afghanistan ... the Soviets continued to get invited to every Canada Cup and Super Series and on and on. These were all North American based events.
Regarding 4 Nations ... I'd say Hockey Canada was gun shy due to that gang rape trial and they were being overly politically correct in all areas possible. This contributed to Russia not getting invited.
When the Soviet Union got invited in the 80s it was not 100% universal agreement btw. The guy who owned the Toronto Maple Leafs and the #1 hockey arena in Canada said they'd use the money they were being paid to build bombs to kill Canadians. He refused to allow the Soviet Union to play in the hockey arena he owned. This is why all these big events... strangely... you'll never see a game in Canada's biggest city between Canada and the Soviet Union.
On September 19 2025 21:44 Jankisa wrote:
Every step of the way humans have been under-reacting to insane shit
this is nothing new though. the Soviet Union hockey team sold out NA arenas every where they played. no one cared. same shit.. different decade and century. The "Miracle On Ice" occurred just as the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. When you watch the movie "Miracle" it is totally glossed over. no one cared.
and its not just within the USA where there was total apathy. The Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan were very well known by 1987. Canadians didn't care. The Soviet Union//Team Canada hockey games in 1987 drew the highest TV ratings of all time.
again man, same shit... different decade. there is nothing remarkable about what is going on in 2025.
On September 19 2025 21:44 Jankisa wrote:
Every step of the way humans have been under-reacting to insane shit, and now we are in a state where tens of thousands defenseless people who have nothing to do with Hamas are being slaughtered while people on forums make comparisons to WW2 and argue semantics.
you are more than welcome to head on over there and try and stop it. Charlie Kirk criticized Israel's actions and look what that got him. if Candace Owens doesn't shut up soon... she's next. I think she is going to get a shot across the bow and then she'll shut up. She can be a 21st Century Martha Stewart and start her own cooking show. Ms. Owens has already put forth a set of requirements that will result in her shutting up about Israel. So she has already created an exit plan.
it is fascinating watching how "Conservative Inc." deals with their members who rationally and reasonably criticize Israel.
By "Conservative Inc" i'm referring to Ben Shapiro, Dan Crenshaw, the Heritage Foundation., Daily Wire etc.
|
Northern Ireland25757 Posts
On September 20 2025 07:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
The four nations hockey tournament was a North American invitational set up by the NHL to replace its all star game. It was already politically charged just between usa and canada. I can't imagine the logic thinking that it would have been a good idea to have a russian team there.
The level of cultural damage to the image of russia and Isreal is pretty similar I would say. As much as Trump wanted to make putin his public friend you're not going to get over the warcrimes footage being so plentiful and in such high quality. throughout the ~8 year Soviet Union invasion and decimation of Afghanistan ... the Soviets continued to get invited to every Canada Cup and Super Series and on and on. These were all North American based events. Regarding 4 Nations ... I'd say Hockey Canada was gun shy due to that gang rape trial and they were being overly politically correct in all areas possible. This contributed to Russia not getting invited. When the Soviet Union got invited in the 80s it was not 100% universal agreement btw. The guy who owned the Toronto Maple Leafs and the #1 hockey arena in Canada said they'd use the money they were being paid to build bombs to kill Canadians. He refused to allow the Soviet Union to play in the hockey arena he owned. This is why all these big events... strangely... you'll never see a game in Canada's biggest city between Canada and the Soviet Union. Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 21:44 Jankisa wrote:
Every step of the way humans have been under-reacting to insane shit, and now we are in a state where tens of thousands defenseless people who have nothing to do with Hamas are being slaughtered while people on forums make comparisons to WW2 and argue semantics.
you are more than welcome to head on over there and try and stop it. Charlie Kirk criticized Israel's actions and look what that got him. if Candace Owens doesn't shut up soon... she's next. I think she is going to get a shot across the bow and then she'll shut up. She can be a 21st Century Martha Stewart and start her own cooking show. Ms. Owens has already put forth a set of requirements that will result in her shutting up about Israel. So she has already created an exit plan. it is fascinating watching how "Conservative Inc." deals with their members who rationally and reasonably criticize Israel. By "Conservative Inc" i'm referring to Ben Shapiro, Dan Crenshaw, the Heritage Foundation., Daily Wire etc.
Such events were a rare chance for diplomacy via sports, in a war that was Cold not hot.
Not really equivalent to today’s scenario at all.
Also why are you bringing back this insane idea I’ve already told you was bollocks that you can’t criticise Israel without being killed? There’s no evidence that that was a contributing factor in Kirk’s death, as a critic he was exceptionally mild compared to many, many others who’ve been consistent critics, for decades and remained very much alive.
