Serious The Politics Thread

[S.A.C. Martin]

I love how the UK this week suspended 30 licenses of arms shipments to Israel (none of which are likely to make any differece to the conflict) and the USA immediately declared this action could, and I quote, “undermine the peace talks”.

Like, my dudes, Netanyahu has been undermining the peace talks since day 1. The UK’s minor action designed to placate pro Palestinian voices in the UK (which has been largely unsuccessful btw, we’re still pissed at the total lack of meaningful action) has no bearing on the US led mediation efforts.

I dare say the United States are no mediator in this conflict and would politely suggest they get out of the way, and stop arming Israel, please. That would go a long way towards ending this.

 

[Local Dog]

guys, am I crazy, or does the political chaos of the US elections spill over to other countries?

I don't know what it is with my home country but we've had more radical islamism and aggressive right wing politics this year than we've had in the last 3 years combined and the authorities ain't doing shit?

Like I see islamic and right wing propaganda every single day several times on social media and nothing is done? Outright calls to violence and it's just... fucking there?

 

[ant4456]

guys, am I crazy, or does the political chaos of the US elections spill over to other countries?

I don't know what it is with my home country but we've had more radical islamism and aggressive right wing politics this year than we've had in the last 3 years combined and the authorities ain't doing shit?

Like I see islamic and right wing propaganda every single day several times on social media and nothing is done? Outright calls to violence and it's just... fucking there?

Unironically it is literally partially the fault of Elon Musk

His daughter is trans so he abandoned being the liberal "good billionaire" media guy to buy Twitter and turn it into a Right wing website. That's why Brazil is doing this stuff in the first place.

Radicalizing people into fascists has never been so easy in the 21st century, and it's never been this obvious. If you make a Twitter account it will instantly recommend you Tucker Carlson.

 

[adjectivenoun]

Unironically it is literally partially the fault of Elon Musk

His daughter is trans so he abandoned being the liberal "good billionaire" media guy to buy Twitter and turn it into a Right wing website. That's why Brazil is doing this stuff in the first place.

Radicalizing people into fascists has never been so easy in the 21st century, and it's never been this obvious. If you make a Twitter account it will instantly recommend you Tucker Carlson.

The world trembles when a nice guy loses his patience...

 

[Klobik]

Hi, I like to lurk but I felt like chipping in a little here.

Twitter is not influential enough to shift political consciousness towards fascism at the rate we're seeing in the west. While it does play a role, this has been happening for a long while now, well before Musk stopped being a "good liberal". It's a byproduct of decline.

I'd also suggest being wary of what you're reading online. You don't really know whose saying what and why or if they're even real to begin with. People who are heavily engaged and integrated online are particularly prone to radicalization and there's good incentive to optimize that discourse towards you. I'd look at your local politics and state's foreign affairs to see if that shines a light on where these positions are coming from as well as investigate some counter-positions.

That is all, have a nice day.

 

[Eroil]

Given this, I think it’s safe to say that sometimes it requires more extreme or violent protest rather than ordinary measures to make an actual difference. Yes, it’s nice to say “peaceful protest good, violent protest bad”, but at a certain point we have to realize what’s at stake and accept that unprecedented times where lives are lost so unnecessarily require unprecedented measures and impact.

I think your general claims are fair, though I do disagree. The only serious issue I have with your post is the segment quoted above. This is exactly the type of mentality that brought us here in the first place, and that caused so much damage worldwide.

When you start to enter the territory of violent protests, it very often leads to a rapid loop of worsening steps made by both sides. It's very difficult to put a line when entering violent territories, to a very extreme degree when it comes to mass protests. In such big crowds people are often very easily influenced to push that line more and more, and potentially ending in disaster. I think January 6th is a good example of that, where people were convinced the other side is so problematic and fundamentally bad for the country and its people that they rallied into the Capitol. And to be honest, compared to different times in history when a protest was pushed to this degree the result was fairly mild, which I know may seem a ridiculous thing to say.

Let me end with this question- where, and how do you put a line with violent protests, making sure they don't result in the opposite of what you're trying to achieve, and only hurting more people? And just to make it clear, I have no issues with you or think you're a problem for thinking this way, I just highly disagree with this approach being able to achieve any long lasting peaceful result.

