Well, sadly, Space Cersei owns another good chunk, and Space Jaime has a bunch, then Space Reek is surprisingly well-endowed, and Space Baelish is probably somewhere in the mix. All of whom sit on the Space Iron Council, and advise Space Joffrey about what dank memes they should focus on during the upcoming Space Tourney, where they will be testing new Space Fire Water to use on the Walkers approaching the Space Mexican Border. At least, until the Master of Tired Analogies signals the end of festivities by beating a dead Space Horse.
"European authoritarians and their enablers in the media are misrepresenting GrapheneOS and even Pixel phones as if they're something for criminals. GrapheneOS is opposed to the mass surveillance police state these people want to impose on everyone"
State employees in their official capacity making inaccurate claims to media about GrapheneOS to smear it as being for criminals and as the users as largely being criminals is a state sponsored attack on the GrapheneOS project.
I have never been to Spain, and I have only slight familiarity with issues in Barcelona and greater Catalonia, but this gives me pause:
"There’s a bitter irony here, too, as GrapheneOS recently pointed out in a tweet. The Spanish region of Catalonia was at the center of the massive Pegasus spyware scandal in 2019.
"Pegasus, a sophisticated surveillance tool sold exclusively to governments, was reportedly used to hack phones belonging to Members of the European Parliament and eavesdrop on their communications. Yet, police in this very region are now scrutinizing savvy Pixel and GrapheneOS users for hardening their devices against unlawful surveillance and other attack vectors."
Five Eyes is (or was, as its status is undetermined) an intelligence sharing agreement between the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Each nation has to abide by its own constitution and intelligence gathering limits. For example, the United States generally refrains from sharing intelligence on American citizens with other Five Eyes partners. Canada generally won’t share information on people who only hold Canadian citizenship, etc.
The poster knows the answer. It was a rhetorical question. Five Eyes is the thing countries with "constitutional protections" use to cheat their way around those protections. The US isn't allowed to spy on US citizens without a warrant but the other countries can do it and then provide the results to the US and vice versa.
And if they're going to be allowed to cheat then why hasn't the cheating done any good?
I personally take issue with this because it can be used by the USA to effectively target data protected under EU's GDPR, because the US has an agreement with Israel to send and share raw, non minimized, sigint without going through legal loopholes to sign proper consents within the US Agencies chain of command as required by the 2023 EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework.
I understand the US' companies and the War in Ukraine made a lot of pressure on EU's lawmakers, but the lawmakers basically nullified the scope of GDPR (military side, in a world where being able to control domestic SIGINT is king), and made EU' domestic companies unable to compete against foreign ones with one single decision (economic side).
Force removal from Mobile App Stores, make EU companies avoid implementing their Pixels or Services or face fines, etc.
2022-2023 for example a lot of companies removed their Analytics and Pixels js, because some EU members agencies (Spain and Italy to be precise) started making pilot cases against domestic companies.
It did work though, EU companies could either take an enourmous cost to properly implement these (ie. by local proxy sending only minimized data) or remove them in favor of EU tracking companies. A lot of similar suits followed with cases against Meta.
By 2023 it was clear the EU would make a political deal with the US so companies restored the defaults, without making the necessary anonymization changes.
Isn't the theory that this is because Clinton was one of them, and he was president at the time?
Even if Trump was one of them, he had no power at that time, so couldn't have done anything to stop (or bury) the surveillance, but Clinton could.
> Something tells me domestic surveillance is only applied to peasants not the wealthy and powerful.
I suspect it's applied to them even more than the rest (ordinary people are not that interesting to surveil), the question actually is what is done with the surveillance afterward.
> Clinton was one of them, and he was president at the time?
The mass surveillance state didn't really get going until George W.
Epstein had better surveillance on his activities than the government.
> Even if Trump was one of them, he had no power at that time, so couldn't have done anything to stop (or bury) the surveillance, but Clinton could.
Who was president at the time Epstein told a reporter he had blackmail material on rich & powerful, later was arrested (and his blackmail material collected from his properties), and finally placed in a facility that had trouble following standard prison procedures while awaiting trial?
> GrapheneOS is not immune to exploitation, but the fearmongering done in these ongoing attacks on it is very clearly fabricated. They feel threatened enough by GrapheneOS to engage in coordinated attempts at convincing people that it's unable to protect their privacy and security.
So... they (cops and friends) are saying that GrapheneOS is for criminals, AND that it does not work at protecting anyone's privacy and is not for security. Amazing.
Fridges are for criminals too. The very good ones can keep the severed body parts cold for longer, thus preventing spoilage and reports of foul odours from downstairs neighbours. Will Frigidaire and Bosch stop selling this criminal technology to criminals?
I think the best way to prevent the sale of crime fridges to criminals would be to have national governments integrate the entirety of data that each nation has, from every level, on every citizen. Then we can create an API which market participants like Frigidaire and Bosch can use to query whether a purchase should be permitted based on the purchaser.
Exactly, and I hope we keep track of all fridge purchases with biometrics from customers (and as thus, should not be able to order from online). That better be hooked up to an API that the cops can query at any time.
A better analogy would be a balaclava. Lots of legitimate uses but it's uncommon to see people wearing them day to day and is very popular with criminals. But we don't imagine we could ban balaclavas to prevent crime.
It depends on what you mean by 'ban'.
In the country where I live (Denmark), they are very much banned, unless you can demonstrate your legitimate current use case for them.