It’s the sort of thing I see anti-Semites of all stripes say, I don’t for a second think this is your intention, but come on man. Don’t need that kind of rhetoric on TL
|
On September 20 2025 07:39 WombaT wrote:
Such events were a rare chance for diplomacy via sports, in a war that was Cold not hot.
Not really equivalent to today’s scenario at all.
there is nothing special about apathy to human suffering. it happened in 1987 and its happening today in 2025.
Also, you don't think the Cold War was a thing in the 80s? huh? USA military spending went from 100B to 300B under Reagan. the conflict between the Soviets and USA was nasty. The Soviets were banned from the 1984 LA Olympics.
Clearly, Canadian hockey fans.. starving for a "best on best" event did not care and were happy to sell out every Soviet Union//Team Canada game in the 1980s.
On September 20 2025 07:39 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2025 07:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 20 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
The four nations hockey tournament was a North American invitational set up by the NHL to replace its all star game. It was already politically charged just between usa and canada. I can't imagine the logic thinking that it would have been a good idea to have a russian team there.
The level of cultural damage to the image of russia and Isreal is pretty similar I would say. As much as Trump wanted to make putin his public friend you're not going to get over the warcrimes footage being so plentiful and in such high quality. throughout the ~8 year Soviet Union invasion and decimation of Afghanistan ... the Soviets continued to get invited to every Canada Cup and Super Series and on and on. These were all North American based events. Regarding 4 Nations ... I'd say Hockey Canada was gun shy due to that gang rape trial and they were being overly politically correct in all areas possible. This contributed to Russia not getting invited. When the Soviet Union got invited in the 80s it was not 100% universal agreement btw. The guy who owned the Toronto Maple Leafs and the #1 hockey arena in Canada said they'd use the money they were being paid to build bombs to kill Canadians. He refused to allow the Soviet Union to play in the hockey arena he owned. This is why all these big events... strangely... you'll never see a game in Canada's biggest city between Canada and the Soviet Union. On September 19 2025 21:44 Jankisa wrote:
Every step of the way humans have been under-reacting to insane shit, and now we are in a state where tens of thousands defenseless people who have nothing to do with Hamas are being slaughtered while people on forums make comparisons to WW2 and argue semantics.
you are more than welcome to head on over there and try and stop it. Charlie Kirk criticized Israel's actions and look what that got him. if Candace Owens doesn't shut up soon... she's next. I think she is going to get a shot across the bow and then she'll shut up. She can be a 21st Century Martha Stewart and start her own cooking show. Ms. Owens has already put forth a set of requirements that will result in her shutting up about Israel. So she has already created an exit plan. it is fascinating watching how "Conservative Inc." deals with their members who rationally and reasonably criticize Israel. By "Conservative Inc" i'm referring to Ben Shapiro, Dan Crenshaw, the Heritage Foundation., Daily Wire etc. Such events were a rare chance for diplomacy via sports, in a war that was Cold not hot. Not really equivalent to today’s scenario at all. Also why are you bringing back this insane idea I’ve already told you was bollocks that you can’t criticise Israel without being killed? There’s no evidence that that was a contributing factor in Kirk’s death, as a critic he was exceptionally mild compared to many, many others who’ve been consistent critics, for decades and remained very much alive. It’s the sort of thing I see anti-Semites of all stripes say, I don’t for a second think this is your intention, but come on man. Don’t need that kind of rhetoric on TL
Kirk was a big part of Conservative Inc. Conservative Inc demands 100% support of Israel. You can be critical of Israel as say , a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, and no one cares. You can't be very rationally and reasonably critical of Israel as Kirk was and remain in Conservative Inc. Please note, Kirk thinks the IDF "stood down" on October 7. A guy with his reach and viewership can't say stuff like that on a Conservative Inc platform man.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/T_64j75Y92M
Kirk stated the official October 7 story is "very hard to believe". It is fine for some random lefty to say this. You can not say this as a very powerful voice within Conservative Inc.
Evidence? A quickly reassembled Mauser 98 is not accurate enough to pull off that shot. Robinson could easily be just as much a patsy as Lee Harvey Oswald.
Have we heard a negative word about Israel out of Matt Walsh's mouth since Kirk died?
Candace Owens is doing a lot of yapping relating Kirk's death to his critical analysis of Israel... but she got kicked out of Conservative Inc 18 months ago.