(And on a completely different topic thx for finishing the b2w2 tier list)

 

[Eroil]

Sorry to rant again - but - politics isn’t complex.

Most of the major conflicts can be summed up by a few simple words:

Racist Supremacism
Colonialism
Asset Stripping
Asset hoarding
Religious Supremacism

Even in the context of Palestine/Israel, the ICJ advisory opinion from last week showcases how utterly simple the whole current conflict is. One country is occupying and subjugating another.

The resolution is simple: stop the occupation, withdraw forces, end apartheid.

The complexities arise out of parties not wishing to abide by agreed international law, preferring instead to continue with actions that have been clearly and supremely slammed down internationally.

The solutions to solving the simple problem are wide ranging and complex but can be summed up by BDS, which is the same set of actions taken by the international community with apartheid South Africa (which is still suffering from the effects of that long colonial occupation, but is by every measure improving year on year).

For me as an outside observer to the USA, the problem seems pretty simple to me. You have outside influences unduly undermining your first amendment rights and your democracy. Your first actions should be to address that through political means.

I encourage you to look into this issue further. Minimizing the conflict to this very specific set of reasons almost completely ignores one of the conflict's sides. There's obviously a lot that's going on that is completely disastrous in a variety of ways, and does need to stop, but simplification and one sidedness is very unhelpful as I see it.

This is a story that quite literally has thousands of years of history. Summing it up to 1 side is bad, won't get us to any long term permanent solution.

 

[ant4456]

This is exactly the type of mentality that brought us here in the first place, and that caused so much damage worldwide.

What do you mean by this?

I encourage you to look into this issue further. Minimizing the conflict to this very specific set of reasons almost completely ignores one of the conflict's sides. There's obviously a lot that's going on that is completely disastrous in a variety of ways, and does need to stop, but simplification and one sidedness is very unhelpful as I see it.

Where do you find evidence contrary to what they said?

 

[Eroil]

What do you mean by this?

Where do you find evidence contrary to what they said?

The very start of the conflict originates from the belief that violent action must be made to achieve results. And this is true to both sides. In the very early stages of Jews returning to Palestine, the story started to go quickly into the belief that both sides cannot live with each other in peace. Palestinians attacked Jews, and Jews attacked Palestinians. The British mandate was firstly supported for the most part by the Jewish population, but later on changed massively to the opinion that violent action must be made in order for progress to be made. This was an attempt to push Britain away from Palestine, which worked in the end, but the way the retreat from Palestine was done was far from satisfactory, quickly spiraling into a war, even after an attempt to peacefully divide the land by the UN. Both sides believed that the land is their own, and must be fought over. Palestinians saw the Jews as invaders of their land, and the Jews saw Palestinians as terrorists not able to accept a peaceful resolution and recognize their historical right to the land of Israel.

For your 2nd question, I'm not gonna bring any pieces of evidence to support my claims. It is a philosophical disagreement of the root cause of any problem, political or not. As I don't believe in the concept of guilt, putting it on one side is especially harmful in my view, as it causes for division. There are always two sides to every single issue, and things as racism, colonialism, belief in racial or religious supremacy are not the root causes of the issue but a result of it. The world is endlessly complex, and boiling down anything to a very simplistic set of reasons is in my view wrong regarding any single aspect of life, namely politics.

I can honestly give Pokemon itself as an example here. How many times did you see the games described as a simple rock paper scissors with extra steps? It may be less common nowadays but I used to see it all the time. But as I assume all of us here can agree on, the games are endlessly complex with an ever evolving meta in even the most basic and centralizing of formats.
Is the statement that it's RPS with extra steps wrong? Well not really. But does it tell the whole story?

 

[RaikouLover]

Professor Allan Lichtman has made his official prediction: VP Kamala Harris will defeat convicted felon Trump. 8/13 keys definitively favor the Democratic Party, meaning they will hold the White House.

Reports are also coming out that Republican elites are hoping for a Trump loss. Newsflash: felon Trump is the Republican Party. Your party is dead. Trump will run again in 2028. And again, and again until he is either locked up in prison or is dead.

