71–80 of 171 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a shallow take. How about: people learned about the situation between Palestine and Israel and root for human rights and ability to live in safety.
> That's a shallow take. deep takes are automatically superior ?
But if you prefer to contribute nothing but low-effort snark to what should be a serious conversation, go off?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do teenagers care about this particular tragedy and not Syria or any of the horrors in Africa? Surely it can’t be the scale of killing since there are far worse civilian death tolls in conflicts around the world.
Probably because their president isn't on tv endorsing those horrors, funding them with their tax dollars and in general having their mainstream media champion them.
I'm not sure if those teens even know how to spell Yemen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Supporting Palestinians is nothing like the Tide pod challenge. Anyone who cares about human right should be extremely concerned about what Israel is doing right now.
It’s actually quite simple. Israel was out of Gaza for years prior to Oct 7. On Oct 7, Hamas targeted over 1.5 thousand civilians including babies and the aged for slaughter and kidnapping. Resulting in a military operation to suppress Hamas. So yes if your level of nuance on this is “Israel is hurting human rights, ceasefire now” and you are oblivious to who broke the ceasefire and how, then it’s not that different…
People are not pro Palestine or pro Israel, most people are simply not psychopaths and young don't carry the crystallised opinions of the older generations that "know" who is right and resort to denial when exposed to contradicting information. In social media we have bubbles but these bubbles leak because they form by huge number of categories, that is, someone in the pro-gay rights bubble isn't necessarily in the p…
This. It's not like Emmanuel Macron and the President of Singapore, who have been critical of Israel's actions here (mostly the former), are weird radical lefties, for example. They just recognize the killing of Palestinian civilians for what it is: revenge and retaliation, and a deliberate violation of the kinds of human rights that don't really "exist" unless countries make some attempt at respecting them.
Most people, if being honest, and if the victims weren't Palestinian, would recognize that a military action that is basically along the lines of "for every one of our people they killed, we will kill 10 or 20, and won't care if they are old, young, woman, child, and anyone who rejects this is a terrorist sympathizer and wanted our people to be killed", is simply logically and morally unhinged. And if the victims weren't Palestinian and mostly Muslim, and if Hamas wasn't an Islamic extremist organization, people would be less susceptible to the gaslighting about how anyone who is against the killing of Palestinian civilians is "pro-Hamas"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's a shallow take. deep takes are automatically superior ?
At the very least they demonstrate more than a bare minimum of insight and effort. But if you prefer to contribute nothing but low-effort snark to what should be a serious conversation, go off?
sure but that doesn't automatically imply outcome is superior. Occam’s razor.
> low-effort snark
what snark. maybe try reading without a lot of emotion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's a shallow take. deep takes are automatically superior ?
If they account for more details, sure. They usually are. Take the comment originally responded to. Hamas is more of an underdog than Palestine, yet the public opinion we're discussing here is pro-palestinian, not pro-hamas.
No they are not. I can very easily come up with even more convoluted take than yours and call your shallow. Doesn't mean my convoluted take is superior. eg: it unlikely that american teens on tiktok can enumerate human rights.
https://www.newscientist.com/definition/occams-razor/
"Occam’s razor is a principle often attributed to 14th–century friar William of Ockham that says that if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never saw a single protest when Obama was dropping a bomb every 20 seconds in 2016. I guess the noble peace prize made it okay.
“I don’t think people should care about government funded genocide now, after all they didn’t care before” isn’t really the dunk you think it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“I don’t think people should care about government funded genocide now, after all they didn’t care before” isn’t really the dunk you think it is.
How many civilians died in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan? Where were the protests? Israeli leadership is seen as right wing. If they were seen as left no one would even blink an eye. Obama was wholesale slaughtering people in 7 countries.