My view on Kirk's death is congruent with the analysis of Candace Owens and Matt Walsh. This does not mean I 100% agree with every syllable both utter. Generally speaking, I think they are on the right track.
start at 6 minutes and 7 seconds. IMO, Talking like this.. Ms. Owens is putting her life on the line.
netanyahu says "they got Charlie Kirk". ya man, whatever.
|
On September 20 2025 07:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
My view on Kirk's death is congruent with the analysis of Candace Owens and Matt Walsh.
It makes sense that it's dumb as fuck then
|
Northern Ireland25757 Posts
On September 20 2025 07:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2025 07:39 WombaT wrote:
Such events were a rare chance for diplomacy via sports, in a war that was Cold not hot.
Not really equivalent to today’s scenario at all.
there is nothing special about apathy to human suffering. it happened in 1987 and its happening today in 2025. Also, you don't think the Cold War was a thing in the 80s? huh? USA military spending went from 100B to 300B under Reagan. the conflict between the Soviets and USA was nasty. The Soviets were banned from the 1984 LA Olympics. Clearly, Canadian hockey fans.. starving for a "best on best" event did not care and were happy to sell out every Soviet Union//Team Canada game in the 1980s. Show nested quote +On September 20 2025 07:39 WombaT wrote:On September 20 2025 07:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On September 20 2025 00:16 Sermokala wrote:
The four nations hockey tournament was a North American invitational set up by the NHL to replace its all star game. It was already politically charged just between usa and canada. I can't imagine the logic thinking that it would have been a good idea to have a russian team there.
The level of cultural damage to the image of russia and Isreal is pretty similar I would say. As much as Trump wanted to make putin his public friend you're not going to get over the warcrimes footage being so plentiful and in such high quality. throughout the ~8 year Soviet Union invasion and decimation of Afghanistan ... the Soviets continued to get invited to every Canada Cup and Super Series and on and on. These were all North American based events. Regarding 4 Nations ... I'd say Hockey Canada was gun shy due to that gang rape trial and they were being overly politically correct in all areas possible. This contributed to Russia not getting invited. When the Soviet Union got invited in the 80s it was not 100% universal agreement btw. The guy who owned the Toronto Maple Leafs and the #1 hockey arena in Canada said they'd use the money they were being paid to build bombs to kill Canadians. He refused to allow the Soviet Union to play in the hockey arena he owned. This is why all these big events... strangely... you'll never see a game in Canada's biggest city between Canada and the Soviet Union. On September 19 2025 21:44 Jankisa wrote:
Every step of the way humans have been under-reacting to insane shit, and now we are in a state where tens of thousands defenseless people who have nothing to do with Hamas are being slaughtered while people on forums make comparisons to WW2 and argue semantics.
you are more than welcome to head on over there and try and stop it. Charlie Kirk criticized Israel's actions and look what that got him. if Candace Owens doesn't shut up soon... she's next. I think she is going to get a shot across the bow and then she'll shut up. She can be a 21st Century Martha Stewart and start her own cooking show. Ms. Owens has already put forth a set of requirements that will result in her shutting up about Israel. So she has already created an exit plan. it is fascinating watching how "Conservative Inc." deals with their members who rationally and reasonably criticize Israel. By "Conservative Inc" i'm referring to Ben Shapiro, Dan Crenshaw, the Heritage Foundation., Daily Wire etc. Such events were a rare chance for diplomacy via sports, in a war that was Cold not hot. Not really equivalent to today’s scenario at all. Also why are you bringing back this insane idea I’ve already told you was bollocks that you can’t criticise Israel without being killed? There’s no evidence that that was a contributing factor in Kirk’s death, as a critic he was exceptionally mild compared to many, many others who’ve been consistent critics, for decades and remained very much alive. It’s the sort of thing I see anti-Semites of all stripes say, I don’t for a second think this is your intention, but come on man. Don’t need that kind of rhetoric on TL Kirk was a big part of Conservative Inc. Conservative Inc demands 100% support of Israel. You can be critical of Israel as say , a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, and no one cares. You can't be very rationally and reasonably critical of Israel as Kirk was and remain in Conservative Inc. Please note, Kirk thinks the IDF "stood down" on October 7. A guy with his reach and viewership can't say stuff like that on a Conservative Inc platform man. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/T_64j75Y92MKirk stated the official October 7 story is "very hard to believe". It is fine for some random lefty to say this. You can not say this as a very powerful voice within Conservative Inc. Evidence? A quickly reassembled Mauser 98 is not accurate enough to pull off that shot. Robinson could easily be just as much a patsy as Lee Harvey Oswald. Have we heard a negative word about Israel out of Matt Walsh's mouth since Kirk died? Candace Owens is doing a lot of yapping relating Kirk's death to his critical analysis of Israel... but she got kicked out of Conservative Inc 18 months ago. My view on Kirk's death is congruent with the analysis of Candace Owens and Matt Walsh. This does not mean I 100% agree with every syllable both utter. Generally speaking, I think they are on the right track. start at 6 minutes and 7 seconds. IMO, Talking like this.. Ms. Owens is putting her life on the line. netanyahu says "they got Charlie Kirk". ya man, whatever.