 

[ant4456]

The very start of the conflict originates from the belief that violent action must be made to achieve results. And this is true to both sides. In the very early stages of Jews returning to Palestine, the story started to go quickly into the belief that both sides cannot live with each other in peace. Palestinians attacked Jews, and Jews attacked Palestinians. The British mandate was firstly supported for the most part by the Jewish population, but later on changed massively to the opinion that violent action must be made in order for progress to be made. This was an attempt to push Britain away from Palestine, which worked in the end, but the way the retreat from Palestine was done was far from satisfactory, quickly spiraling into a war, even after an attempt to peacefully divide the land by the UN. Both sides believed that the land is their own, and must be fought over. Palestinians saw the Jews as invaders of their land, and the Jews saw Palestinians as terrorists not able to accept a peaceful resolution and recognize their historical right to the land of Israel.

For your 2nd question, I'm not gonna bring any pieces of evidence to support my claims. It is a philosophical disagreement of the root cause of any problem, political or not. As I don't believe in the concept of guilt, putting it on one side is especially harmful in my view, as it causes for division. There are always two sides to every single issue, and things as racism, colonialism, belief in racial or religious supremacy are not the root causes of the issue but a result of it. The world is endlessly complex, and boiling down anything to a very simplistic set of reasons is in my view wrong regarding any single aspect of life, namely politics.

I can honestly give Pokemon itself as an example here. How many times did you see the games described as a simple rock paper scissors with extra steps? It may be less common nowadays but I used to see it all the time. But as I assume all of us here can agree on, the games are endlessly complex with an ever evolving meta in even the most basic and centralizing of formats.
Is the statement that it's RPS with extra steps wrong? Well not really. But does it tell the whole story?

See nothing in this sounds complicated.

Palestinian land was taken and then given to another group of people, and over time through conflict they both fought (and the Palestinians were right to be pissed off btw) Israel became the winner in the power struggle through Western support and Gaza became an open-air prison.

Your framing of this doesn't stop it from basically being a colonialist story. This isn't a "both sides" thing, that is Palestinian land that they had for thousands of years, and it was rightfully theirs. Western powers didn't give a fuck and just carved borders.

I think people often forget here that we are all born of this story, because most of us here speaking English come from countries that literally only exist because we Israel'd Palestinians in similar conflicts. I can only exist in America because our ancestors decided to carve up the coast of America, and eventually we drove them out of their homes, and killed them.

Any time Natives killed attacking Americans in a history book I didn't go "Ah damn, that's so sad! Why didn't they just hug it out :( !" because we literally deserved it, frankly. There is no "both sides" when people take other people's land that they've had for thousands of years and tries to drive them out. What you are viewing right now is a similar conflict, and at this rate in less than a hundred years Palestine won't exist.

Palestinians have the right to be pissed off about Israel taking its land and try to get its land back. Israel does not have the right to be mad that the people they have taken the land of do not like them.

Given your statements so far I'm going to go with a potentially incorrect assumption that you support a two-state solution to this conflict. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but even if I am, I do think this is important to say anyways.

Two-state solution sounds nuanced, mature, smart on the surface and falls apart when you think of the logistics of keeping a nation that wants to genocide the other and the nation they want to genocide next to each other, and somehow keep it altogether. It's nice to say "things are complicated" because then we don't have to address the fact that the story we are seeing here is the story of most of our Western nations that are spectating the event, and that we literally caused it in the first place. It's comforting to say "Things are complicated" and not have to address actual concerns, and to say "I want peace and both sides are wrong" without actually having any way to confront with the reality that the existence of these two nations at its core is problematic.

If you actually believe in a two-state solution I would like to hear an example from history where colonialist powers promise to not take any more land and then don't just take more land throughout the next years, and then ultimately complete the purging of locals. Because colonialist powers promising to uphold boundaries of land that they won't continue to cross and then doing it anyways years later is like The Colonialist Move, it is like the most consistent thing of these types of conflicts, and it's literally already happened in this conflict anyways.

