531–540 of 903 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen comments saying "yes please, show me more bombings, I love to see them die" not taken down, because "them" was palestinians. I wonder how long the comment would have been up, if it was referring to the other side instead. edit: I see from the downvotes that my experience doesn't fit your bias. Sorry people -_-
Maybe the "them" was referred to hamas terrorists?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you okay with Israel saying 'from the river Israel will prosper'? https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2023/10/ha... Where will Jews live if there is a Palestinian state from river to sea?
I'm fine with that. Looking at a map I see plenty of room for 2 states to exist; nobody is going to get everything they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why "From the river to the see" would be hateful in isolation. Certainly some people who say it may have hateful thoughts in their minds, but wishing for palestinian land where Israel is now is not hateful in itself.
Don't you really understand why it's an hateful speech when you wish my country stop to exists?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In such a situation, I foresee something more like the splitting of the Roman Empire. There's no reason to stop serving global customers just because the users are separated from HQ. Especially if the servers are already on both sides of the geo-political border.
The Roman Empire split was relatively friendly. Theodosius split it between his two sons.
The last east/west split was different on that it was that last one.
In a way, you could look at the period of absolute control by a single person as an exception in Roman history.
[flagged]
There was a post upvoted highly at the beginning of this current war, by scholar opinions about the situation in Palestine but it was removed completely, not just flagged or deleted. But full removal which I've not observed before on HN. It was something like this https://opiniojuris.org/2023/10/18/public-statement-scholars... HN claims they are different but they sensor more than Reddit, where at least have to be as…
I'd like to know which HN post you're talking about, so I can say exactly what happened. Whatever post it was, it wasn't from the site opiniojuris.org. The most recent HN submission from that site was 10 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=opiniojuris.org
Interestingly if you read the actual report from HRW, it sounds like most of the material they are referring too was legitimately taken down because it supported violence, according to Meta's policies. For example, the phrase "from the river to the see" is considered hateful by many, so it was taken down. In other cases the content praised attacks by Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the US go…
So the phrase "from the river to the sea" is hateful to many but when it comes to disrespect Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or Quran then it becomes freedom of speech no matter a vast majority of world population hates it. Hypocrisy to say the least!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"At the beginning of the conflict..."
Yes... You had plenty of people saying "this is going to be your own version of Afghanistan/Iraq if you decide to do what you want to do..." Israel wanted revenge, not a solution. Their strategy has guaranteed that there will be another cycle of violence as the kids that grew up seeing their parents blown up in airstrikes are understandably going to be ripe for recruiting into whatever organization steps into power i…
This worldview also shows a lack of understanding of conflicts: why the “proportional response” assumption is nonsensical. Wars are extensions of political means, and the political objective is to remove Hamas as a viable regime or fighting force. However as much violence to achieve this will be expended: possibly no more if one side surrenders today. To think the cost will be or an eye for an eye is beyond naive. To think it should be is retributive.
Unfortunately wars tear down all humanitie’s values and no side is innocent. Yet justice is a stochastic process, such that each person thinks at the back of their head and judges should the decision must fall, whose cause they would get behind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why "From the river to the see" would be hateful in isolation. Certainly some people who say it may have hateful thoughts in their minds, but wishing for palestinian land where Israel is now is not hateful in itself.
Don't you really understand why it's an hateful speech when you wish my country stop to exists?
Censorship has been done to both people with right-wing views and left-wing views. It's not a question of if it's been done. We need to stop censorship of people on both sides. Obviously, this is very hard (or it would have been done by now). My idealist brain wants some big, overarching solution but I don't think that's really possible.
I'm not sure it's correct to classify this particular instance as either left- or right-wing; additionally, misinformation should be censored. From the article: >Examples it cites include content originating from more than 60 countries, mostly in English, and all in “peaceful support of Palestine, expressed in diverse ways”. Even HRW’s own posts seeking examples of online censorship were flagged as spam This issue se…
Misinformation is just information that people in power don't want people knowing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only a flamewar when you and PG, as it happens on a weekly basis, disagree with the comment :)
Then I must disagree with everybody, as I moderate comments from all sides of these. Anyone who looks fairly through my posting history can see that for themselves. Everyone with strong feelings on a topic feels like the mods are secretly against their view and moderating in favor of the other side [1]. I think it's because we're all hard-wired to notice the things we dislike and to weight them much more heavily [2].…