That’s not evidence. Whatsoever. Some cursory Googling told me, depending on proficiency a Mauser 98 is accurate from 300-500 metres, even the lower end of that band far exceeds the shooter’s position.
You’re talking quack shit here. You seem to have a lot of familiarity with all these folks and their views, I’m seeing something of a link between the two.
You seem a bright guy who consumes the shittest media possible (hello Asmongold), have you considered like, not doing that?
|
Northern Ireland25757 Posts
On September 20 2025 03:43 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2025 03:20 WombaT wrote:On September 20 2025 00:36 Billyboy wrote:On September 19 2025 21:44 Jankisa wrote:States go as far as the other, more powerful states allow them to. Russia invaded Ukraine and Israel took note. Trump did January 6th and got away with it and understood that blatant political violence is now tolerated. Every step of the way humans have been under-reacting to insane shit, and now we are in a state where tens of thousands defenseless people who have nothing to do with Hamas are being slaughtered while people on forums make comparisons to WW2 and argue semantics. People voted for this, people in Israel voted for Nethyanahu and Smotrich and Ben Gvir, I can't do much, but I will not look at Israeli's in the same way ever again. People voted for Putin, time after time after time, they voted for him after he leveled Grozny, they voted for him after he seized Crimea and his "rebbels" downed an airplane full of Europeans, they voted for him after he left hundreds of sailors die horrible deaths in Kursk submarine disaster. People in the US voted for Trump after he was convicted for sexual assault, they voted for him after 2 impeachments and January 6th, they voted for him despite him being "best friends with Epstein". I'll always have love in my life for individuals, but if you are someone I work with, be it American, Israeli or Russian, I will judge you based on who you voted for, and if you voted for this I will work with you but I will have no respect for you and will actively work to distance myself as much as possible from you and yours. You guys can keep on yelling Hamas this, Hamas, that, but the vast majority of Palestinians who are dying every fucking day did not vote for this, the last elections in Gaza were held in 2006, all the children and most adults in Gaza (median age is 18) weren't even alive then. This is not about Hamas, they tried to negotiate, they tried to find a way where they survive and give hostages back, there was a done ceasefire deal, Israel broke it. This all could have been over since May 5th. Israel decided against it, because of their, according to most experts, unachievable goal of exterminating an organization that with every murdered child, every tank shell hitting a hospital and killing nurses, responders and journalist, every bomb in a refugee camp, every child sniped at a food gathering point gets more and more recruits. It's a perpetual conflict, and Israel wants it like that. This is not about humans being broken, it's about a number of broken humans trying to kill as many of "the enemy" as they can while caring about absolutely nothing else. There is so much wrong with this post and much of what you post, but you really jumped the shark with Putin being democratically elected. Whatever media you are consuming you need to stop. You might already be to far gone, but if there is hope it will require you to stop all social media and youtube. Good luck! Where did they say Putin was democratically elected? This is what he said, after saying the same about Israel, unless he doesn't think Israel is a democracy. Like what are you reading? Show nested quote +People voted for Putin, time after time after time, they voted for him after he leveled Grozny, they voted for him after he seized Crimea and his "rebbels" downed an airplane full of Europeans, they voted for him after he left hundreds of sailors die horrible deaths in Kursk submarine disaster.
And I mean most of his posts in this thread are just filled with shit he just plain makes up. Like Hamas is so disorganized they couldn't have even planned this attack it is just lone terror cells working on their own. This is just pure head cannon he creates to justify his position. And not only is it false, Hamas even has communication people. But it would counter his whole argument that Hamas was negotiating until this attack. How could a disorganized set of terror cells have any sort of negotiation? They couldn't deliver on anything, nor could they even do it. He has a totally warped version of how this relates to Ukraine and Russia, basically the opposite of every Ukrainian war blogger. He has no basis of reality when it comes to this topic, just spewing hate. KT said nothing remotely pro Israel, and when I read it, I was like " shit guy is about to be attacked by the ghouls for not hating hard enough". I was saying it tongue and cheek, but then in it comes. It is impossible to have an actual conversation on this thread unless all you want to talk about is how evil and awful Israel is and how they also would be even more evil if they could. Heck if you even talk bad about Hamas you get attacked. And of course, you are there to jump in and attack first chance you get. So that is fun too.