This is all assuming that my government actually wants a two-state solution when in actuality it would not really care if Gaza didn't exist and would probably view it as convenient.

 

[Divine Retribution]

The very start of the conflict originates from the belief that violent action must be made to achieve results.

It's actually fucking wild to me that you'll decry the supposed "oversimplification" of the genocide in Gaza while saying something like this.

 

[Eroil]

See nothing in this sounds complicated.

Palestinian land was taken and then given to another group of people, and over time through conflict they both fought (and the Palestinians were right to be pissed off btw) Israel became the winner in the power struggle through Western support and Gaza became an open-air prison.

Your framing of this doesn't stop it from basically being a colonialist story. This isn't a "both sides" thing, that is Palestinian land that they had for thousands of years, and it was rightfully theirs. Western powers didn't give a fuck and just carved borders.

I think people often forget here that we are all born of this story, because most of us here speaking English come from countries that literally only exist because we Israel'd Palestinians in similar conflicts. I can only exist in America because our ancestors decided to carve up the coast of America, and eventually we drove them out of their homes, and killed them.

Any time Natives killed attacking Americans in a history book I didn't go "Ah damn, that's so sad! Why didn't they just hug it out :( !" because we literally deserved it, frankly. There is no "both sides" when people take other people's land that they've had for thousands of years and tries to drive them out. What you are viewing right now is a similar conflict, and at this rate in less than a hundred years Palestine won't exist.

Palestinians have the right to be pissed off about Israel taking its land and try to get its land back. Israel does not have the right to be mad that the people they have taken the land of do not like them.

Given your statements so far I'm going to go with a potentially incorrect assumption that you support a two-state solution to this conflict. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but even if I am, I do think this is important to say anyways.

Two-state solution sounds nuanced, mature, smart on the surface and falls apart when you think of the logistics of keeping a nation that wants to genocide the other and the nation they want to genocide next to each other, and somehow keep it altogether. It's nice to say "things are complicated" because then we don't have to address the fact that the story we are seeing here is the story of most of our Western nations that are spectating the event, and that we literally caused it in the first place. It's comforting to say "Things are complicated" and not have to address actual concerns, and to say "I want peace and both sides are wrong" without actually having any way to confront with the reality that the existence of these two nations at its core is problematic.

If you actually believe in a two-state solution I would like to hear an example from history where colonialist powers promise to not take any more land and then don't just take more land throughout the next years, and then ultimately complete the purging of locals. Because colonialist powers promising to uphold boundaries of land that they won't continue to cross and then doing it anyways years later is like The Colonialist Move, it is like the most consistent thing of these types of conflicts, and it's literally already happened in this conflict anyways.

This is all assuming that my government actually wants a two-state solution when in actuality it would not really care if Gaza didn't exist and would probably view it as convenient.

Thank you for this response. There are more aspects I disagree with rather than agree with, but I think you make some fair assessments and will try to go over everything. I may stop replying to a certain section and continue at a later late due to a lack of time.

I will start with the assessment you make in the middle that I support a 2 state solution. This is incorrect, and I agree with your opinion that it's frankly impossible under the current condition, as both sides have great hatred and fear towards the other. I may disagree with which side has a larger population that believes that the other side should be genocided, but I'm not sure if this is something I'd want to get into right now as it's very difficult to talk about without judgement.

Let's come back to your opening argument. You state that in the case, there's a clear case of one side taking over the land of another's.
Now let me ask you, how do you decide which population of people owns and is rightfully deserving of a certain piece of land?
There are multiple different views regarding who owns the land of Palestine. Is one more justified over the other?
A common belief is that the most important deciding factor is historical connection with the land. In this case for both sides there's a great connection to it thousands of years in the making. This is not a simple colonialist move. Jews have lived, and continued living in Israel for over 2000 years. While many left the land, there was always a significant portion of the population which is Jewish.

I will ignore the 2nd argument for the most part not because I don't think it's nuanced and I think it's a smart way to look at things, but because I will sumb it up to the fact that I don't believe in concept of deserving of punishment.
I will actually point out one major flaw with your argument here- the idea that eventually the Palestinian population will disappear, at least from the land of Palestine. The Palestinian population is growing at quite the rapid pace, and the war has not stopped it from doing so. There are no signs of it becoming extinct from its land, actually there's a greater chance of that happening to some modern 1st world countries like Japan (not that it is likely at all to happen, but it could be populated more and more by non Japanese, to the point they're not the majority).

