'Israel' burns Palestinians alive in Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital
Three Palestinians were killed and over 40 others were injured in the Israeli bombardment of makeshift tents set up by displaced Palestinians on the grounds of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza.
The Gaza Civil Defense reiterated that not a single safe place in the Strip exists, with the most recent attack against civilians and patients at the hospital serving as additional proof.
As a result of the violent bombings, fires broke out, burning at least 30 tents and civilians sheltering inside. The raging flames had been spreading to the hospital itself as civil defense crews tried to contain them.
'Israel' burns Palestinians alive in Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital
Tens of injuries and three martyrs have been recorded as "Israel" bombards displaced Palestinians' in a Gazan hospital.Al Mayadeen English ('Israel' burns Palestinians alive in Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital)
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness and Dessalines like this.
Glenluce Fishing Co Ltd är ett pelagiskt fiskeriföretag som i likhet med Nordirlands andra pelagiska fiskeriföretag hör hemma i Kilkeel, Newry.
The sino-soviet split of the modern age.
like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ and Dessalines like this.
And yet nobody can ever experience it the way it was originally again since they killed Flash.
It's like coming back from the war with PTSD and nobody understands what you went through. Except the PTSD is about buckets and dating quadrants.
Columbus probably Spanish and Jewish, study says
Christopher Columbus was likely Spanish and Jewish, study suggests
A new study shines light on a hotly contested centuries-old mystery.Alex Smith (BBC News)
Inkscape 1.4 released
Inkscape launches version 1.4, with powerful new accessible and customizable features | Inkscape
After months of waiting, we are finally ready to unbox the latest version of Inkscape... meet 1.4, the Geek edition, where accessibility and customization reign.inkscape.org
like this
Ramin Honary, ShaunaTheDead and DaGeek247 like this.
reshared this
Tech Cyborg reshared this.
I think I may have contracted some kind of brain worm, because the other day I needed to do some photo manipulation and couldn't get krita to do what I wanted, but I went into gimp and just knocked it out. I've hated gimp for years, but I guess I've used it enough that I've figured out how it works... and now I don't hate it anymore...
I think I may need help.
Oh, but I always use it in single window mode ever since that came out. The multiple windows floating panel thing drove me nuts!
Yes GIMP works too, kinda.
But stuff like writing text fields and moving them around is just horrible. The text doesnt behave as expected at all, formatting is always lost, moving instead grabs something random from the background
That works really fine in Inkscape
The filter preview feature seems really nice!
Honestly, Inkscape is at the very least almost as good as Illustrator - call me deluded but I find more intuitive in many cases.
Now if only GIMP could actually have some money pumped into it and a sane UI… 😒
gimp isn't being held back by money, they have over a million in bitcoin just sitting there from an old donation that grew in value. In over a decade, no one has figured out how to pay the taxes on it if they start using it to fund developers.
I read on reddit a long time ago that a UI designer tried to help improve gimp, but the devs were hostile to it (i may be remembering that wrong though). Considering how long its been with no UI improvements, I don't think gimp will ever revamp its UI. Instead, I think Krita has a good chance of moving into photo editing with enough funding.
Instead, I think Krita has a good chance of moving into photo editing with enough funding.
As someone who doesn't really do photo editing, one thing I never quite understood is what's missing for that to be viable right now.
For reference, the one time I had to edit a photo a few years ago, I just used Krita to move/remove a few objects and do some basic color grading. It didn't feel like there was anything missing.
Granted, I never used software like Photoshop either.
I see. So it's less about editing the pictures themself, and more about what they'll be used for.
And yeah, Krita is main image editing and drawing tool as well, helped out by Inkscape for vector graphics and Aseprite for pixel art.
Inkscape is a blast! I do some (simple) icons and the features are amazing. As for the new version 1.4:
- The new Filter Gallery is really nice, but usually I don't use filters anyway.
- The Swatches Dialog makes my life easier too, but for whatever reason I don't get the color names. It only shows the color codes s
#669900. Anyone know where to set this? - Unified Font Browser is also now up to standards and makes it a breeze to play around with fonts. No longer do I need to explicitly apply, just left click from the list will automatically update the canvas text.
- Shape Builder is really a cool functionality and I always love to use it. It saves so much time when needed, or can lead to unexpected cool effects. Now it works with raster images, to cut parts out. But they can't be edited or Trace Bitmap unfortunately. The article talks about Release Clip and unlink clone, but I don't know how to unlink clone. Hopefully this can be worked on to make it more seemless and easy. Shape Builder in general is OP (over powered).
- Dash Icon set is nice, I'm trying it out currently. Each icon is clear.
Love Inkscape, using it for 15+ years.
I sure hope they fixed the bug from the last version where it would crash if you had a drawing tablet plugged in while opening the app. That has been a huge nuisance for the last few months.
Edit: They fixed it, god bless.
Time to make a donation again!
Smugglade kokain i schampoflaskor. Ett tips från US-amerikanska myndigheter gjorde att Tullverket kunde avslöja smuggling av kokain i flaskor med hårvårdsprodukter. I en försändelse från Colombia till en kvinna i Göteborg fanns det drygt ett kilo kokainklorid.
Ubuntu turns 20: 'Oracular Oriole' shows this old bird's still got plenty of flight
Ubuntu turns 20: 'Oracular Oriole' shows this old bird's still got plenty of flight
The 24.10 release offers fun and freshness, but not immutabilityLiam Proven (The Register)
like this
ShaunaTheDead, Someplaceunknown, themadcodger and Pentoxus like this.
It's a free security upgrade that the os gives you the option to use. There is an enteprise version that includes technical support, but that is an extra addon.
There is no fee for personal use.
like this
DaGeek247 likes this.
Israeli defense officials: Gov't pushing aside hostage deal, eyeing Gaza annexation
According to senior defense officials, the Israeli government is not seeking to revive hostage talks and the political leadership is pushing for the gradual annexation of large parts of the Gaza Strip.In closed-room discussions, these officials say the chances of reaching a hostage deal appear slim right now. One of the reasons cited is that since negotiations were suspended, there has been no discussion among international players involved in the talks.