Didn’t say Putin was democratically elected though did they? Just that he got some votes.
I’m just being fastidiously correct in my engagements in this thread, as that’s the standard we hold to. I think it’s important. I can read the lay of the land.
For example it’s very important to take a post that’s exasperated about citizens enabling atrocity and completely sidestep it to point out Putin’s position doesn’t owe itself to entirely democratic means. Very important, I respect that.
It’s also super important to point out that Israel’s recent Qatar antics didn’t kill negotiators. Because of course functionally there hasn’t been any impediment to negotiation, I mean they’re still alive after all, and Israel bombing Qatar won’t have any ramifications or alter courses whatsoever
|
On September 19 2025 18:06 KT_Elwood wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2025 03:50 Jankisa wrote:What was Israel up to in Gaza over the weekend: Short video from Al JazeeraMore then 1500 homes destroyed. Systematically leveling high rise buildings. Using drones to shoot at a hospital. Displacing 900.000 people ordering them to leave for a camp that does not have enough resources for them. What, exactly does any of this have to do with Hamas? Hamas is always rebuilding from "civilian" infrastructure, they were handed over the control in 2007, kept building rockets from water pipes and diggin tunnels under hospitals and schools and preaching hate to children. Israel is not having it anymore, and as long as they are winning, they going to remove any chances of a Hamas revival - including civilan settlements, that could again fall under Hamas leadership. The world wide response to the IDF is: Crickets and some flags being shown. I was hoping for a hamas capitulation, and a re-education of Gaza - Hamas refuses to give up, they refuse to return hostages as signal for "Good will". Are there racists pigs in Israel. YES. Totally. But I strongly believe that Netanyahu's idea of what a mans life is worth, be it jew or arab is equaly low - a dead arab will give him votes from the right, a dead jew will make voters fearful and give him votes from the left. Hamas leadership is equally cynical. Dead kids: Good for new hate and victimhood, dead jews? Good for motivation. None of the parties is suggesting peace - they still claim the destruction of the opponent is their strategic target here. IDF wins, and continiues, Hamas gets smacked into oblivion.. yet continues. The allies in germany shot any german civilian picking up a wehrmacht rifle. They bombed everything they could to avoid costly and slow urban warfare. They didn't understand why germany wasn't giving up - historians determined that "war" was the last stage of existence for the regime. Their existence would end with the war - so why not pro long it for Months..weeks.. days.. hours. Humans are stupid and cruel. And they somehow build societies that make no sense, make everybody unhappy or dead and yet since "it's the way it is" you seemling have to endure it. That's why all the sociologistsm historians, law experts and psychologist deserve nothing but a kick in the butt. Why, in thousands of years of them researching, haven't they found out how to fix humans?
The allies actually gave food to the german populace which is a pretty big difference in itself. They let a big chunk of the administration untouch as well both on the western and soviet side. Furthermore the soviet union actually gave food to the german during the winter 45-46 while they were local famine in ukraine... Which shows how morally bankrupt stalin was as he let innocent ukranians dying of hunger to feed a society who murdered more than 20 millions soviet citizens.
However what the ally did not do is to fire 355 bullets at a terrorized 5 yo girl trapped in a car around the dead bodies of her loving ones for 3h while murdering the two medics who came to rescue her.
That's more like a einsatzgruppen thing.
Neither would allies societies have accepted such a barbary in 1945 if it happened and became public while the current support of your people toward israel's policy is still absolute and I would even say euphoric.
All in all it would be nice to stop equaling what the allies did with Israel's policies, you were not victims and never have been. And colonizing Germany wasn't the plan.