Palestinians have the right to be angry, that I do agree. What actions can they make to improve their situation, is where I disagree. For the majority of the years the Palestinian attempts at solving their problem largely came down to attacks of violence of some kind against the Jewish population. It has not resulted in much progress for them, regardless if you think they're deserving or not. The greatest push that helped the Palestinians since the birth of the conflict was the Oslo accords, and later actions by the Israeli government to distance their population from Gaza and allow them to live there without Israeli control. Wether or not what they did with this opportunity has resulted in any good is up to your interpretation.

For the last few parts, I don't believe in the two state solution as a possibility as of now so I have no use answering it.

 

[Eroil]

It's actually fucking wild to me that you'll decry the supposed "oversimplification" of the genocide in Gaza while saying something like this.

Can you explain your view here? Also, I understand this is quite the heated issue but I have no interest in going down the path of insults and personal attacks. If you decide to reply to me, I'd appreciate it if you're able to covey your views in such a way that doesn't lead to feelings of being attacked. I'm not blaming you for feeling or reacting the way you do, but ask that if we were to continue in discussion that we don't go down the route of belittling the other or their opinions.

 

[Divine Retribution]

Can you explain your view here?

That it's pretty hypocritical to reduce decades of racially and religiously motivated ethnic cleansing to "a belief that violent action is necessary to achieve results", apply that same framing to a post about violent protests in the U.S, and then complain about another poster oversimplifying the ongoing genocide in Gaza. I don't understand what's so difficult for you to follow here, but if you want to ask for more specific clarification, feel free.

Also, I understand this is quite the heated issue but I have no interest in going down the path of insults and personal attacks. If you decide to reply to me, I'd appreciate it if you're able to covey your views in such a way that doesn't lead to feelings of being attacked. I'm not blaming you for feeling or reacting the way you do, but ask that if we were to continue in discussion that we don't go down the route of belittling the other or their opinions.

There was no personal attack in that post, but I'm not going to pretend like I'm above personally attacking you if I feel you deserve it, and you asking me nicely not to is not going to change my mind. It's not your place to tone police me. If you don't like the way I word my posts you can block me or get over it.

 

[Local Dog]

Any time Natives killed attacking Americans in a history book I didn't go "Ah damn, that's so sad! Why didn't they just hug it out :( !" because we literally deserved it, frankly. There is no "both sides" when people take other people's land that they've had for thousands of years and tries to drive them out. What you are viewing right now is a similar conflict, and at this rate in less than a hundred years Palestine won't exist.

You are following the idea of collective guilt, which is one of the motivators behind genocide

When the natives killed Americans, it wasn't deserved when it were Americans that did nothing but be born on land that wasn't rightfully theirs. It was just murder of innocents

Someone comitting a crime and someone else being punished for it just because these two someones share a factor that they cannot change (for example, skin color) doesn't sound very nice, does it?

I disagree with justifying violence just because it is coming from oppressed groups

 

[ant4456]

Now let me ask you, how do you decide which population of people owns and is rightfully deserving of a certain piece of land?

I'm not going to reply to this entire post but these two questions are things I would like to clarify what I mean on.

Recent historical records. There is subjectivity to it, but when a group has lived in a place for hundreds of years, to the point where its been generations and generations since anyone can even remember when their ancestors settled there, is a long time. There's also geopolitics here in play. Overall, there is subjectivity here, but I feel like there isn't much argument against Palestine having had a right to its land.

There are multiple different views regarding who owns the land of Palestine. Is one more justified over the other?
A common belief is that the most important deciding factor is historical connection with the land. In this case for both sides there's a great connection to it thousands of years in the making. This is not a simple colonialist move. Jews have lived, and continued living in Israel for over 2000 years. While many left the land, there was always a significant portion of the population which is Jewish.

