• 0 Posts
  • 80 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle
  • I’ll ask again because you dodged the important question - Does Palestine have the right to defend itself like Israel and what would that look like to you?

    Which specific 2 state solutions are you referring to? I assume it’s the ~1994 deal that collapsed because Israel couldn’t stop their terrorism and assassinations throughout the negotiations, and the Partition Plan that violated the UN charter with respect to national self-determination and carved out the majority of the territory to the minority Israeli population.

    To defend the genocide of Palestine as a necessary lesson reveals a let’s say… interesting moral framework - particularly as Israel escalates aggression against Iran and Lebanon. Putting aside the obvious genocidal intent, rhetoric, and action, how does an exterminated population learn any lesson?

    Your argument is the best possible case one could make for the genocide of Israel - they are the regional threat and aggressor - they are the ones that (by your sickening logic) need to be exterminated to teach them a lesspn. The outcomes of the actions you’re defending have civilisation-ending consequences one way or another, and zero benefit - why do you hold these positions?



  • Palestinians killed in Gaza aren’t terrorists - they’re the victims of a genocide.

    Since October 7th, 44,000 Palestinians have been killed compared to 1,706 Israelis. The stats over the past few decades don’t deviate much from this ratio. Israel is killing many times more Palestinians, and a higher ratio of children, they’re seizing land, holding many times more hostages, and committing and proudly documenting countless warcrimes.

    Does Palestine have the right to defend itself like Israel? What would that look like to you? I ask mostly because you’re actively supporting an ongoing genocide while blaming the victims of that genocide while applying inconsistent, nonsensical standards across the two groups.













  • The internet made photos of trump and putin kissing shirtless.

    And is that OK?

    I’m going to jump in on this one and say yes - it’s mostly fine.

    I look at these things through the lens of the harm they do and the benefits they deliver - consequentialism and act utilitarianism.

    The benefits are artistic, comedic and political.

    The “harm” is that Putin and or Trump might feel bad, maaaaaaybe enough that they’d kill themselves. All that gets put back up under benefits as far as I’m concerned - they’re both extremely powerful monsters that have done and will continue to do incredible harm.

    The real harm is that such works risk normalising this treatment of regular folk, which is genuinely harmful. I think that’s unlikely, but it’s impossible to rule out.

    Similarly, the dissemination of the kinds of AI fakes under discussion is a negative because they do serious,measurable harm.



  • The whole tablet UI switching had huge potential - particularly for 2-in-ones and to a lesser extent, mobile devices, but Microsoft absolutely butchered it in its infancy with atrocious execution, and by having the hubris to hobble their primary use-case (desktop) for the sake of pushing their half-baked nonsense into the mobile market. Users didn’t do themselves any favours by not understanding that you could just hit start then type the first couple of letters of what you want to launch (what kind of website double-clicking weirdo clicks through the whole start menu without pinned links or search anyway?).

    To me, it all reeks of designers/PMs/devs putting forward a super-promising concept, which was ruined by a bunch of overpaid MBA dipshits that thought they knew better.