In addition, they say, Israel's political leaders have not held any discussions with the various security branches about the condition of the hostages.
Army commanders in the field who spoke with Haaretz say the recent decision to launch operations in northern Gaza was taken without any in-depth discussion. They said it appeared that the operations were aimed principally at pressuring local residents, who were again told to evacuate the area for the coast as winter is approaching.It is possible that the operation is laying the groundwork for a decision by the government to put into effect the so-called surrender or starve plan of Maj. Gen. (ret.) Giora Eiland. That plan calls for all the residents of northern Gaza to be evacuated to humanitarian zones in the south, with those choosing to remain deemed Hamas operatives and legitimate military targets. While Gazans in the south are getting humanitarian assistance, those who remain in the north will face hunger.
Defense officials who were asked to respond to the Eiland plan pointed out that it violated international law and that the chances of the United States and the international community supporting it were virtually zero. They said it would further undermine the legitimacy of Israel's entire Gaza offensive.
The Israel Defense Forces planned a wide-ranging operation in north Gaza after the collapse of the latest round of hostage talks, with the aim of pressuring Hamas to return to the negotiating table. However, Israel's war was soon redirected to the Lebanon front.
The 162nd Division, which had been operating in southern Gaza, was ordered to prepare a major assault on Jabalya refugee camp in the north, even though there was no intelligence to justify the move. The security establishment didn't unanimously back the move, and some in the army and the Shin Bet security service warned that it might endanger the lives of hostages.
Sources told Haaretz that when troops entered Jabalya, they did not directly encounter any terrorists.
The person pushing for the operation was the head of the Southern Command, Maj. Gen. Yaron Finkelman, before the first anniversary of the Gaza war.Especially since six hostages were found shot to death after Israeli forces were approaching the place they were being held, the army has been warning that ground operations are endangering the lives of the 101 hostages remaining in Gaza. More recently, Hamas issued orders to its fighters to thwart Israeli rescue operations at all costs, including executing hostages if troops are approaching.
Intelligence officials estimate that before the war erupted, some 4,000 Gazans were known to be Hamas fighters, with an even greater number in the south. Even though Hamas' Rafah Brigade has been degraded and has ceased operating as an organized army, many of the fighters left the combat zone before the IDF entered, they said. They added that other Hamas fighters are operating from camps in the Central Gaza Strip, where the IDF has not yet been active.
Meanwhile, Hamas dominates all civilian activity in the enclave. The defense establishment has urged the government to agree to some form of international governance for Gaza, but so far its appeals have been turned down. Hamas has formed a police unit called Arrow Force that numbers several hundred men. Its main task is to crack down on anyone opposed to Hamas rule. Hamas' greatest concern is that the difficult humanitarian conditions in Gaza will cause the residents to revolt.Nevertheless, after a year of war, many Gazans believe that, once the fighting is over, the organization will remain in control and therefore fear speaking out against it.
Until now, Hamas' efforts to prevent civilians from obeying IDF evacuation orders has not been successful because of the danger of remaining in evacuated areas. However, after being displaced from their homes several times in the past year, more and more residents are seemingly willing to take the risk of staying in combat zones.The defense establishment sees putting an end to Hamas rule in Gaza as a much more complex challenge than the war itself. Senior officials say that even though it has been hit hard militarily, Hamas is still the only civilian authority in Gaza. If anything, the civilian population has become more dependent on the organization than ever, partly because it distributes humanitarian aid.
Israeli defense officials: Gov't pushing aside hostage deal, eyeing Gaza annexation
IDF commanders in Gaza say the recent decision to operate in the northern part of the Strip was taken without proper deliberations, and is apparently aimed at pressuring civilians in the area to relocateYaniv Kubovich (Haaretz)
like this
Oofnik, NoneOfUrBusiness, aramis87 and Dessalines like this.
Netanyahu has consistently signaled that he does not care at all about the hostages. He’s in this war for his political survival and to stay out of jail on corruption charges.
Peace cannot possibly be achieved while he is in office. The hostages will die of starvation and thirst eventually, just like the Palestinians are doing right now en masse.
Focusing of Netanyahu is a false catharsis, it makes the problem something external and non-actionable for most people while reducing it to a single actor. I will explain what I mean by this by providing some additional context.
The first is that the US is the dominant superpower, Israel's guarantor and sponsor. It manufactures and gifts the weapons if genocide you see used to burn refugee children alive. They are manufactured by people with "good union jobs" in the US. The US creates and maintains propaganda in support of Israel, provides diplomatic cover both in the UN and direct threats and consequences for those who oppose the apartheid regime, provides direct military, logistics, and recon support, and constantly sends cash. The US is the dominant partner in that relationship and has near dictatorial power. A single call from Reagan or Bush made them stop similar campaigns. Biden, and implicitly the state apparatus behind him, are pushing the genocide button. The US is also where most, or at least a plurakity, of Lemmitors live. They can help organize against the genocide carried out his their state. If the genocide is treated as a character flaw of Netanyahu, it becomes possible to say, "well that's Israeli voters' problem".
The other important piece of context is that Netanyahu is roughly as bloodthirsty as the wider Zionist settler population. He is not actually uniquely terrible relative to the wider public, as if he is an illegitimate representative or the likely alternative is better. Bibi's unpopularity since October 7 stems from not sufficiently feeding the security and superiority complex of the ethnic supremacist society that is the Zionist entity. The public wants more "retribution". It is pissed the hostages aren't back, not that they are gemociding Gaza. They are pissed that settlers fled Northern Israel after facing 1/100th of what Palestinians face. They broke a rapist, a torturer of Palestinian prisoners out of jail over outrage that he face any consequences. They threatened state authorities into dropping it and he was paraded around on TV. They are that racist. Netanyahu's current unpopularity stems more from his lack of performance in support of ethnic supremacy. His popularity went up when they started bombing residential areas of Lebanon. All of this is to say that the genocide is popular and if Bibi were replaced you would see actions that rhyme with the current status quo. You might even see the people to his right gain power, the more overt ethnic supremacists that don't even try to pretend otherwise for foreign media.
eyeing Gaza annexation
And lebanon, and syria, and egypt, and saudi arabia...