Non-Palestinian people living in Palestine is not a problem to me, as I do not believe in an ethnostate; I do not think Jewish people cannot or should not live in Israel, and were Palestinians to have control over the region and bar people out due to this, I would oppose that. When I say Palestinian land I do not directly mean only Palestinians, I mean the people who have lived in Palestine.

It is an objective fact that after WWII there was a deliberate push from Western powers to essentially split off Palestinian territory and create another country inside of Palestinian land. The problem here is not people immigrating to a country, but the forceful splitting of the land in order to create an actual ethnostate on land that was not owned, without consent from any governing or civil body of the people who lived there. Instead of viewing this as people just moving there and happening to be Jewish, imagine if (I picked three random countries here) Australia decided part of China was now going to be a state for German people without China agreeing, and then they did it anyways. That would clearly be bullshit and would never fly because China has the power to defend itself. But because Palestinians did not have the power to stop the colonial powers, this is what ended up happening.

TLDR: The problem with Israel's existence isn't non-Palestinian people living in Palestine, it's the forcefully creating a second country inside of another country's land with no say whatsoever. The people there does not really matter to me. I am not someone who believes immigrants are invaders at all, but deciding this place inside another country is now your country is not the same thing.

You are following the idea of collective guilt, which is one of the motivators behind genocide

No I'm not, because I'm not saying every American deserved to get killed lol. If you read history books you would know that the majority of conflicts were American soldiers or militias being sent to wipe out camps of Native Americans, and those were fought. That isn't to say there were no killings from hatred, but that is not what I'm talking about.

Native Americans actually during the 19th century tried a lot to find peace, to have any place to live. Americans didn't really give a fuck because we had the power and they didn't. Native Americans were absolutely the victims and I don't give a shit about them killing American soldiers or militia considering what we were trying to do.

When the natives killed Americans, it wasn't deserved when it were Americans that did nothing but be born on land that wasn't rightfully theirs. It was just murder of innocents

You realize that this is an extreme minority of cases compared to the fact that we actively pushed outward to take more land and killed the people that lived there, right? Like, Native Americans were not just monsters that attacked Americans randomly. They were people with their own politics, wants, desires, and Americans tended to attack first in basically every case. Like I live in the state where we basically slaughtered them after some Natives taught us how the crops of the land worked.

Like, there isn't really any nuance here. We were the baddies.

Someone comitting a crime and someone else being punished for it just because these two someones share a factor that they cannot change (for example, skin color) doesn't sound very nice, does it?

That isn't what happened here, but now that you mention it, Americans were often extremely racist to Natives (of course) and we treated them subhumanly for hundreds of years because of the color of their skin. Some of the least racist ways (LEAST, not unracist, this is the LEAST racist we treated them) we treated Natives was still extremely racist with the concept of taking Native children and turning them Christian, and hoping they would basically lose their culture.

As an American history nerd I'm actually kinda shocked at what's on display here. Please just read like anything about the Native Americans in America. Like idk what else to tell you. We were genociding them and then they mainly just killed American soldiers/militia in retaliation.

Yes, there was some (mutual) racial hatred over time, some terrible crimes did indeed happen, they hated us because we were fucking trying to uhh kill all them (shocker they hated us), but that literally is nothing compared to what we did.

Trying to "both sides" a people that we LITERALLY genocided. Like. This isn't even like anything debatable. This is history. We did this. We literally did this, and it's in the history books. Is actually a new low for the thread.

Yeah, Native Americans were not "The Baddies", we were, they were not and yeah them killing Americans is extremely forgivable, frankly. I live in a state where we had this conflict! Let me tell you that yes, we were the baddies!

 

[Cancel cult]

and then they mainly just killed American soldiers/militia in retaliation.

the key word here is "in retaliation"
people take revenge on some people that probably weren't the ones to kill their families just because they are american is not racist how?