|
On September 20 2025 16:40 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 18:06 KT_Elwood wrote:On September 16 2025 03:50 Jankisa wrote:What was Israel up to in Gaza over the weekend: Short video from Al JazeeraMore then 1500 homes destroyed. Systematically leveling high rise buildings. Using drones to shoot at a hospital. Displacing 900.000 people ordering them to leave for a camp that does not have enough resources for them. What, exactly does any of this have to do with Hamas? Hamas is always rebuilding from "civilian" infrastructure, they were handed over the control in 2007, kept building rockets from water pipes and diggin tunnels under hospitals and schools and preaching hate to children. Israel is not having it anymore, and as long as they are winning, they going to remove any chances of a Hamas revival - including civilan settlements, that could again fall under Hamas leadership. The world wide response to the IDF is: Crickets and some flags being shown. I was hoping for a hamas capitulation, and a re-education of Gaza - Hamas refuses to give up, they refuse to return hostages as signal for "Good will". Are there racists pigs in Israel. YES. Totally. But I strongly believe that Netanyahu's idea of what a mans life is worth, be it jew or arab is equaly low - a dead arab will give him votes from the right, a dead jew will make voters fearful and give him votes from the left. Hamas leadership is equally cynical. Dead kids: Good for new hate and victimhood, dead jews? Good for motivation. None of the parties is suggesting peace - they still claim the destruction of the opponent is their strategic target here. IDF wins, and continiues, Hamas gets smacked into oblivion.. yet continues. The allies in germany shot any german civilian picking up a wehrmacht rifle. They bombed everything they could to avoid costly and slow urban warfare. They didn't understand why germany wasn't giving up - historians determined that "war" was the last stage of existence for the regime. Their existence would end with the war - so why not pro long it for Months..weeks.. days.. hours. Humans are stupid and cruel. And they somehow build societies that make no sense, make everybody unhappy or dead and yet since "it's the way it is" you seemling have to endure it. That's why all the sociologistsm historians, law experts and psychologist deserve nothing but a kick in the butt. Why, in thousands of years of them researching, haven't they found out how to fix humans? The allies actually gave food to the german populace which is a pretty big difference in itself. They let a big chunk of the administration untouch as well both on the western and soviet side. Furthermore the soviet union actually gave food to the german during the winter 45-46 while they were local famine in ukraine... Which shows how morally bankrupt stalin was as he let innocent ukranians dying of hunger to feed a society who murdered more than 20 millions soviet citizens. However what the ally did not do is to fire 355 bullets at a terrorized 5 yo girl trapped in a car around the dead bodies of her loving ones for 3h while murdering the two medics who came to rescue her. That's more like a einsatzgruppen thing. Neither would allies societies have accepted such a barbary in 1945 if it happened and became public while the current support of your people toward israel's policy is still absolute and I would even say euphoric. All in all it would be nice to stop equaling what the allies did with Israel's policies, you were not victims and never have been. And colonizing Germany wasn't the plan.
Stalin didn't reroute food to the Germans that was meant to go to Ukraine. He just let the food that should have gone to Ukraine rot on trains because he wanted them all to die.
Societies in that time let all sorts of awful things happen and did all sorts of awful things themselves.
Hell Canada, was doing horrible things to their aboriginals right into the 90's and during ww2 we wouldn't accept starving Jews on a boat be refugees, because of their jewishness and instead let them starve to death. Two of our great shames as a country.
|
On September 14 2025 02:18 Magic Powers wrote:
Individual responsibility, well. Of course, it's very important. But when collective experience is ignored, then individual responsibility is an unusual concept, sometimes to the point of absurdity. For example we can wag fingers at homeless people all we want, it changes nothing about the fact that they exist for reasons we can't comprehend. They have a collective experience that isn't the same as ours.
So I ask myself: what if I was part of the homeless collective? Should I face the same repercussions for my actions as if I was a rich person? Some people would say: yes, much bigger repercussions. Others would say: no, there are mitigating factors that may not apply to rich people. Say a rich person and a homeless person break into a bank. Who should face the harsher sentence? Should it be equal? Who requires rehabilitation? Both, perhaps? Things can get fairly unusual when we view responsibility and justice from such an angle.
Justice is not blind.
I think the justice system is quite clear here. That is why repeated offenders tend to get harsher sentences than first-timers and mitigating circumstances (like not having something to eat or being psychologically impaired) exist. Even the way of rehabilitation is based on these individual qualities if you compare psychological facilities with prisons.
In theory, both the homeless person and the rich guy should face the same legal consequences, but their circumstances may lead to different mitigating/aggravating factors, so the law allows for that without resorting to collective categories. An issue of course is that in practice socio-economic status does influence sentencing through various factors and as everything, the law is thus not perfect.
And I guess most of these mitigating or aggravating factors are individually assessed, as collective responsibility/guilt/punishment is a pretty huge marker for a shit ton of bad decisions historically.
How would you treat cultural upbringing in light of the law from your POV about collective experience?
|
On September 21 2025 14:30 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2025 02:18 Magic Powers wrote:
Individual responsibility, well. Of course, it's very important. But when collective experience is ignored, then individual responsibility is an unusual concept, sometimes to the point of absurdity. For example we can wag fingers at homeless people all we want, it changes nothing about the fact that they exist for reasons we can't comprehend. They have a collective experience that isn't the same as ours.