This news is as old as zionism like 125 years.
Hmm using food as a weapon of war, could that be a war crime? /s
But seriously speaking after 1 year of gross human rights abuses and war crimes committed by the IDF and mind you all of this got normalised more or less by now.
I doubt that the US will issue anything more than a strongly worded public statement while continuing sending them weapons.
Minetest has evolved. Now, the time has come for Minetest to assume a new identity and prove it has moved beyond its original purpose.
Introducing Our New Name
After more than a year of public and internal discussions, we're ready to announce our new name!Minetest
like this
Azathoth likes this.
Mor links plz.
Edit: Geez. You really do like to find any link on the internets that justifies anything you want to believe, don't ya?
like this
Azathoth likes this.
So. Out of interest. Which alternative to presenting a dissenting opinion and sourcing it, would you prefer?
- Not presenting any dissent at all - the only opinions posted should be ones that agree with the mainstream view?
- Present a dissenting opinion, but don't provide any evidence for it?
- Present a dissenting opinion but then provide evidence supporting the mainstream opinion instead?
Dissenting opinion, by it's very nature, has fewer sources, that's the whole point of it being 'dissenting', as such the character of any set of resources supporting it will be one of having "trawled through" a load of sources presenting the opposing, mainstream view.
By suggesting that any argument whose sources display that character is to be ignored, you're arguing that we should live in a society with no dissent from mainstream opinion.
Is that the sort of society you think Ukraine are fighting for?
How the fuck you wrapped your last sentence in is beyond me, but anywho...
Dissent is not spouting off Russian propaganda verbatim. You know, like quoting every single line vomited out by every Russian state media source. (OP)
Dissent is also not searching for every internet based opinion piece with a flashy headline that aligns with a specific view. I could find a hundred more that align with my views, as an example. (re: link-boy in this thread.)
We all should know that Russia invading Ukraine "because Nazis" is complete bullshit. If you didn't notice Russian media and government officials repeating that justification is just that: repeating things enough so people begin to believe it. (That is easy with state controlled media, btw.)
What we have is a failed case of seeing the forest through the trees and what ~~Russian~~ Putin's goals have obviously been for years now: Rebuilding the USSR. (Nevermind that Crimea was not ethnic Russian until the local population just disappeared, somehow.)
Dissent is actually showing, to the best of ones abilities, real cause for action. A person could actually read all of the source articles they post, compare figures and assemble something that might be worth something in an argument. This takes a fuck ton of work, actually. All sources need to be considered and not just select articles that are vomited out in these kinds of posts.
What link-boy is doing is just flooding threads with data, regardless of it is correct or not. It's not proving any points and likely just posted to flash out headlines, which people notoriously take at face value.
Then we need to loop back to the "reputable sources" bit. Nearly anyone can submit articles to these places with little review because "content". To properly use these articles, you have to dig. You need to understand the authors, the sources and the motivation. Again, link-boy is likely not doing this. If he is, it's still shitty referencing.
Above all else, this conflict has proven that Russia is a paper tiger, mainly by showing their wonder-weapons are crap. This is not actually about the tech itself: It's shown how Russian government has overstated just about everything about their capabilities. Not only did the world start to believe their own propaganda, Russians drank their own cool aid and thought they could just roll Ukraine in a couple of days, with or without western interference.
We don't need shit-memes or walls of old links to show how Russia has manipulated the narrative over the last few years. All we need to do is watch how poorly they are performing on the battlefield against a country a tenth their size. We can watch Russian media and how they continue to posture and threaten with nukes. (That is a stupid play, and they know it.)
What's even funnier, is that Lukashenko actually dumped out a couple weeks ago that Ukraine was already "denazified". Oops. If that is actually "true", why hasn't this "special military operation" been called off? Why is Russia at a full wartime economy now for what is likely illegal to call a "war"?
Fucking grow up, is my point. You want to get all script-flippy about "sPeAkiG diSsEnT" when the people "dissenting" don't know what the actual fuck they are posting with.
Dissent is not spouting off Russian propaganda verbatim
Why not? If Russia finds information which is opposed to the US/NATO position they will use it in their propaganda. It follows that anyone dissenting from the US/NATO position may also use the same information.
Something being part of foreign propaganda doesn't mean it's false. Propaganda isn't just lying. If the US had done something wrong, you can guarantee Russia would use it in their propaganda. They don't just lie about everything. They lie about things they want to hide, but if the truth helps their cause they'll tell it. It follows from this that some Russian propaganda is likely to be true (unless you want to make the case that the US never does anything wrong, or successfully hides it from Russia in all cases).
Dissent is also not searching for every internet based opinion piece with a flashy headline that aligns with a specific view.
That's true it isn't. But you've no evidence at all that this is what's happening here other than that the resulting opinion is a dissenting one.
If you simply assume all evidence for dissenting opinion must have been derived this way purely on the grounds that the view it supports is not a mainstream one, then you have a self-immumised argument. The antithesis of rational thought.
It is a structural necessity of dissenting opinion that it be based on fewer sources. If you deny the ability to present sources simply on the grounds that they are select, then you deny dissent, because dissent, by necessity, will be based on select sources. Opinion based on majority sources is, by definition, majority opinion (among a rational community).
Dissent is actually showing, to the best of ones abilities, real cause for action.
No, it isn't. Because whether a cause is a 'real' cause is the matter over which there is disagreement, so it is begging the question to only allow those causes you consider 'real' into a discussion about which causes are 'real'. You preemptively clear the field of all dissenting opinion before the debate even begins.
To properly use these articles, you have to dig. You need to understand the authors, the sources and the motivation. Again, link-boy is likely not doing this
As before, you've no evidence this hasn't been done other than that the resulting opinion is a dissenting one. If your proof that sources are inadequate is solely that they are used to support a dissenting opinion then you have by definition denied dissenting opinion.
