621–630 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is quillette a reputable source itself?
how do you gauge if a source is reputable ? genuinely curious
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's legitimately weird to see anybody defend them, as the immorality is out in the open. The past few years have really opened my eyes to the nakedly tribal nature of democratic politics. Polybius was largely correct when he said that it inevitably degenerates into oligarchy or mob-rule -- but what's especially unfortunate is that the US and Israel appear to be getting both at the same time: A naked oligarchy with j…
I’m genuinely surprised they aren’t here in this thread doing exactly that. The defenders pop up in every corner of Reddit any time anything related is mentioned. That there isn’t a similar effect here is quite interesting. Edit: I should have scrolled down more first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And he is a minister in Israel's government, not some rando. Israeli governments and actions in the last many years are simply indefensible.
It's legitimately weird to see anybody defend them, as the immorality is out in the open. The past few years have really opened my eyes to the nakedly tribal nature of democratic politics. Polybius was largely correct when he said that it inevitably degenerates into oligarchy or mob-rule -- but what's especially unfortunate is that the US and Israel appear to be getting both at the same time: A naked oligarchy with j…
Any power structure will be twisted and corrupted in the presence of these state systems to give people like Ben Gvir (or Stephen Miller, if you'd like) the platform and power to unleash their naked evil on the world. This is not unique to democracy.
I think it's upon us - all of humanity - to denounce artificial states, neocolonialism, ethnostates, and apartheid. They are founded on principles that are misanthropic, asocial, and unhumanitarian. They have always led to an immense amount of suffering. But they are not inevitable, termination mode of democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And when we both get a bit older, it may come to light that a state leader let this happen, hopefully history will show reality for what it was. Still, that doesn't absolve Hamas from any actions done, they are terrorists at it's core and the worst type, they are willing to use civilians(and babies) to further their agenda, I don't condone them and personally and think the world would be a better place without them(a…
All you have is speculative conspiracy theories and a “hope” that your imaginary facts are true. What you are actually doing is trying to blame the victim for “allowing” it to happen.
I don't believe this is victim blaming, it's clear that what hamas did is unforgivable, my previous post states so, then again, you'd not be a good parent if you let your child go to Epstein island knowing what will happen to it, yes, the victims are still victims, same as the Christmas market but the government is failing it's population, when it otherwise is capable of taking measures for it.
This all said, I'll stop engaging with you as I've had enough to debate against a "throw" account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
agreeing, but unfortunately a lot of the motivation on the Right is anti-Jew hate.
[flagged]
There is very little jew hatred on the left. just fatogue with unlimited aupport for a Israeli regime that is losing democratic and moral support due to it's...trigger word incoming...genocidal tendencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how do you gauge if a source is reputable ? genuinely curious
Who founded it, who funds it, what is the broad consensus on the coverage they typically run, what do I see in their coverage when I look through it, what have they retracted, what have they not retracted, what advertisers do they permit. Probably some other criteria, to be honest. Maybe "does the editor here seem to have a conscience".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my POV the fake news hysteria was bound to trump's propaganda efforts and nothing else really. But that's just a stupid central Europeans POV
But it absolutely wasn’t he was the most famous critic but everyone saw this who looked. Since most people didn’t dive too deep it was/is easy to post things with a spin and little real substance and people would take it is a fact because they really trusted the news outlets to not manipulate
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no enemies - they are competing parts - competing for popularity, resources, power. This makes it possible to negotiate. Enemies don't, but competitors are a lot more pragmatic.
Anglo-/Western and Russian governments have been strategic rivals for more than two centuries. Britain repeatedly sought to limit Russian expansion that threatened its own interests, such as routes to India, access to Caspian oil resources, etc. See also, the Great Game and the Eastern Question. They’re enemies because they want each others stuff. Russia has a LOT of stuff that the British would be quite happy to ‘ma…
And vice-versa, which results in the polite games being played, where everyone knows everyone else is doing shitty stuff to everyone, but nobody will ever admit it because that might cause the shitty stuff to descend into a shooting war, which is something we try to avoid as much as we can.