In particular, you are not allowed to wear them in public places where people gather or gather in groups.
And 'beating up cops anonymously' is not an approved use case :-)
The rule as I understand it, also covers [sic] extreme religious dress rules for women.
I wear one when I ride my motorcycle. Keeps my neck warm, and keeps the cold air off my face. And helps keep the dust off my face when I'm off road. And adds an extra layer of protection. They are also nice when you borrow someone else's helmet. The GoKart places near me give them out to help keep rental helmets from getting nasty.
I thought in the US "Jersey" refers to t-shirts worn during American football or something like that? At least I have seen people saying "these are my Jerseys" and then pointing to their t-shirts worn during having played American football.
What I am saying is that I have seen the term "knitwear" everywhere, and when I am looking for "knitwear", I am not looking for t-shirts or "jerseys", but those sweatshirts that look like this (or the like): https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1181/5370/files/knits_1_48....
Don’t forget about the Charge of the Light Brigade, commanded by the Earl of Cardigan. After the war he became famous and people copied the knit jumper he wore, naming it the cardigan. That’s two knit garments from the same battle.
Canon to the right of them,
canon to the left of them
canon in front of them
volleyed and thundered.
Stormed at with shot and shell
boldly they rode and well,
into the jaws of death
into the mouth of hell
rode the six hundred.
In Sweden at leasts, balaclavas and other wearables "preventing identification" is specifically illegal _at_ protests. From what I remember the danish case is similar.
I wear one for taking photos of reflective objects, particularly car interiors. Sure minimizes retouching my stupid face out of reflections. Black cloth gloves, too.
The local police forces can start offering a service where they will cause a controlled leak of the refrigerant in your fridge to reduce its efficiency therefore making it less useful for refrigerating body parts.
I wonder if they are going to do anything about at least a thousand number of other items that may be used to cause bodily harm to a person. What about something related, such as forks?! Bags?
Even better, the US has a higher knife murder rate than the UK does.
On the other hand IIRC it has a lower rate of at least some types of violent assault.
One possible explanation is the healthcare system - fast treatment makes a big difference to the chances of surviving an attack (and are one reason murder rates have fallen over the years, and why developed countries have much lower murder rates). Does anything in the US system delay treatment significantly?
Back to the parental comment - it's been decided there isn't really a good reason to have most guns and so they are strictly controlled - I mean what's the legit reason for having an assault rifle?
Now if the government thinks there isn't really a good reason to have a phone they can't hack ( because they are the good guys right.... and in theory need court orders etc - so there is legal oversight ) then they will see such phones in the same light and consider banning.
This is at the core of the argument - and why governments ask for a special backdoor - as they accept a generally secure phone ( to stop your neighbour snooping ) is a good thing, but they are used to being able to tap phones and open letters if a judge gives them permission.
Obviously the ironic thing is most phones probably already do have special backdoors - but only for the country where the makers reside - and that countries government doesn't want other governments to know or have acccess.
And in the case of fridges - there is no argument there that they aren't legit reasons to own.
In the case of knives - zombie knives don't really have legit use, whereas kitchen knives do.
> I mean what's the legit reason for having an assault rifle?
If the government is allowed to have them, the people should be allowed to have them. Anything else would be inviting tyranny, as has been demonstrated ad nauseam by pretty much every government ever.
The NRA are self-interested, racist scum, Trump supporters are authoritarian fascists - almost totally opposed to freedom and resisting tyranny. What do they have to do with anything?
Are American people allowed to have F-35s jets and Abrams tanks too? NO?! Then what kind of tyranny is this where your elected government's military has the monopoly on violence?
Feels unsafe man. We should look towards free and egalitarian countries like Congo, Sudan or Zimbabwe where citizens have access to the same hardware as the military and they use it regularly to deal justice, competing with the local military. Much better.
You missed out Haiti as a shining example of citizen rule against the tyranny of government.
Though it's sad to see the gangs are starting to collect local taxes - before you know it they will start behaving like the awful government that they have replaced!
In a democracy the government is the people ( more or less ). Tyranny of the majority, enforcing the collective view via collective organised violence.
And while it may seem unfair that your favourite peccadillo is deemed illegal - on balance it's a much better system than every man, woman and child for themselves.
The ultimate point of gun ownership isn’t sporting or even self defense, though they are useful for both. The real reason America is armed is so that if our government ever gets too tyrannical, we can do something about it.
Some people may not like that today but if you go back and read what people wrote circa 1775 and forward, this is the clear rationale.
It's essentially a critical mass type of thing, no?
The military and police are human, but they're also the main path towards control. If you treat them good, they'll treat you good, likely until they slip too far and are unable to back down without facing consequences.
It's mostly a good way to avoid situations like Cambodia's killing fields since that was also done by humans.
It'll result in a mess, but a mess is better than torture-to-death camps and famine.
I understand that "there has to be a counter to dictatorship" and such actions are not without consequence.
But the words "critical mass" don't seem much more helpful than the definition of tyranny. The questionable boundaries apply, it's like a "you'll know it if you see it" thing.
The problem here is perception. Some people may "see" an outrage that causes them to act. While others don't. Jan 6 and George Floyd riots are two examples of people "seeing something" that caused them to act.
But if you are going up against the most well funded military in the world by some margin - well, whatever is seen had better motivate a LOT of people.