You want to get all script-flippy about "sPeAkiG diSsEnT" when the people "dissenting" don't know what the actual fuck they are posting with.
Unfortunately, despite increasingly popular opinion to the contrary, putting an argument into alternating capitals doesn't make it go away.
As far as my proof on link-boy is that his history kinda proves that he doesn't research shit. His go-to method seems to be find-link-vomit-link. There is no fucking way he would have time to dig into that stuff based on volume alone. Is that "proof"? No. It's a damn good assumption as I also could shit out a few dozen links after one Google search, too.
If he does "do his research" and happens to have a list of links at the ready, that is just weird or it's someone with a motive other than showing how smart they are.
By definition, you are correct on some points, btw. Dissent is dissent. However, dissent with bad information is just poor form. Endlessly shitposting like OP does is hardly quality dissent: OP just pushes narratives with cartoons and it reads like a fucking state media source. You can find the same style of shit all over right-wing media sources as well: Repeat the same basic points ad-nauseum.
As far as link-boy is concerned, I suppose he can dissent all over the place as much as he wants as well. It's doesn't change his history of link-flooding.
Also, "despite increasingly popular opinion" is supposed to convince me of something based on the rumored opinions of what? Your own social bubble? Really?
It's a damn good assumption as I also could shit out a few dozen links after one Google search, too.
It's not, though. That's the point. Finding sources to back an unpopular opinion is, by definition, trawling through Google to find them. If you disallow that, you disallow unpopular opinion. Epistemological integrity does not simply oblige us to believe whatever view had the most sources, it's not dishonest to have a gut feeling about something and check that it is reasonable, based on finding supporting evidence. It's the mainstay of all academic essaying, for example. It's normal to check one's opinion is reasonable, we don't all arrive at an issue with blank slates to fill and if you think you do, you're lying to yourself.
Epistemic responsibility is about changing that initial view if it is overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, it's not about updating it according to some popularity contest. Truth is not decided by vote.
So searching through Google to find sources supporting your view is perfectly reasonable so long as the sources found are valid and reputable. That indicates it is reasonable to continue to hold your view. It doesn't matter if a greater number of equally reputable sources present the opposing view because truth is not determined by popular vote.
If he does "do his research" and happens to have a list of links at the ready, that is just weird or it's someone with a motive other than showing how smart they are
So damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
You're familiar, I assume, with the self-immunised argument?
dissent with bad information is just poor form
It is. Unless the dissent is over whether the information is 'bad', in which case evidence must be brought to bear to support arguments to the contrary. No doubt this poster would not simply agree their information was 'bad', so that is the point over which you disagree. Again, assuming it's bad when that's the very point of disagreement is begging the question.
"despite increasingly popular opinion" is supposed to convince me of something based on the rumored opinions of what?
I was merely commenting on the increasingly popular move of repeating things back in alternating capitals aS iF tHaT pRoVeD aNyThInG At All.
Addendum:
Basically, some people's initial view on some matter will coincide with that of the mainstream. They're lucky. The evidence supporting their view will be plastered over every newspaper and government announcement. They won't have to do any digging to support it since quality newspapers are (generally) reputable sources.
Others, however, will form a contrary initial opinion. They are not so lucky since, by definition, sources supporting their view will be less well disseminated. They will have to actively search.
Doublely unlucky if that view happens to oppose US policy because the US's many enemies will also be seeking out such evidence to use in their propaganda.
Triplely unlucky these days because conspiracy theorists and online cultists are also looking for dissenting evidence to add credence to whatever bullshit they're spouting.
But a healthy democracy requires that neither of these issues is used to simply smear all dissenting opinion. Otherwise we just have a monolith.
like this
Azathoth likes this.
They never intended to hide it, even the admin. They will remove any comment that isn't aligned to their opinion. Yet i don't see their opinion getting removed from any other instance.
The fact is, they can be nasty but you must be nice, else you're getting removed quickly.
Also, someone doesn't know the history of Azov or the even the Vagner group.
like this
Azathoth likes this.
Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: Seriously...
- BBC, 2014: Ukraine underplays role of far right in conflict
- Human Rights Watch, 2014: Ukraine: Unguided Rockets Killing Civilians
- The Hill, 2017: The reality of neo-Nazis in Ukraine is far from Kremlin propaganda
- The Guardian, 2017: 'I want to bring up a warrior': Ukraine's far-right children's camp – video
- WaPo, 2018: The war in Ukraine is more devastating than you know
- Reuters, 2018: Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem
- The Nation, 2019: Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine
- openDemocracy, 2019: Why Ukraine’s new language law will have long-term consequences
- Al Jazeera, 2022: Why did Ukraine suspend 11 ‘pro-Russia’ parties?
- Jacobin, 2022: A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War
- NYT, 2024: U.N. Court to Rule on Whether Ukraine Committed Genocide
- History of Fascism in Ukraine: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV
It wouldn't be ml without a copy-pasta wall of links.
The trick is to bog other users down who actually source and back-reference all those articles so that it will freeze up a comment thread.
like this
Azathoth likes this.
Why did Czechcoslovakia ban a pro german party? What are the long term consequences of Czechcoslovakia's language laws?
Every nation suffers from the far right in the military and it should be dealt with. Like Wagner being founded by a neo nazi. Russia probably should denazify their military first. They don't care though because their state actions reflect nazi aggression on Czechcoslovakia to a scary degree. You know what one of the bad things the nazis did was? Invading.
Every nation suffers from the far right in the military and it should be dealt with.
Some more than others, often through the machinations of the United States.
Like Wagner being founded by a neo nazi. Russia probably should denazify their military first.
Who? Prigozhin? Utkin? Wikipedia says “Utkin was a neo-Nazi,” but citation needed. Not every paramilitary is a neo-Nazi one. You know who was a fascist, though? Navalny, who the West venerated.
You know what one of the bad things the nazis did was? Invading.
Yeah… that’s not a feature unique to Nazis.
- NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
- The Ukraine Mess That Nuland Made Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered Ukraine’s regime change without weighing the likely consequences.