So I ask myself: what if I was part of the homeless collective? Should I face the same repercussions for my actions as if I was a rich person? Some people would say: yes, much bigger repercussions. Others would say: no, there are mitigating factors that may not apply to rich people. Say a rich person and a homeless person break into a bank. Who should face the harsher sentence? Should it be equal? Who requires rehabilitation? Both, perhaps? Things can get fairly unusual when we view responsibility and justice from such an angle.
Justice is not blind. I think the justice system is quite clear here. That is why repeated offenders tend to get harsher sentences than first-timers and mitigating circumstances (like not having something to eat or being psychologically impaired) exist. Even the way of rehabilitation is based on these individual qualities if you compare psychological facilities with prisons. In theory, both the homeless person and the rich guy should face the same legal consequences, but their circumstances may lead to different mitigating/aggravating factors, so the law allows for that without resorting to collective categories. An issue of course is that in practice socio-economic status does influence sentencing through various factors and as everything, the law is thus not perfect. And I guess most of these mitigating or aggravating factors are individually assessed, as collective responsibility/guilt/punishment is a pretty huge marker for a shit ton of bad decisions historically. How would you treat cultural upbringing in light of the law from your POV about collective experience?
If a society has failed a group of people, then I think that group is less deserving of a sentence (or the severity of a sentence) for a crime.
Should someone in a developed country with a regular income doing package theft face a harsher sentence or a milder one than an aid stealing Gazan?
PS: I don't believe in punishment to begin with. I believe in defense, protection and rehabilitation. Prison should be for protection and lead to rehabilitation. There should never be any punishment.
|
On September 21 2025 17:19 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2025 14:30 PremoBeats wrote:On September 14 2025 02:18 Magic Powers wrote:
Individual responsibility, well. Of course, it's very important. But when collective experience is ignored, then individual responsibility is an unusual concept, sometimes to the point of absurdity. For example we can wag fingers at homeless people all we want, it changes nothing about the fact that they exist for reasons we can't comprehend. They have a collective experience that isn't the same as ours.
So I ask myself: what if I was part of the homeless collective? Should I face the same repercussions for my actions as if I was a rich person? Some people would say: yes, much bigger repercussions. Others would say: no, there are mitigating factors that may not apply to rich people. Say a rich person and a homeless person break into a bank. Who should face the harsher sentence? Should it be equal? Who requires rehabilitation? Both, perhaps? Things can get fairly unusual when we view responsibility and justice from such an angle.
Justice is not blind. I think the justice system is quite clear here. That is why repeated offenders tend to get harsher sentences than first-timers and mitigating circumstances (like not having something to eat or being psychologically impaired) exist. Even the way of rehabilitation is based on these individual qualities if you compare psychological facilities with prisons. In theory, both the homeless person and the rich guy should face the same legal consequences, but their circumstances may lead to different mitigating/aggravating factors, so the law allows for that without resorting to collective categories. An issue of course is that in practice socio-economic status does influence sentencing through various factors and as everything, the law is thus not perfect. And I guess most of these mitigating or aggravating factors are individually assessed, as collective responsibility/guilt/punishment is a pretty huge marker for a shit ton of bad decisions historically. How would you treat cultural upbringing in light of the law from your POV about collective experience? If a society has failed a group of people, then I think that group is less deserving of a sentence (or the severity of a sentence) for a crime. Should someone in a developed country with a regular income doing package theft face a harsher sentence or a milder one than an aid stealing Gazan? PS: I don't believe in punishment to begin with. I believe in defense, protection and rehabilitation. Prison should be for protection and lead to rehabilitation. There should never be any punishment.
I see your point about societal failure but aren't you changing the dimension? Cultural influence versus collective responsibility?
I also don't understand the need for collective application as both cases can be treated on an individual basis.
"Why did they steal and are there individual mitigating or aggravating circumstances?"
|
|
|
Fantastic news!
On September 21 2025 20:28 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2025 17:19 Magic Powers wrote:On September 21 2025 14:30 PremoBeats wrote:On September 14 2025 02:18 Magic Powers wrote:
Individual responsibility, well. Of course, it's very important. But when collective experience is ignored, then individual responsibility is an unusual concept, sometimes to the point of absurdity. For example we can wag fingers at homeless people all we want, it changes nothing about the fact that they exist for reasons we can't comprehend. They have a collective experience that isn't the same as ours.