I disagree with some of the implied answers, especially paragraph three, but:
> Where is the line on tyranny?
> Who decides?
> when does this go from "we're prepared" to "time to act"?
Like I said, these are excellent questions. An individual with a strong moral compass should have answers that differ from “not me” and “somebody else”.
If the Second Amendment (2A) meant to preserve the ability to overthrow the government then why can we not have bombs and tanks?
And why does it mention the right within the context of a "well regulated militia"?
Could it be they feared having a permanent national army, so did the 2A instead? Only later to realize having a standing army were necessary after all?
No that couldn't be it. Because then there would be no rational reason for keeping 2A and flooding the country with deadly weapons.
Did they fear a national army? Legitimately curious here. They certainly couldn't afford one, but military-lead coups weren't the problem then that they are today (or were during the Roman empire).
Sure, they chose to put a civilian in charge of the military, but I was always under the impression this was to keep the military from interfering with the normal process of government.
I don’t know who the “you people” in that comment refers to. I actually hope we never have another civil war. Historically, you’re much more likely to end up with the French Revolution, the current situation in Syria, etc. than a fresh, bright future. Many would die and everyone would suffer. Those who long for war (foreign or domestic) are evil, foolish, or both.
But my opinion doesn’t change the rationale for the 2nd Amendment.
Another civil war? That’s not desirable, for obvious reasons. But another revolutionary war? That might be inevitable. Thomas Jefferson has an appropriate quote on such things.
"Elected" doesn't mean much if the system is rigged - starting from the choices you get, and how accountable they are to you. After a point it's just a charade.
Yeah, they even threw in a thing about well regulated militias, but left in a comma that got interpreted as "any toon can own as many guns as they want."
Zombie knives yeah, but you can get into serious trouble for the multitool with locking blade if you forgot to take it our from your backpack after a camping trip.
So are the laws on swords. You can have a straight sword but not a curved one, unless its either an antique or craft made using traditional methods.
The police quite often destroy antiques handed in by people who know about the bans but not the exceptions.
I have a multitool I bought long before the ban, that is now illegal to carry routinely. I bought one with a significantly longer blade for my daughter which is perfectly legal to carry.
> I mean what's the legit reason for having an assault rifle?
If I understand the proponents correctly: Ostensibly it is to defend one's property and people from a tyrannical government.
Just for an exercise, let's say you believe that. And let's say that day is here. The tyrannical government has arrived and has necessitated your use of assault rifles.
The people you're shooting, what are they wearing? They're almost certainly wearing uniforms; police and/or military.
From the proponents' standpoint, the reason to have assault rifles is to kill police and soldiers.
Not quite. From the proponents' standpoint… it’s to defend themselves and their property from anyone who is a treat. It could be a tyrant. It could be agents of that tyrant.
Most countries ( ie people in those countries ) have decided that it's generally better for everyone that protecting people and property( enforcing the law ) is left to a well regulated professional police force rather than individuals of varying moral quality, mental stability or narcotic status.
One of the ironic aspects of the situation in the US is that the fear that is used to justify the need for guns is by and large there because everyone has guns......
Very few people in the UK are troubled by the thought that they might need a gun to defend their home or person, as there is no expectation that you will be attacked by somebody with a gun.
There is also no expectation to be threaten or shot by police with guns either.
Yeah, but knives have a wide range of use, whereas guns do not.
You cannot buy a kitchen knife because people MAY use it cause harm.
It is like forbidding the use of roads because it MAY be used to <insert illegal activity here>. Uses (usage?) of roads are even more broad than uses of knives.
I think it is easier to argue in favor of knives (or against the prohibition of ... of knives) than guns, for this reason alone.
The part that baffles me is that there is a right to self defense that the courts seem to acknowledge, that some cases find a person justified in using a weapon/tool that just happens to be at their disposal at the time of an attack, but having a similar tool/weapon for the purpose of defense is not allowable, even something as simple as spray.
Because you’re then routinely going about the place armed, and more likely to be the cause of violence or escalation.
In the wake of the Kyle Rittenhouse stuff I remember Americans saying that going armed to a protest (not just that guy but others) was reasonable and routine because you might need to defend yourself if things go bad. In much of the rest of the west the general idea is that if you’re going somewhere you think you might need a weapon - you probably shouldn’t go.
"and more likely to be the cause of violence or escalation."
Is there some research on this? Not just talking about guns, but even things like pepper spray.
"if you’re going somewhere you think you might need a weapon - you probably shouldn’t go."
I generally agree with this. I do wonder how this fits in the overall system. This assumes there are places that you could need a weapon, or where weapons could be used against you. It also assumes you always have a choice to avoid the area. If these high risk areas exist, how does the entire population avoid them? If that were even possible, the threats would also redistribute. Examples like Rittenhouse might be textbook for easily avoidable situations that turned bad (hence the news coverage), but I'm not sure it's representative of the full range of situations (the stuff that doesn't make the news).
In most countries, the default is whether the person had a lawful reason to be carrying the weapon used and that the defense is proportional to the attack. There’s nothing insane about that - there’s zero reason to arm yourself and millions of reasons not to.
"whether the person had a lawful reason to be carrying the weapon used"
But that's the point - if the courts have found that defense is lawful, then it becomes a question of why it's possession (not even use and proportionality) would not be. Then you end up in a weird state where people can make up reasons to have a hammer or something else on them rather than have something potentially more reasonable/effective like pepper spray. Allowing some limited non-lethal tool seems reasonable if defense is actually something to support.