- Leaked audio reveals embarrassing U.S. exchange on Ukraine, EU
- US Imperialism and the Ukraine Coup
- Former German Chancellor Merkel Admits that Minsk Peace Agreements Were Part of Scheme for Ukraine to Buy Time to Prepare for War With Russia
- Zelensky admits he never intended to implement Minsk agreements
- The West’s Sabotage of Peace in Ukraine In May of [2022] Ukrainian media reported that then-British prime minister Boris Johnson had flown to Kiev the previous month to pass on the message on behalf of the western empire that “Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with,” and that “even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.”
- The Intercept, 2021: Meet NATO, the Dangerous “Defensive” Alliance Trying to Run the World
- CounterPunch, 2022: NATO is Not a Defensive Alliance
- Noam Chomsky, 2023:
- Thomas Fazi, 2024: NATO: 75 years of war, unprovoked aggressions and state-sponsored terrorism
2/10 joke
Could have had more uniqueness.
like this
Azathoth likes this.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry…
like this
Azathoth likes this.
In the above comment, we see the following:
- Repetition of the same debunked talking points
- Equivocation of the two major parties (which, as I've already mentioned, only helps the more evil of the two)
- "no u"
It really insults the intelligence of those reading to think that they won't see through this.
like this
Nougat likes this.
- Repetition of the same debunked talking points
Which of my points have you "debunked?" Lol
- Equivocation of the two major parties (which, as I've already mentioned, only helps the more evil of the two)
You've been whitewashing genocide and fascism, without meaningfully backing yourself up.
- "no u"
You insulted me directly, while leaving yourself wide open. You started directly insulting because you had no points other than claiming that genocide isn't that bad if the Dems do it.
They’re clearly a center-left party.
by what measure?
Once again avoiding the question and making personal attacks instead.
Your words imply that you think I believe having Harris as president will fix things. I don't. What I do believe is it will slow the decline, hopefully enough for us to create ways to escape capitalism without having fascists commit more genocides than they already are. This is known as "harm reduction." It's a complex theory by which one takes actions to reduce the harm done with immediate actions when there's no immediate action that one can take to improve things. The ballot box in 2024 is not the time for a revolution, for said revolution would fail miserably, leaving us worse off. The ballot box in 2024 is the time for harm reduction.
like this
Nougat likes this.
"You really want to frame this in the context that your actually doing something other than undermining a fair election. "
I find that arguing a person must vote for one of two pro-genocide parties already undermines your idea of a "fair election." What primary even nominated Harris as the Democrat candidate? -Not that our primary systems is particularly representative of a "fair election" system, either. I just don't remember when these were candidates voted on.
Once again avoiding the question and making personal attacks instead.
What have I avoided?
Your words imply that you think I believe having Harris as president will fix things. I don't. What I do believe is it will slow the decline, hopefully enough for us to create ways to escape capitalism without having fascists commit more genocides than they already are. This is known as "harm reduction." It's a complex theory by which one takes actions to reduce the harm done with immediate actions when there's no immediate action that one can take to improve things. The ballot box in 2024 is not the time for a revolution, for said revolution would fail miserably, leaving us worse off. The ballot box in 2024 is the time for harm reduction.
That's not Harm Reduction. Harm Reduction doesn't mean to vote for genocidal imperialists as a temporary measure, it refers to implementing permanent solutions that increase liklihood of fixing the problem overall, like giving safer heroin to addicts and trying to get them help.
the extent and effort at which they create and enforce those policies is the measure of left or right in this country; not the existence of those policies because both republican and democrats say that they want those things; but when you investigate beyond the lip service you find that conservatives will give token-at-best support for the policies while leftists will support it with full vigor.
tldr: the democrats very tepid support for these things is what makes them center-right; because the party that calls itself conservative takes pride in doing this, while most democrats do it too and hope you don't notice.
longer: democrats only push for re-distributive policies (if at all) once it becomes popular and they're forced to respond; not because democrats are progressive. see biden's decades long anti-gay crusade that suddenly stopped once he needed the votes and his expansion upon trumps draconian anti-immigration policies; or clinton's establishment of anti-gay service and anti-gay marriage; and then see kamala backtrack on liberal positions like pre-k; community college, childcare, medicare expansion, etc. only the democrats very weakly seek social or economic policies of government and; for the most part; behave like republicans when it's time to put their money where their mouth is; that's why they're center-right
it sounds like you're judging these books by their cover without reading any of the material. we're on social media so it's par for the course; but your takes are going to be divorced from reality if you don't bother to go further than shallow understanding.
What have I avoided?
Well immediately above I asked:
Why are you encouraging people to do things that will make it more likely for fascists to win and destroy what little leftist organizing there is in America?
You have asserted that the actions you advocate won't do that, but when I explain how they do exactly that, you simply make the assertion again. When that fails, you attempt to equivocate. But when I point out that more genocide is more harmful than less genocide, you simply ignore my statements and make your assertions again.
That's not helpful. It might convince some people, but only in the same way that repeating a lie enough makes some people believe it.
like this
Nougat likes this.
Which of my points have you “debunked?” Lol
I haven't had to, as all you've done so far is repeat already-debunked, faux-leftist points that enable fascists.
You’ve been whitewashing genocide and fascism, without meaningfully backing yourself up.
Ahh, more accusations. Genocide is bad. Fascism is bad. Thus my question: why are you advocating for actions that will lead to more genocide and fascism?
You started directly insulting because you had no points other than claiming that genocide isn’t that bad if the Dems do it.
Lying about what I've said in a written forum isn't effective. Once again, and in larger font:
Genocide is always bad, and more genocide is worse.
So why are you advocating for actions that fall in the "more genocide" camp?
like this
Nougat likes this.
In the American sensibilities, the Democrats are left wing.
I know we've shat on Americans too many times that Democrats are not leftists and Republicans are far-right, but there is a place and time for doing so and I learned to cut Americans some slack. Americans simply have different Overton window because of different history and culture (I have explained before as to why, but I cannot be bothered to write another wall of text about it). Other countries don't even follow a left and right political dichotomy. Many places, especially in developing countries, vote on personalities than policies. But few of us crap on people from developing countries for not following policy-based discourse, or not following the European-originated sensibilities of "left or right" politics.
