This man is definitely not the only one who has come forward. At want point to do you actually take multiple witnesses and believe them?
Many aid agencies and other sources on the ground have also verified many of the claims, when journalists can't (considering they've been banned from entering). Are all the aid agencies lying too?
And sometimes, just sometimes, in this world of AI now, video evidence is accurate.
The world is imperfect, and so we go with the balance of probabilities.
And I'll confirm for you. There's a murderous genocide taking place.
How do you know that Hamas is not involved in these cases? You can not.
Also a high percentage of the said 50,000 killed would have to be Hamas terrorists.
Also, Hamas would be working overtime to make this new way of food distribution to fail.
Gaza people would not want to blame Hamas at ALL, since Hamas kills people who criticize them. This has happened in Past
In fact it is reported Hamas told Gaza people not to get food from the new distrubution places.
Hamas would also have to be guilty of genocide. In fact they have previously stated this in writing. Hamas is prepared to sacrifice Gaza people. Also Hamas committed genocide on October 7th
You appear to have ignored everything I said. I hope you don't mind if I return the favour.
I'll just end by saying that, to me, Israels actions in terms of Gaza over the last 2 years mean I do not differentiate those who carry out the actions from Nazi's (dictionary definitions). And that applies to those who support those actions. I've worded this carefully so you know that I do not refer to all Israeli's, because I don't. But it probably applies to you.
When prices are equal, I'd wager the decision is: "if prices are equal why wouldn't I buy the "real" thing? I'll just try and justify to myself that it's sourced correctly".
When the price of the grown diamonds falls, the decision might be: "Ok, so grown diamonds are cheaper AND more ethical? Ok, I'm definitely buying grown".
If the ethics factor didn't exist, "real" diamonds would still retain the kudos and still be valued highly over "nice but fake" diamonds.
It's the ethics factor that pushes the decision over the line.
As an n=1 economic animal, that's what my behaviour would have been anyway.
Why would someone with ethical concerns still buy a diamond and not just choose another gemstone if somehow synthetic was more expensive?
And it's all marketing anyway: slap a "condensed from pure carbon" campaign out there and suddenly natural diamonds are fake rich and not as pure or precise or something.
Because there is a century now of diamonds being associated with certain cultural elements in US life, and that's not easy to take away overnight. Lots of people expect a diamond ring as part of an engagement - not just the future bride, but their friends, family, co-workers. A sapphire ring or an opal ring or a ruby ring will not be easily accepted - it will be seen as weird, or cheap, or anti-traditional, etc.
Now sure, this concept was manufactured to a great extent through marketing, and it can be replaced or just fall out of favor. But established culture changes very slowly, and there's no "other gemstones cartel" to throw money at this the way DeBeers did to establish the diamond engagement ring in the first place.
I'd love to see the stats on that considering everyone's algorithmic approach.
I often see anti-Israeli-government/pro-Palestinian/anti-genocide content across my platforms and, when lazy, I'll wonder why then there isn't more change.
And then I wake up and realise again that I'm in a bubble.
4chan is a vast website with hundreds of communities. One or two are far right leaning and very extreme for sure. The integrality of reddit is left leaning with moderators actively suppressing thoughts and speech that does not align with the beliefs of the Company and the left. For instance criticizing immigration policies would get you banned on reddit.
Same for the prevalence of far right figures. I am not seeing this prevalence. Most of european union elected governements that are pro immigration, left leaning, pushing a bigger state interventionism in our daily lives under this premise that far right is prevalent. I am not seeing it.
X is one social network that indeed does not suppress some of the far right opinions. All the others social media are mostly left leaning and leaving content that is blatantly racist but targeting only one kind of people that they deemed ok to discriminate based on some crazy ideas that you cannot be racist against a majority.
Wow!
reply