 

[ant4456]

the key word here is "in retaliation"
people take revenge on some people that probably weren't the ones to kill their families just because they are american is not racist how?

the sentence is literally saying that when american soldiers attacked them, they (gasp!) attacked the american soldiers back because they were trying to kill them and take their land

like idk how else to explain this in any other way: we were the aggressors in 99.9% of conflicts with native americans, and that is what im talking about because it is actually representative of what happened.

real american history isn't Western flicks where native americans are Level 25 RPG random enounter enemies roaming the western mountains in groups waiting to challenge unsuspecting americans so the plot would go forward or the cowboy would show how cool they were. we (americans) were people who hunted native americans to slaughter them and take their land. We tried to destroy their culture through "assimilation", we deliberately spread disease amongst them indiscriminately, we relocated the populations that essentially surrendered only for the new land we told them to live at to, again, be taken, and again the native americans be hunted. politicians amongst the natives often tried to barter for peace in the 19th century to almost no help.

 

[Bughouse]

Unironically it is literally partially the fault of Elon Musk

His daughter is trans so he abandoned being the liberal "good billionaire" media guy to buy Twitter and turn it into a Right wing website. That's why Brazil is doing this stuff in the first place.

Radicalizing people into fascists has never been so easy in the 21st century, and it's never been this obvious. If you make a Twitter account it will instantly recommend you Tucker Carlson.

if you make a new youtube account and google thinks you're a young male, it immediately funnels you into the Tim Pool, Andrew Tate etc garbage as recommended content. It's not only twitter. Algorithms push people to things they think you'll like and until it knows anything else about you, it says well lots of young men like this, so here you go!
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-n...right-wing-religious-content-resea-rcna155478

It's not strictly a twitter problem, but I certainly think musk pours gasoline on the fire of the algorithm to even further promote right wing content.

 

[ant4456]

if you make a new youtube account and google thinks you're a young male, it immediately funnels you into the Tim Pool, Andrew Tate etc garbage as recommended content. It's not only twitter. Algorithms push people to things they think you'll like and until it knows anything else about you, it says well lots of young men like this, so here you go!
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-n...right-wing-religious-content-resea-rcna155478

It's not strictly a twitter problem, but I certainly think musk pours gasoline on the fire of the algorithm to even further promote right wing content.

Oh yeah, algos in general be doing this stuff.

Yeah me pointing out specifically Twitter is def not the entire case, and it is def true to other people who replied that yeah, social media isn't fully to blame either in general. I think tbh I was just grumpy at Twitter specifically because I made a twitter account a month ago and it was so hard to shake off the right wing content lol

 

[Cancel cult]

the sentence is literally saying that when american soldiers attacked them, they (gasp!) attacked the american soldiers back because they were trying to kill them and take their land

That is not at all what I said.
Fighting in self defense and taking revenge are two very different things. Furthermore, they didn't attack the American soldiers back, they attacked American soldiers in general, including ones who are completely innocent. (source)

 

[Eroil]

That it's pretty hypocritical to reduce decades of racially and religiously motivated ethnic cleansing to "a belief that violent action is necessary to achieve results", apply that same framing to a post about violent protests in the U.S, and then complain about another poster oversimplifying the ongoing genocide in Gaza. I don't understand what's so difficult for you to follow here, but if you want to ask for more specific clarification, feel free.



There was no personal attack in that post, but I'm not going to pretend like I'm above personally attacking you if I feel you deserve it, and you asking me nicely not to is not going to change my mind. It's not your place to tone police me. If you don't like the way I word my posts you can block me or get over it.

I will start with the fact that I was not trying to tone police you. I just simply don't enjoy when political discussions go into areas that I see as unhealthy for conversations. When people talk to each other in such tones, the chance for a fruitful discussion is quite low in my opinion, and holds little value to me. I want to do things that make me feel happiness and partaking in such discussions does the opposite. Again I do not blame you or feel that you're unjust in the way that you speak, but I personally felt that the way you talked made me not want to start a discussion. I didn't directly say you have made a personal attack, you are fine to believe you didn't.

I will reply to your explanation but will likely stop there, as as I said I do not feel this will lead to a fruitful discussion.

I will make my position more clear. No I do not believe that everything boils down to the simple and basic explanation of belief in violence to solve issues. It is a core issue in the general human civilization in my opinion, and of course in a way lead to everything we see in the conflict to happen, but is only the surface of the issue.
Basically, what I'm saying is that the core belief in violence is like the big bang. It more or less started everything, but it doesn't explain everything just like the big bang doesn't explain why Llamas exist. Without the big bang Llamas wouldn't exist, but there's a very long list of causes that have brought Llamas into existence. This is a basic explanation of what I meant.