Why are you encouraging people to do things that will make it more likely for fascists to win and destroy what little leftist organizing there is in America?
The Dems and Reps work together against Leftist organization. They colluded to kick PSL off the ballot in Georgia, Tim Walz sent in the National Guard against Black Lives Matter protestors, and more. When you say that abandoning the Democrats "makes it more likely for fascists to win and destroy leftist organizing," you ignore what fascism actually is: Capitalism in decay. It isn't the Republican party alone, it's the bourgeoisie. That is why I advocate for abandoning them and pushing for Leftist organization like PSL and FRSO.
You have asserted that the actions you advocate won't do that, but when I explain how they do exactly that, you simply make the assertion again. When that fails, you attempt to equivocate. But when I point out that more genocide is more harmful than less genocide, you simply ignore my statements and make your assertions again.
You haven't explained how abandoning Democrats makes it more likely for fascism to win. Fascism isn't solely the Republican Party, it's bipartisan. Secondly, more genocide is absolutely worse, but you haven't explained how that would happen. If you don't analyze the root cause of genocide, how can you say the Dems are holding genocide back? Biden went above the Pentagon to approve the invasion of Lebanon, because support for Israel is economic and not moral.
That's not helpful. It might convince some people, but only in the same way that repeating a lie enough makes some people believe it.
Please answer my points, I repeat them because you ignore them.
I haven't had to, as all you've done so far is repeat already-debunked, faux-leftist points that enable fascists.
In other words, you can't, so you call them "faux-leftist."
Ahh, more accusations. Genocide is bad. Fascism is bad. Thus my question: why are you advocating for actions that will lead to more genocide and fascism?
How would my actions lead to more genocide and fascism? Where do you think they come from?
Lying about what I've said in a written forum isn't effective. Once again, and in larger font:
Genocide is always bad, and more genocide is worse.
So why are you advocating for actions that fall in the "more genocide" camp?
Explain where the genocide is coming from, and how what I am advocating for leads to "more genocide." You keep repeating baseless assertions.
don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
Jill Stein declared her goal as preventing Harris from winning the White House even though she knows she can't win herself, so basically her goal is to put Trump in power who is going to continue or worsen the genocide in Gaza while adding genocide on the US's queer population, women and immigrants and even descendants of immigrants that live there for multiple generations. As a little bonus he's going to give Ukraine to Russia by not delivering weapons to them anymore, thus helping a warmonger take over it's neighbouring country.
That is how your actions lead to more genocide.
like this
Nougat likes this.
(just straight up misogyny)
Scratched liberal alert
We don't currently have our own special political spectrum.
We can make a new one for you so you can feel better about this whole situation. Let's call it the "the imperial political spectrum". I'd be happy with that solution. Then you can say you're left on the imperial political spectrum and it's all good.
like this
Dessalines likes this.
Leftism isn't to go against capitalism though. Leftism broadly refers to the ideology that supports socioeconomic equality. If I'm to remind you of the origin of the terms "left" and "right" as it relates to politics, the terms right and left refer to political affiliations originating early in the French Revolutionary era. "The Left" implied support for republicanism - becoming a republic, and not American republicanism, secularism and civil liberties.
Political scientists and other analysts usually regard the left as including anarchists, communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats, left-libertarians, progressives, and social liberals. Movements for racial equality, as well as trade unionism, have also been associated with the left. Source
The sort of leftism you Marxist-Leninists advocate for is radical leftism. Social liberalism is still leftist.
Leftism broadly refers to the ideology that supports socioeconomic equality
Then by your own definition Liberalism is right wing! This is ridiculous.
You think communism is the only way to advocate for socioeconomic equality?
Edit: This is a dumb question of course you do. Read the source on political scientists agreeing that social liberalism is leftist. Go ahead and disagree if you want
Bro what!! Liberalism is literally considered a left wing ideology by political scientists. It doesn't matter what you think. You didn't create this stuff.
Social democrats and social liberals are all left wing because these groups advocate for more government intervention which right wingers vehemently oppose. Do you think that the political spectrum only involves markets?
Government intervention isn't what separates left and right. The Nazis were far-right but had lots of government intervention. According to yourself, left and right is about socioeconomic equality. This includes Syndicalism, Anarchism, and Socialism/Communism, all with varying degrees of government.
Explain how Capitalism is Left Wing.
Friend, take the straight point as it's delivered: capitalism is a system of oppression, and "liberals" support capitalism.
Leftists call those saying "this system of oppression would be perfect, with only some changes" liberals.
Of course, that's not the only thing lmao. You're being intentionally obtuse. Nazis deliberately put power into the hands of the government as an oppressive tactic. Not to protect the working class.
Also, i said left wing broadly speaking involves socioeconomic equality. There are other things like support for social justice and human rights, anti-imperialism and internationalism, desire for systemic change, secularism, opposition to traditional hierarchies, etc. Are you then going to tell me that these characteristics i have outlined are right wing? Or that they are only achievable by being Marxist or Anarchist?
You and every other Marxist in here is a radical leftist. Why can't you accept that fact?
I understand the point you're trying to relay; however, I'm going to have to disagree.
You're basically saying that the only way to bring about systemic change is through Marxism, and I can't agree with that. From another comment i posted:
There are other things like support for social justice and human rights, anti-imperialism and internationalism, desire for systemic change, secularism, opposition to traditional hierarchies, etc. Are you then going to tell me that these characteristics i have outlined are right wing? Or that they are only achievable by being Marxist or Anarchist?
There are other things like support for social justice and human rights, anti-imperialism and internationalism, desire for systemic change, secularism, opposition to traditional hierarchies, etc
Social Justice and Human Rights are just generally good things, grouping them in with left and right just obscures your actual political stances.
Anti-Imperialism must be socialist in nature, at scale. There can be national liberatory movements from Capitalists against international Capitalists, yes, but anti-imperialism cannot be liberal within the Imperial Core.