So I ask myself: what if I was part of the homeless collective? Should I face the same repercussions for my actions as if I was a rich person? Some people would say: yes, much bigger repercussions. Others would say: no, there are mitigating factors that may not apply to rich people. Say a rich person and a homeless person break into a bank. Who should face the harsher sentence? Should it be equal? Who requires rehabilitation? Both, perhaps? Things can get fairly unusual when we view responsibility and justice from such an angle.
Justice is not blind. I think the justice system is quite clear here. That is why repeated offenders tend to get harsher sentences than first-timers and mitigating circumstances (like not having something to eat or being psychologically impaired) exist. Even the way of rehabilitation is based on these individual qualities if you compare psychological facilities with prisons. In theory, both the homeless person and the rich guy should face the same legal consequences, but their circumstances may lead to different mitigating/aggravating factors, so the law allows for that without resorting to collective categories. An issue of course is that in practice socio-economic status does influence sentencing through various factors and as everything, the law is thus not perfect. And I guess most of these mitigating or aggravating factors are individually assessed, as collective responsibility/guilt/punishment is a pretty huge marker for a shit ton of bad decisions historically. How would you treat cultural upbringing in light of the law from your POV about collective experience? If a society has failed a group of people, then I think that group is less deserving of a sentence (or the severity of a sentence) for a crime. Should someone in a developed country with a regular income doing package theft face a harsher sentence or a milder one than an aid stealing Gazan? PS: I don't believe in punishment to begin with. I believe in defense, protection and rehabilitation. Prison should be for protection and lead to rehabilitation. There should never be any punishment. I see your point about societal failure but aren't you changing the dimension? Cultural influence versus collective responsibility? I also don't understand the need for collective application as both cases can be treated on an individual basis. "Why did they steal and are there individual mitigating or aggravating circumstances?"
Individual circumstances have been tried and largely failed. The justice system isn't equipped for that. Court cases drag on and on, get super costly, and then real justice is rare. Punishment is the norm, rehabilitation the exception, things only get worse for criminals. This is not a good system.
If we want to make progress, we have to view people as part of a group that has distinct challenges from other groups. Individual justice such as that in courts has to incorporate various social justices, or else it'll continue to stagnate and nothing will improve from this point forward.
Basically I think criminals from various backgrounds should be viewed as its own group facing distinct challenges within each distinct background. It's time that we move our whole approach to criminality from punishment to rehabilitation.
|
Kier Starmer should now be arrested on terrorism charges.
He has done more today to support Palestine Action than any of the 1000+ he has had arrested for supporting them.
|
tell me where the link goes without me having to click it
|
Northern Ireland25757 Posts
Recognising Palestinian statehood opens another question - who would lead it? - BBC InDepth
Decent wee summary of some of the practical factors surrounding this.
I mean, it’s not bad news, it’s something, although how impactful it will be remains to be seen. Worst case I suppose is ‘well we’ve recognised statehood, that’s our job done!’
From me own perspective as a Brit, the mere fact Starmer’s Labour are willing to do something that pisses off Israel, and the Israel-supporting cohort in the UK is almost a positive thing in and of itself. Although, as Jock points out, there’s almost a sense of trying to have it both ways on this topic rather than having a firm, principled stance.
Next up, if we could bar our firms selling them arms, that would be great…
But, I wouldn’t actually bet against it, equally, I wouldn’t bet on it. But it does feel the winds are gradually blowing that way towards more tangible sanctions.
I expect some movement from at least some of Europe, at least the more firmly pro-Palestine ones like a Spain or Ireland. Not from a Germany any time soon, or some of those that are more firmly pro-Israel.
The UK, I think is pretty split down the middle overall. However, Labour voters, less so. Although even then it’s not like it’s overwhelmingly pro-Palestine.
One has to laugh, or I suppose one could cry at the responses from Israeli officials and the staunch advocates over here about this ‘rewarding Hamas’. We haven’t actually done anything, what’s more it’s been made profoundly clear that any hypothetical Palestinian state cannot have Hamas involved in any kind of governance.
It’s breathtakingly disingenuous. Could it possibly be bombing civilians for years, expanding settlements and the rhetoric of very senior members of government? No, it is the children who are wrong
|
So, if Palestine isn't a state, does it mean the conflict was internal and the options available were limited? If so what are the options that are available now that wasn't available before? I'm sure there is big significant differences, but I'm honestly not seeing it.
Anyone actually going to have some boots on the ground there or is it just gonna be more yelling "please stop". Even with the maximum sanctions, Israel could probably just sit there and continue the starvation tbh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