My attempt wasn't to complain about someone else's take, but to explain my own view. This may seem the same thing for you, but for me the difference is quite important. I am not trying to force anyone into my own set of beliefs I am just presenting mine.

I do not agree with the majority of your first paragraph beyond this, but do not see the need to explain it as for the reasons I've stated above.

 

[ant4456]

That is not at all what I said.
Fighting in self defense and taking revenge are two very different things. Furthermore, they didn't attack the American soldiers back, they attacked American soldiers in general, including ones who are completely innocent. (source)

how tf can you be innocent of being a part of the genocide of the native americans while being in the fucking american military in this time period

literally when the american military was not at direct war with another country its prime modus operandi was just killing native americans. that was like, the passive role of the military for hundreds of years.

idk what else to say to you on this. Like I don't believe in a "perfect genocide victim", victims don't have to be amazing people while they're being fucking slaughtered, their culture is being erased all while the land they owned years back is now owned by people who see you as vermin. its so fucking disgusting to both sides cultures that were fucking eradicated for simply existing on space that we, white people, wanted.

native americans really didn't do anything extraordinarily bad to the american people. i will continue to celebrate the times when they fought back when i read the history of my fucking state btw, thank you.

 

[Eroil]

I'm not going to reply to this entire post but these two questions are things I would like to clarify what I mean on.

Recent historical records. There is subjectivity to it, but when a group has lived in a place for hundreds of years, to the point where its been generations and generations since anyone can even remember when their ancestors settled there, is a long time. There's also geopolitics here in play. Overall, there is subjectivity here, but I feel like there isn't much argument against Palestine having had a right to its land.


Non-Palestinian people living in Palestine is not a problem to me, as I do not believe in an ethnostate; I do not think Jewish people cannot or should not live in Israel, and were Palestinians to have control over the region and bar people out due to this, I would oppose that. When I say Palestinian land I do not directly mean only Palestinians, I mean the people who have lived in Palestine.

It is an objective fact that after WWII there was a deliberate push from Western powers to essentially split off Palestinian territory and create another country inside of Palestinian land. The problem here is not people immigrating to a country, but the forceful splitting of the land in order to create an actual ethnostate on land that was not owned, without consent from any governing or civil body of the people who lived there. Instead of viewing this as people just moving there and happening to be Jewish, imagine if (I picked three random countries here) Australia decided part of China was now going to be a state for German people without China agreeing, and then they did it anyways. That would clearly be bullshit and would never fly because China has the power to defend itself. But because Palestinians did not have the power to stop the colonial powers, this is what ended up happening.

TLDR: The problem with Israel's existence isn't non-Palestinian people living in Palestine, it's the forcefully creating a second country inside of another country's land with no say whatsoever. The people there does not really matter to me. I am not someone who believes immigrants are invaders at all, but deciding this place inside another country is now your country is not the same thing.

Thank you for replying.
I will reply to the section of the post that retains to me.
I will ask some further follow-up questions.
What is considered recent historical records? Where do you draw the line of what is recent enough and what is not?
Where do you draw the line for people that are considered invaders that do not deserve to live in the land of Palestine? (Not saying you're calling them invaders, but wasn't sure how else to call them in this question).
Where do you draw the line of who has been long enough in this land to deserve to stay? Is it 10 generations of living there? 8? 2? And so on.
Plenty of people came to Israel since the end of WW2, and a lot before it as well. Some have lived here since the early 90s after the USSR disbanded, and some as far 1881. Where do you draw the line?
What would you do with the people deemed undeserving to live in the land of Palestine? Where do you send them? People cannot always be sent back to the place they come from, and sometimes it would quite possibly be life threatening to them.

I will not argue wether the creation of the state of Israel has any validity or not, as that does not seem quite important to me in the grand scheme of things. In the end there are people who live there, and there's need to be a change in the current system because it is clear that both sides are suffering due to this continuing war.