Secularism isn't really political, and desire for systemic change is vague enough to not be a point.
Opposition to traditional hierarchies cannot be found within Capitalism.
There you go, answered.
I don't think you understand, because you came out of left field to restate my point as "the only way to bring about systemic change is through Marxism."
Wtf? Where did I say anything related to Marxism, let alone use the word?
I will reply to your quote:
There are other things like support for social justice and human rights, anti-imperialism and internationalism, desire for systemic change, secularism, opposition to traditional hierarchies, etc. Are you then going to tell me that these characteristics i have outlined are right wing? Or that they are only achievable by being Marxist or Anarchist?
No! Those things are only achievable through anticapitalism! Marxism and anarchism are examples of anticapitalist thought.
"Opposition to traditional hierarchies," "desire for systemic change," "anti-imperialism," and "social justice" are hollow, offensive, and nonsensical when ignoring capitalism.
I'm not a Marxist, and you can call yourself whatever you like, but if you haven't attained class consciousness enough to recognize that capitalism is a death cult, you're a fucking liberal.
like this
Nougat likes this.
While it isn't what they mean, I would say both parties are different flavors of far-right. Both are genocidal imperial warmongers that promulgate oppression of the marginalized in support of neoliberal capitalism. One does it openly while the other plays a game of taking credit for social changes it opposed and occasionally throwing a bone or two to those constituencies even while materially screwing them over in all other ways. And it will throw them under the bus the moment they can get away with it.
Really, they are part of the same team and they fight those opposed to them far harder than they fight each other. Good cop/bad cop for the same precinct.
like this
Dessalines likes this.
Americans are heavily propagandized and are politically illiterate. Generally speaking, they do not even know there is a world beyond "liberal" (Democrat) and "conservative" (GOP). It is considered nerdy and wonkish to even know very much about the two party bourgeois electoral system. So their sensibilities only mean as much as propaganda has eliminated any possibility of political education, let alone capacity for action in solidarity with humanity (even when empathy is there, correct analysis is not) for the vast majority of them. That requires developing projects dedicated to political organization and education outside and away from the two bourgeois parties.
Americans should only be cut slack to the extent that they are ignorant. They should not be cut slack for their knowing embrace of war, domination, racism, and so on. And when you simply inform them of the existence of such things, they will rapidly educate you in their commitment to the project. Perhaps they will momentarily feel bad, but most of the time they will quickly find a psychological salve for cognitive dissonance, lest they act outside of the tracks laid down for them by reactionary and genocidal capital. Our work on the left is to peel off more and more from those tracks and turn them into fellow track-peelers, this is naturally an opportunity for exponential growth if we can consistentlu break past what keeps them on-track.
[Partisan] americans also like to wave off the roughly 1/3 of eligible voters who don’t vote at all as if they just forgot or were too lazy to vote or something. A lot of people are disillusioned with the whole thing, but the partisans are the loudest and the media mostly cares about them so it makes it sound like it’s 50/50.
According to the latest gallup data about 27% identify with each of the two major parties and about 43% as independent (of major parties).
Didn't Castro lead the group that freed their country from the dictator Batista?
They have a very high literacy rate now. Their life expectancy is quite decent in their region.
And they have good healthcare.
All this in about 60 or so years, while being under sanctions and other crisis.
Look, if you don't care about LGBT folks, women who need abortions, asylum seekers, etc. you can pull that "don't care" lever
Not a person living in USA, wouldn't a coalition govt be better then, as the Roe vs Wade issue happened while the Democrats were in power?
Or are coalitions not allowed?
Or is the central govt powerless in such issues?
Aah. Thank you.
Would the govt be able to create any laws to counter the case being overturned?
And unrelated:
Could the Green party and Democrats form a coalition and choose the President accordingly, if the results are bad?
I'm an Indian, where we have parliamentary democracy.
Parties can form coalitions and the leader set by the coalition becomes the Prime minister and the President is not as powerful, eventhough they're technically the head of the nation.
Is it different in USA? If Trumps gains most votes, can the Greens and Democrats channel votes against him by creating a coalition?
Eh, not sure it's got anything to do with the political spectrum anymore. At this point I'm not sure what to call it but the US and allies' obsession for maintaining ties with Israel no matter what feels divorced from... Well, a lot of things, really. But among them the left/right spectrum.
I can't talk much. Canada is also selling Israel the supplies they use to do their mass murdering.
That's hard to say. With the current makeup of the supreme court, it's likely they'd simply declare any law protecting abortion rights as unconstitutional because mumble mumble and get away with it. But what's preventing them from doing even that is that Republicans (thanks in large part to politicised redrawing of district boundaries) have a majority in one of the two legislative bodies, so the Democrats couldn't pass that protection regardless.
So likely the minimum that's needed to codify abortion rights would be a Democratic majority in both legislative houses and a Democratic president.
On the topic of coalitions: The US doesn't have coalitions in the ways many other countries have, partially because of the way the president is elected. Voters have a separate item on their ballot to elect (electors who will then vote in the electoral college for) the president. The way this occurs is through first past the post, where the largest portion of the votes (even if a minority) gets all the electors in that state (except in Nebraska and New Hampshire, where the state breaks it into districts). I'm in Michigan, for example. In 2016, Donald Trump got 47.5% of the vote in Michigan to Hillary Clinton's 47.3% and thus got all 16 of Michigan's electoral votes (out of 538). Had 11,000 more people voted for Clinton (let's say, by not voting for the Green party), she would have won Michigan's electoral votes, which is a 3% swing in the electoral college, but given that most states are pretty much guaranteed to go one way or the other (e.g. Indiana is a safe Republican state while neighbouring Illinois is a safe Democratic state), those 11,000 votes would be massively influential. This is why "swing states" are so stupidly pivotal in US elections.
So because of all of that, there's not an option for the Greens to join a coalition, even if they wanted to (which I don't think they would, as the US Green party is currently under the control of a Russian asset and it's well known that Putin wants a Trump victory).
The American electoral system is ridiculously, stupidly backwards and basically designed to empower certain people over others. If there were a parliamentary democracy here the US, and probably the world (given the US's love for foreign intervention), would be much better off.
like this
Dessalines likes this.