I think you've lost the plot. I did say "under age", in fact, I was called out for not having been specific in my initial message, to which I said that the two are not comparable because the prohibition of selling knives for people underaged happened at the time they were starting to fight "knife crime".
Additionally, it is OK for you, because it might not be of interest to you, but given that the UK is doing all sorts of absurd stuff, what would happen if they did something absurd with regarding to the thing you like?
It likely reduces knife crime. Much as denying sales of lighters and flamable fluids to minors makes fires started by children less likely. (This deeply offended me as an adolescent who enjoyed burning things.)
Is there a benefit to society of allowing minors to buy knives?
We don't have laws to make bad things like murder completely impossible. We do it to make them less likely.
Okay, but not selling knives to kids really reduces knife crime? I wonder by how much, if at all. I am having difficulties believing it does.
Fires though, I can definitely believe it does prevent some arson.
> Is there a benefit to society of allowing minors to buy knives?
The default is "no ban". You need an argument the other way around. I think it is a silly question by itself. Is there a benefit to society of allowing people to skydive?
You can buy a kitchen knife - just not if you are under age. Not it's perfectly legal for an adult to buy one for a budding cook - all the age ban does is put a 'responsible' adult in the loop.
You also can't carry one in public without reasonable cause - which in the end is decided by a judge.
Chefs can typically get away with carrying their knives (they get very possessive over the care of their own knives and so won't leave them in the kitchen) if they're in a knife roll and in a backpack or similar.
A gun can stop an attacker whether human, ursine, or large feline.
A gun can be used for recreational shooting.
A gun can just be an historical collectors' piece.
A gun can be used in researching bullet proof vests and other equipment for a startup looking to sell to law enforcement/military.
There are many reasons for gun ownership. Ultimately, the reason should be that the individual is free to do as he/she chooses so long as he/she doesn't initiate a violent interaction.
The most often cited reason for banning firearms is the prevention of school shootings. For some reason, everyone is focused on the gun and not the fact that students wish to do violence at schools. What is it about the modern educational system that students wish to perpetrate violence in the schools to other students and teachers? Why isn't the mental health of the American youth at the center of this conversation?
Yet strangely, Canada has almost the exact same media and near identical mental health statistics and the country has a tiny fraction of the school shootings in the United States. Like it or not, the availability of military grade weapons sure seems to increase the likelihood that a kid will get killed at school.
If a kid really wanted to hurt another, could have done it through other means. Could it be that more kids in the US have violent tendencies for whatever reasons? It would be nice to figure out those reasons.
I am not saying it is not different, and I mentioned this in another comment that guns and bombs are definitely useful to "hurt as many as possible", but I think my question still stands regardless of this. In fact, it might make even more sense to ask the question.
Let's fund and destigmatize mental healthcare! And also ban guns!
Guns are more likely to cause accidental death or suicide than to save your life. Big cats and bears can be dealt with using sprays and other measures.
A bit of sport shooting isn't worth having to train kindergartners in active shooter drills.
I do not disagree. It should be focusing on the fact that a student wanted to cause violence. It could have been done through a gun, a knife, a fork, and a thousand different items. In fact, a fist may suffice. Or an item that is readily available at schools. Any item. That said, guns are especially good at "harm as many as possible". Just like bombs are.
The base purpose of a gun is shooting things, generally living breathing ones.
I could kill a guy with a stick, a rock, a frying pan, a blanket, etc…pretty much most things; however, none of those things exist expressly for that purpose.
It's like my bank's application, your mobile with all the latest security update is prohibited, because the bootloader is unlocked. But your 6-year-old mobile that received its last security update 3/4 years ago is fine!
I think people are misinterpreting your comment? Or I am.
What I think you are saying is:
The police are arguing both sides (in typical fashion). On one side, the police say that GrapheneOS is for criminals because of its privacy, etc. However the police are also trying to convince people that GrapheneOS is not private or secure, in an attempt to sway people from using it.
Yes, the police are arguing both sides, according to what I have read[1], and that they are not doing it in English but in other languages, e.g. Swedish. I am not sure why I am getting down-voted though.
I edited my comment. I thought it was obvious because it was the police claiming the former, and connected the two with an "AND". I was not criticizing GrapheneOS. Thanks!
It was obvious, people just have terrible reading comprehension, and they also don't read to the end of a comment if something near the beginning triggers them.
I came to the same conclusion based on some of the comments addressed to me. It is like they did not even bother reading the comment to which I replied, or the last 2 comments.
This whole thing is quite the stretch. Someone who clearly has no idea what they’re talking about acted like a know it all on a forum. I don’t see how that’s evidence of a coordinated attack. Police saying dumb things about security tech is nothing new either nor is it a smoking gun.
Occam’s razor applies even when we want to believe a cool story.
This is basically the ploy with many secure phones - say it's for criminals but actually have a backdoor for law enforcement. I wonder if there's some exploit on the Pixel or Graphene that law enforcement is now aware of.
well if it doesn't work for protecting your data it doesn't work for protecting criminals' data as well, right? or is this a lot less about making rational sense and a lot more about manufacturing consent to violate our rights?
So, can i be the voice of reason here?
The Panopticon is unavoidable! Everyone who has a spark of self-preservation in himself, knows it already. Technology has given the individual insane powers to take down state-level actors (drones in shipping lanes) and soon the whole planet(mirror life etc.). We can no longer afford privacy, as sad as this is.
Privacy was a luxury we had, while we could bribe the better angels of our nature with the surplus of the past and while technology was something, that did not scale.
Now a terrorist could take a army of tanks while besieging a city. All the other justifications for a Panopticon are flimsy, but the fact that technology - our savior from savagery, has turned around and bit the hand it was supposed to feed, justifies the thing.
Basically the same old argument that Linux is used by black hat hackers.
It probably is but it's focus on security and privacy makes that so not that it's designed with nefarious purposes in mind. To us this is obvious but to lay people the nuance is lost.
>(all) european governments are terrorist organisations
I'm all for criticizing government actions, trust me, but can we try to make thoughtful criticisms that represent reality?
Or, at the very least, if you're going to use terms as heavy as "terrorist organization", can you provide some more rationale? Like, how do you arrive at equating all EU governments to terrorists?
Maybe not all but most of them probably. May I interest you in the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior by the French goverment? It was codenamed: Opération Satanique, and was an act of French state terrorism.
Probably everybody who was involved in that operation is now retired or dead. That bit of history is now at least middle-aged (I'd say verging on old, but I've recently been informed on HN that what I consider old is middle aged otherwise my fellow olds get sad), we're two generations away, so if we do accept it as proving your point - for how much longer would you accept it as relevant?
because they explicitly aim to terrorize people, telling them that if they do not agree to give >50% of their life to the state, they will be imprisoned and removed from their family. Laws are upheld only for the peasant population while certain classes remain completely outside of the same rules. It is an illegitimate regime that cannot reasonably be thought of in any other way. They rationalize their existence in the same way as the Mafias have done. "hey, pay protection money or we whack you", "hey, you get services for that money" (trash pickup).
Not only that, it endaevors to EXPLICITLY be unfair to people in the application of theft, HEAVILY applying its own extreme bias as to what a good citizen is, in direct opposition to promoting freedom and happyness
All of them are supporting the terrorist attack on Gaza, aren't they? I think any organization that regularly sponsors terrorist attacks is a terrorist organization - that seems like a reasonable definition to me.
An operation by a state to purge itself of an ethnic group? If that's a war, perhaps it's a civil war? But a civil war implies both sides having a similar ability level. And a war in the year 2025 normally implies mainly hitting military targets - the enemy's civilians are to be subjugated, not killed.
> An operation by a state to purge itself of an ethnic group?
Palestinians do not live in Israel. So, Israel is not purging “itself”. If you claim that Israel wants to remove all the Arabs, then why it does not wage war on its own Arab citizens?
> But a civil war implies both sides having a similar ability level.
What? It makes no sense. In Lebanese civil war you had at least 4 sides, and they were vastly different in their abilities. Civil war implies that everyone involved is a citizen, which is not the case here.
> And a war in the year 2025 normally implies mainly hitting military targets - the enemy's civilians are to be subjugated, not killed.
In any war civilians die, especially if the war involves guerrillas. Look at Myanmar: civil war, guerrilla groups, a lot of dead civilians.
Israel is purging the land it wants to take, which is contained within the "borders" of what Israel considers its own land, whose citizens are restricted by the Israeli military, socially and economically.
Yeah, civilians die. But Israel targets civilians, not combatants.
> Israel is purging the land it wants to take, which is contained within the "borders" of what Israel considers its own land
Israel left Gaza in 2005. Why leave the land “ which is contained within the "borders" of what Israel considers its own land”?
> Yeah, civilians die. But Israel targets civilians, not combatants.
You would have to prove that. So far, if targeting civilians was the goal, then Israel why send ground forces into Gaza in the first place? It makes no sense.
> Israel says that Palestine doesn't exist and that land is part of Israel.
Israel is not a person, and cannot “say” things. At least 20% of Israelis are Arabs, I doubt that they also “saying” that.
Politicians come and go, opinions change.
Regardless, if you like to participate in a proper discourse, I’m all ears. However, so far it seems that your arguments are more emotional rather than factual.
David Ben Avraham is a converted Jewish Israeli who grew up in Palestine. He was stopped arbitrarily by an IDF soldier, who asked his name, and then immediately shot him dead.
I bring this up because I'm tired of hearing "some Israelis are Arabs" as if to blame the Arabs for not becoming Israelis. There's a reason they don't.
A war can itself contain a genocide, and one would argue that's the norm. Most genocides occurred during wars, a notable exception being the Myanmar one.
Israel has made it clear that the existence of Palestinians in Palestine is what they are fighting against. That's a genocide by every definition I've ever seen, and several people high in Israel's government are quite open about that fact, too.
No, that is ethnic cleansing. The Israelis would be pretty happy to remove the Palestinians to Egypt and have them exist there as a distinct and extant ethnic group.
As I understand it, genocide is physical extermination of people. Ethnic cleansing is removal of ethnic group from specific territory. For example, removal of Armenians from Nagorno Karabah in 2023 is ethnic cleansing. Mass murder of yezidis by ISIS is genocide.
The distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide is very unclear. In practice, "ethnic cleansing" is used by governments to avoid the responsibility to intervene (under international law) that would come with a genocide.
> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
> ethnic cleansing
> n : the mass expulsion and killing of one ethic or religious group in an area by another ethnic or religious group in that area
> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
> genocide
> n : systematic killing of a racial or cultural group [syn: {race murder}, {racial extermination}]
> intervene (under international law) that would come with a genocide
Perhaps. Although, at this point international law more and more seems like an optional thing, that is used only when it’s convenient, and only when there is a clear path to win the case.
For example, there is a clear genocide (although not via a military campaign) of Uighurs in China: declining birth rates, re-education camps, eradication of a culture and a language. Clearly done in a systemic way. However, no one dares to take a clear action here because China is too powerful.
> ... international law more and more seems like an optional thing, that is used only when it’s convenient, and only when there is a clear path to win the case.
Yeah, international law and international bodies have always been more or less a bad joke. They were developed with good intentions, but ideals never last long in the face of reality. Game theory and basic human nature necessitate conflict and tribalism when trapped at the bottom of a gravity well with limited resources. It's depressing.
It seems to me that if the things are different, then they have to have a different name. Otherwise how would you differentiate between them?
Ethnic cleansing: removal of a group due to their ethnicity from a piece of land. The result: this group of people stays alive, but has to go to a different place.
Genocide: physical extermination of an ethnic group. The result: they are all dead.
Why these two distinct events should have the same name???
> A war can itself contain a genocide, and one would argue that's the norm.
Nonsense. Plenty of wars have no genocide component at all. For example, Russia vs Georgia in 2008.
> Israel has made it clear that the existence of Palestinians in Palestine is what they are fighting against.
This is new. If this is the goal, then why leave Gaza in 2005 in the first place?
> That's a genocide by every definition I've ever seen
Palestinians also claim that want all the land to themselves. Are they committing genocide too?
Genocide has very specific definition, and it’s different from yours.
> several people high in Israel's government are quite open about that fact, too
Politicians? Politicians talk all the time, so? If every claim made by politicians became reality, we all would live in a perfect world, and all the problems would be solved (I mean, that is what always promised before the elections).
> Nonsense. Plenty of wars have no genocide component at all.
It's the norm that a genocides occur during wars. Are you going to be this obtuse through this whole comment?
> This is new. If this is the goal, then why leave Gaza in 2005 in the first place?
I don't pretend to understand the political calculations done by mass murderers, aspirant or otherwise. That said it's no secret that there's been a surge in right-wing politics all over the world. Perhaps 2024 was more amenable in the minds of those in charge than 2005 was. I don't know and am not particularly interested.
> Palestinians also claim that want all the land to themselves. Are they committing genocide too?
The Palestinians who live in Palestine and want to remain living and in Palestine? Those Palestinians? No they are not committing a genocide.
> Genocide has very specific definition, and it’s different from yours.
> Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Think you could argue a solid case for all five. Certainly the first three.
> Politicians? Politicians talk all the time, so?
I mean there's also the bombed hospitals and piles of dead kids, the words of the IDF on the ground, rampant social media posts from Israeli's, if you don't strictly want to go by the words of Israel's leaders, the definition provided by the UN, the definition in common understanding...
Like, to be clear, whether you want to call it a genocide or simply an international power abusing it's close ties to the West to obliterate a neighbor with the express purpose of colonizing their land, I think that's pretty fucking bad too, and am equally opposed to it.
> It's the norm that a genocides occur during wars. Are you going to be this obtuse through this whole comment?
The initial argument was that genocide and war are two distinct things. Saying “genocide normally happens during war” does not mean that every war leads to a genocide. If you are arguing that this is the case, then prove it.
> I don't pretend to understand the political calculations done by mass murderers, aspirant or otherwise. That said it's no secret that there's been a surge in right-wing politics all over the world. Perhaps 2024 was more amenable in the minds of those in charge than 2005 was. I don't know and am not particularly interested.
If you don’t want to understand why things happen, then it seems that this issue is like a religion to you.
> I mean there's also the bombed hospitals and piles of dead kids, the words of the IDF on the ground, rampant social media posts from Israeli's, if you don't strictly want to go by the words of Israel's leaders, the definition provided by the UN, the definition in common understanding...
> Like, to be clear, whether you want to call it a genocide or simply an international power abusing it's close ties to the West to obliterate a neighbor with the express purpose of colonizing their land, I think that's pretty fucking bad too, and am equally opposed to it.
Can you show me a war without bombed hospitals and/or dead civilians?
Civilian infrastructure, if used for military purposes looses its protections during war. So, to claim that the hospital was bombed just for the sake of it, you would have to prove that there was no military activity whatsoever in it.
Yes, social media is like 100% reliable source. Did elections of 2016 thought you nothing?
> colonizing their land
Are you American? Non-white in Europe? Congrats, you are a colonizer!
Israelis at least may claim some sort of belonging to the land, you can’t.
> The initial argument was that genocide and war are two distinct things. Saying “genocide normally happens during war” does not mean that every war leads to a genocide.
Genocide and war are two distinct things. One is not required for the other, hence saying: the norm is a genocide is contained within a war. A norm is not a requirement or a fact of any sort. I even went on to cite a genocide that did not, in fact, occur during a war. I don't see how this is being misunderstood.
> If you don’t want to understand why things happen, then it seems that this issue is like a religion to you.
I mean, I understand why it's happening. Israel wants some combination of Palestinian territory and/or dead Palestinians. That much is evident by their actions.
The intricacies of their motivations aren't really something I care about. That doesn't make my desire to not see a pile of dead Palestinians "like a religion" and I have no idea what on earth this line of argument could possibly be driving at.
> Why did you omit the key word (intent) though?
Because their intent is unknowable, unless you've a mind-reading machine in your back pocket. I would argue they intend to genocide Palestinians, and to make that argument I would cite what I already have. You are unconvinced. I then go on to say: even if we grant that it's not intended genocide, merely Israel desiring territory it is not entitled to, that's still horrific and still completely worthy of condemnation.
> Civilian infrastructure, if used for military purposes looses its protections during war. So, to claim that the hospital was bombed just for the sake of it, you would have to prove that there was no military activity whatsoever in it.
Yes and I'm sure Israel would be the first to tell you that all 427 instances of them attacking healthcare facilities were justified because of military activity within them, them notably being a rather biased source to ask since they, you know, would be directly admitting to committing war crimes if they said literally anything short of that.
I'm sure the Reich would've also said, equally full-throatedly, that Jews, Romani, homosexuals etc. were all a dire, ever present threat to Nazi Germany, and if you believe that too, I have a bridge to sell you.
> Are you American? Non-white in Europe? Congrats, you are a colonizer!
Sure am. Doesn't change a thing about the arguments I'm making.
"AHA! Then you have benefitt-" Yes, I have, and if some time in the future when we have a more progressive leadership I am asked to give up an amount of my wealth, my land, hell, my ability to live here so as to create a more equitable world, I will do that.
And yes, were I present during Nazi Germany, I would've said the same things I'm saying now. I wasn't alive then, nor during the colonial era, nor during any other time of mass human atrocity that is now factually human atrocity because it's far enough in the rear view mirror that the Powers That Be are comfortable with it being called that. But I AM alive and present during THIS ONE, which is why I'm out here saying: Yeah that sure as fuck looks like a genocide to me. And I'm going to keep saying it.
> I mean, I understand why it's happening. Israel wants some combination of Palestinian territory and/or dead Palestinians.
This understanding of yours contradicts reality. If Israel wanted more dead Palestinians and their territory, then why wait? Why leave Gaza?
> Because their intent is unknowable, unless you've a mind-reading machine in your back pocket.
Without intent, you cannot prove its genocide.
> I would argue they intend to genocide Palestinians, and to make that argument I would cite what I already have.
You have nothing beyond anecdata. Dead civilians are not genocide.
> You are unconvinced.
Because there is no evidence.
> I then go on to say: even if we grant that it's not intended genocide, merely Israel desiring territory it is not entitled to, that's still horrific and still completely worthy of condemnation.
If they want territory, whey did they leave in the first place?
Can there be an alternative explanation?
> Yes and I'm sure Israel would be the first to tell you that all 427 instances of them attacking healthcare facilities were justified because of military activity within them, them notably being a rather biased source to ask since they, you know, would be directly admitting to committing war crimes if they said literally anything short of that.
Each instance has to be investigated. Just screaming out loud that "they bomb hospitals just for fun!!!" without any evidence of targeted and systemic policy just shows that for you its a matter of religious belief and not reality.
> I'm sure the Reich would've also said, equally full-throatedly, that Jews, Romani, homosexuals etc. were all a dire, ever present threat to Nazi Germany, and if you believe that too, I have a bridge to sell you.
Please show me that Israel engages in exactly the same level of xenophobic rhetoric as the nazis. You guys just can't, you have to compare Israel to Nazis, right?
> Sure am. Doesn't change a thing about the arguments I'm making.
So... It seems to me that you are like this rapist that says that others can't rape, it is bad, and yet continues to rape.
> Yeah that sure as fuck looks like a genocide to me. And I'm going to keep saying it.
Intent is impossible to prove, it's unfalsifiable. I can't prove they intend it, you can't prove they don't intend it. It's a worthless data point.
> Because there is no evidence.
All the fatalities are Palestinians. Gaza is a Palestinian region. Numerous Israeli politicians, military leaders, influencers, and citizens are all echoing exterminationist rhetoric. Numerous Jewish activists worldwide condemn Israel's actions as a genocide.
Is there a document signed by Netanyahu stating in black and white that they seek a genocidal defeat of the Palestinians that's been made public? No. We don't need to wait for it to be.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lays duck eggs, and swims like a duck, you don't need to kill it and examine it's internal organs to verify it was a duck. It's a fuckin duck.
> Can there be an alternative explanation?
Yeah sure, maybe the Israeli government is run by a race of alien worms who are dying and their sole means of survival is kept in a facility under the Gaza strip. Anything's possible. However the simplest explanation is, in my experience, the closest to the truth.
> Please show me that Israel engages in exactly the same level of xenophobic rhetoric as the nazis.
Back in the 80s, figures like Yeshayahu Leibowitz and Yehuda Elkana, one of whom is literally Israeli, have warned about the rise of Zionism and it's comparability to the exerminationist ideology of Nazi Germany.
> So... It seems to me that you are like this rapist that says that others can't rape, it is bad, and yet continues to rape.
A rapist, while raping someone, can point to someone else raping someone and be factually correct in their accusation.
You can tease out this ad hominem as much as you like.
> Intent is impossible to prove, it's unfalsifiable. I can't prove they intend it, you can't prove they don't intend it. It's a worthless data point.
It is absolutely possible to prove intent. This is how prosecutors prove that that homicide was a first degree murder as opposed to reckless manslaughter.
If we are talking about governments and states, you can absolutely prove intent based on the enacted policies. For example, treatment of Uighurs in China is borderline genocide. You have intentional state policy where a specific minority cannot use their language, live according to their traditions and culture, placed into labor/re-education camps, and, as a result, have declining birth rates, which will eventually lead to no Uighurs in China at all. Another example is Red Khmers with their policy of Year Zero. So, you can absolutely prove intent beyond any reasonable doubt.
> All the fatalities are Palestinians. Gaza is a Palestinian region.
Israelis are dying too. When Palestinians launched rockets, some Israelis died. As happens when two sides engage in war. Has nothing to do with genocide.
> Numerous Israeli politicians, military leaders, influencers, and citizens are all echoing exterminationist rhetoric.
Same as Palestinians. If we base our argument on “rhetoric”, then everyone is committed genocide basically everywhere in the world.
> Numerous Jewish activists worldwide condemn Israel's actions as a genocide.
Numerous jewish activists say otherwise. How does identity of an activist determine if something is a genocide or not? There are numerous Palestinians who support Israel’s war in Gaza. So?
Identity politics is very bad argument.
I can also mention some Palestinians that are claiming similar things about Palestinian policy. Would you accept their testimonies because they are Palestinians, or you will discard it because it is not aligned with what you believe?
> Is there a document signed by Netanyahu stating in black and white that they seek a genocidal defeat of the Palestinians that's been made public? No. We don't need to wait for it to be.
Ah, so, basically, without any evidence you simply decided it is genocide, and that’s it?
> If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lays duck eggs, and swims like a duck, you don't need to kill it and examine it's internal organs to verify it was a duck. It's a fuckin duck.
Yeah. I am sure this kind of argument holds, and is not a double-edged sword at all.
> Yeah sure, maybe the Israeli government is run by a race of alien worms who are dying and their sole means of survival is kept in a facility under the Gaza strip. Anything's possible. However the simplest explanation is, in my experience, the closest to the truth.
This is not the simplest explanation. Your explanation is based on a single interpretation of some observed evidence, completely disregarding similar conflicts, military practices, etc. Again, very similar to how religious people believe in their things — they are not interested to hear alternative explanations. Why should they — the book says it all.
> Back in the 80s, figures like Yeshayahu Leibowitz and Yehuda Elkana, one of whom is literally Israeli, have warned about the rise of Zionism and it's comparability to the exerminationist ideology of Nazi Germany.
Identity politics again.
> A rapist, while raping someone, can point to someone else raping someone and be factually correct in their accusation.
Ah :) So, you can rape, but others can’t? ;)
I would say that rapist’s testimony is not trustworthy due to them being rapists. There is a reason why in the court of law the witnesses are better be of good moral character — otherwise, why would anyone believe them?
> You can tease out this ad hominem as much as you like.
It is not an ad hominem. This issue for you is a matter of beliefs and not reason. There is nothing “ad hominem” about acknowledging this fact.
Some Israelis died. Like David Ben Avraham, an Israeli Jew who was ethnically Palestinian. He was stopped arbitrarily by an Israeli soldier, asked his name, then immediately shot dead.
If the mafia comes to your door and tells you that you need to pay them 50% of your income or they will come to your house and drag you to prison at gunpoint and shoot you if you resist, are you technically supporting the mafia's crimes when you pay them?
> No one kills people for not paying taxes. Your example is dramatic and detached from reality.
What do you think actually happens in the US if you refuse to pay taxes to such an extent that they come to arrest you for it, and then when they do you put up a fight? See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
>Apartheid, genocide and war crimes are not "culture war" issues.
"Culture war" doesn't literally mean culture stuff like religion. It basically covers any controversial issue over ideology.
From wikipedia:
>A culture war is a form of cultural conflict (metaphorical "war") between different social groups who struggle to politically impose their own ideology (moral beliefs, humane virtues, and religious practices) upon mainstream society,[1][2] or upon the other. In political usage, culture war is a metaphor for "hot-button" politics about values and ideologies, realized with intentionally adversarial social narratives meant to provoke political polarization among the mainstream of society over economic matters,[3][4] such as those of public policy,[5] as well as of consumption.[1] As practical politics, a culture war is about social policy wedge issues that are based on abstract arguments about values, morality, and lifestyle meant to provoke political cleavage in a multicultural society.[2]
Of course, everyone thinks their issue is a Super Serious Issue that isn't culture war, and their side is so obviously correct that the idea controversy exists at all is absurd, so you really can't take someone's word that it's not a culture war issue. The Wikipedia article agrees with this. It lists such serious issues as trans rights, education policy, and obamacare. I'm sure if you asked strong supporters/opponents for those issues, they'd scoff at the characterization of "culture war".
That's a very high bar for "state sponsored attack." I'd say the various internet ID verification laws being rolled out qualify as a state sponsored attack on our privacy/individual rights writ large.
And that's a very low bar for "state sponsored attack". Essentially everything you disagree with that the state does is a "state sponsored attack." This muddies the waters and when there is a "state sponsored attack" on a group of people, everyone is numb and we're out of words.
“Attack” doesn’t exclusively mean physical assault/restraining people. It’s called a “DDoS attack” after all. You’re creating a strict and narrow definition that most of the world does not subscribe to.
If I say “stop attacking me” during a heated argument no one thinks you’re physically assaulting me. That would be ridiculous.