Could the Green party and Democrats form a coalition and choose the President accordingly
They certainly could, but why would they? Not only democratic party stand for a lot of things greens find unacceptable (and vice versa), but disproportion between both parties is so huge that greens would at best got given some paltry compensation (and a huge bill of firming democratic party atrocities with their names, this would essentially be their end) and most likely just become completely ignored and cut off after election.
why arent us?
That's actually prety obvious after reading Marx: the system still works as intended for whom it was intended to work, namely for bourgeoisie and their lackeys. The contradictions aren't yet big enough to cause the overthrowing of it. Liberals, people who we are trying to convince here to open their eyes and see that they are voting for genocide, for actual mass extermination of entire people, actually (with small exceptions) already have their eyes open - they just don't see anything undesirable in the picture: brown people half of world away and their deaths are perfectly ignorable for them, their lives are pretty comfortable and they just want to stop reading uncomfortable opinions and get back to brunch.
The cool thing about independent thought is I dont have to ascribe the same value judgement or perspective as the DNC. Im able to vote closer to my principles by choosing a socialist candidate every time the DNC nominees move toward the right.
Bad faith lemmings will paint that as not caring about the outcome, but I can sleep at night knowing that when offered a choice between slow descent to fascism and rapid descent to fascism, I chose no fascism.
An environmental posadist. Not a stance I've normally seen. Imo, if nothing came out of deep water horizon, there's no oil accident big enough to matter.
Transocean received an early partial insurance settlement for total loss of the Deepwater Horizon of US$401 million about 5 May 2010.[60] Financial analysts noted that the insurance recovery was likely to be more than the value of the rig (although not necessarily its replacement value) and any liabilities – the latter estimated at as much as US$200 million.
like this
Someplaceunknown likes this.
Netanyahu mulls plan to empty northern Gaza of civilians and cut off aid to those left inside
The Generals’ Plan was presented to the parliament last month by a group of retired generals and high-ranking officers, according to publicly available minutes. Since then, officials from the prime minister’s office called seeking more details, according to its chief architect, Giora Eiland, a former head of the National Security Council.Israeli media reported that Netanyahu told a closed parliamentary defense committee session that he was considering the plan.
Eiland said the only way to stop Hamas and bring an end to the yearlong war is to prevent its access to aid.
“They will either have to surrender or to starve,” Eiland said. “It doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re going to kill every person,” he said. “It will not be necessary. People will not be able to live there (the north). The water will dry up.”
...
When asked if the evacuation orders in northern Gaza marked the first stages of the “Generals’ Plan,” Israeli military spokesperson Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani said no.“We have not received a plan like that,” he added.
But one official with knowledge of the matter said parts of the plan are already being implemented, without specifying which parts. A second official, who is Israeli, said Netanyahu “had read and studied” the plan, “like many plans that have reached him throughout the war,” but didn’t say whether any of it had been adopted. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, because the plan isn’t supposed to be discussed publicly.
On Sunday, Israel launched an offensive against Hamas fighters in the Jabaliya refugee camp north of the city. No trucks of food, water or medicine have entered the north since Sept. 30, according to the U.N. and the website of the Israeli military agency overseeing humanitarian aid crossings.
This should simplify the ICJ's case
They are not even pretending that it's not a genocide any more
like this
fif-t likes this.
Four soldiers killed in Hezbollah drone attack on Israeli military site
Four soldiers killed in Hezbollah drone attack on Israeli military site
Hezbollah says it launched a ‘swarm of drones’ at an Israeli military camp in Binyamina, northern Israel.Al Jazeera
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness and frustrated_phagocytosis like this.
Four Israeli soldiers killed? Do we care about that? Fuck those guys they're shooting at children and UN Peacekeepers and aid workers.
People should be cheering this.
like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
The initial Israeli evacuation area was within 2 kilometres of the border with Lebanon. There seem to have been some expansion of evacuations since, but I believe it's still only within a few kilometers of the border. Estimates in March were that about 60,000 Israeli citizens remain evacuated (source: AP).
The IDF camp in this article is around 55 kilometres from the Lebanese border, and about 30 kilometres south of Haifa (a city which is not evacuated) (source: ABC News (AU)).
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
The war is in Gaza, but Palestinians in the West Bank are targeted with violence too
cross-posted from: lemmy.ml/post/21363196
[from a Special Series
A year since Oct. 7]October 12, 2024 7:58 AM ET
By Kat Lonsdorf
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness and aramis87 like this.
The Optimus robots at Tesla’s Cybercab event were humans in disguise
The Optimus robots at Tesla’s Cybercab event were humans in disguise
Tesla’s Optimus robots’ natural responses and smooth motions were made possible by human control behind the scenes at the Cybercab reveal event.Wes Davis (The Verge)
With the US election less than a month away, and his support dwindling across Europe, the Ukraine president is in a last-ditch race against time to shore up support
Can Zelensky’s plan for peace actually work?
With the US election less than a month away, and his support dwindling across Europe, the Ukraine president is in a last-ditch race against time to shore up support, writes Mary DejevskyMary Dejevsky (The Independent)
like this
ignirtoq likes this.
I always thought minetest is a cheap minecraft clone, mainly for testing or smth.
So yeah, its a good name change
like this
ignirtoq likes this.
Yeah. I agree it's rough to lose existing recognition, but I think the test in the name was hurting adoption quite a bit.
When I tried mineTest last, I was thinking, "what the hell, this will amuse me for an afternoon."
I did not expect a feature complete game engine with a better more polished game than vanilla MineCraft.
Wait, didn't they change their name recently or was that the mineclone Minecraft clone game?
... Yeah, given how confusing it's been, a name change is overdue. And will hopefully distract Microsoft's lawyers for a bit.
geneva_convenience
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Senseless
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to Senseless • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
NoneOfUrBusiness
in reply to Senseless • • •TheOubliette
in reply to Senseless • • •FelixCress
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
Unknown parent • • •Fidel_Cashflow
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •