That sounds like the perfect beverage to keep my reactions razor sharp while I enjoy the split-second thrills of playing League of Legends with my attractive, ethnically diverse friends.

I have no idea how/why some people decided that she's the exemplar that should be representing them.

Just to get it out of the way at the start - Hamas is terrible. They are violent fundamentalists and do not deserve support. Neither Israel nor Hamas are "good" and the only side that deserves support and recognition are the civilians, Israeli or Palestinian, suffering because of/under their evil regimes. Now on to the rebuttal.

Israel needs no "baiting" to kill or otherwise abuse Palestinians - it's their policy and has been for a long time. From the Nakba until today, the history of Israeli human rights violations, violence, lies, etc. is well-established. "Look at what you made me do" is such a typical excuse used by abusers that it's almost a trope. Moreover, Netanyahu's government deliberately kept Hamas in power as a useful bogeyman and an way to divide/foil Palestinian statehood. There is ample evidence that Israel has directly supported Hamas and other extremists for decades.

"Hamas, for its part, is alleged to have emerged out of the Israeli-financed Islamist movement in Gaza, Israel’s then-military governor in that territory, Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev, disclosing in 1981 that he had been given a budget for funding Palestinian Islamists to counter the rising power of Palestinian secularists."

"In a 1994 book, “The Other Side of Deception,” Mossad whistleblower Victor Ostrovsky contended that aiding Hamas meshed with “Mossad’s general plan” for an Arab world “run by fundamentalists” that would reject “any negotiations with the West,” thereby leaving Israel as “the only democratic, rational country in the region.” Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official involved in Gaza for over two decades, told a newspaper interviewer in 2009 that, “Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation.”

As far as the nature of the demands: "one-sided deals" is a matter of opinion, but "we need guarantees you'll actually leave, stop killing/injuring many tens of thousands of civilians, destroying hospitals/schools/aid, etc." seems like a pretty standard request at peace negotiations. Especially since Israel has repeatedly promised to continue to prosecute the war and establish long-term armed forces in Gaza.

If he can follow up on even a portion of what he promises, a 2nd Trump presidency will bring the USA to a halt at multiple levels like a car hitting a reinforced wall. The best version of a Trump presidency is him raging daily as he's blocked constantly by legal challenges and bureaucratic measures thus getting nothing done. The worst version is that he succeeds in his goals, reforms the USA into a right-wing autocracy and destroys things like checks/balances and separation of church and state.

Israel has repeatedly stated their intent to continue the war in Gaza regardless of international approval. Netanyahu, among others, has stated intent to establish a long-term/permanent security presence in Gaza.

Since Oct. 7th the Israeli military has either directly killed or provided protection to lethal settler attacks in the West Bank, resulting in over 500 deaths in a section of Occupied Palestinian Territory that theoretically isn't at war. So there's Israeli military presence, violence, and oppression of Palestinians even where Hamas isn't in control.

Hamas are not good guys by any stretch, but unfortunately they are the folks bargaining for Gazans. In the face of continued Israeli aggression, disregard for international approval/law, and stated plans it's no wonder they're demanding that any deals have rock-solid guarantees on an enforceable timetable.

No. You said "Biden is great". I said, "I acknowledge he's done some good, I still disagree, and here's a concise list of reasons why. In spite of that, I'm willing to get on board to fight Trump". You replied (and this is an exact quote): "I talk about how Biden’s done great, and you talk about how he’s not Trump", completely disregarding that I directly addressed why I don't think Biden is great. I did NOT just talk about how he's not Trump.

How am I arguing in bad faith? That is the sequence of events, and it's easily confirmed. I'm also not calling you out just because you didn't watch the video. I'm saying you didn't watch AND disregarded that I explicitly gave you the video as a source for my disagreement with you to instead say I focus on "not Trump". Now you've doubled down with a response that paints me as arguing in bad faith and linking that to insults/abuse. I never insulted you. Disagreeing is not inherently a slur or abusive, nor is pointing out the holes in an rebuttal. If you don't have time to watch the vid that's understandable but wait to respond until you do or at least don't say I only focused on "not Trump" when that's provably not the case.

So you won't spend 90 seconds to watch the criticisms laid out, but you'll take the time to tell me they are all either nonexistent or invalid?

Biden has done some good things. I disagree that he's great. If you want specifics, the first 90 seconds of that Sanders video is him detailing several grievances I agree with in a clear, concise and fairly complete list. However, to quote Sanders: "But while we may have our disagreements with Biden, it's important to take a minute to think about what a Trump presidency would mean to our country, and in fact the world."

I know what needs to be done which is why I stopped encouraging/supporting 3rd party or undecided voting months ago. I could go on a lot longer, but that's the bottom line. I'll join the effort to stop Trump - just don't ask me to agree that my concerns are invalid or have been adequately addressed.

Historical misinformation spreads most readily simply by being repeated and undisputed.

This is admittedly a bit nitpickey, but I specifically said you address misinformation with facts and sources to back up those facts. That's the opposite of repeating and/or letting it go undisputed.

Disagreeing with someone civilly acknowledges the validity of their point or position.

No. You can say, emphatically, "you're wrong" without also calling someone idiotic, etc.

is “Every political position, even the one I’m part of, has flaws” really that bad in your eyes?

I've said right from the start that I agree with some points you make, and I stand by that. Being aware that everyone is wrong sometimes is undeniably a virtue.

That’s the right approach, honestly.

Thank you :) I appreciate that, and respect that you're willing to give me that even if we have had our disagreements today.

how am I supposed to respond to a blatant bad faith effort to spread historical misinformation?

With facts and sources to back up those facts. You can disagree with someone in a civil manner. If you actually care about my point about delivery, please watch that Bernie video.

Your meme does indeed make fun of all quadrants, but I used it because it's an example of the type of the insults. And let's be honest, there's evidence in those other posts that some of those opinions are not JUST satire for you. I mean, you called me out for being naively kind and employing "flower power", aka chances are you think I'm one of the useful idiots.

Aside from that, like I said - I can't stop you from insulting people. Your arguments seem to point to a belief in your right to do so. I don't think I would force you even if I could since I usually try to convince people instead. If I didn't change your mind, maybe I will change the minds of some others who may read this.

Just today?

What did I say about being able to read your post history?

• "But hey, since when are fascists internally consistent?"
• "Democracy is. I didn’t realize that this metaphor was getting too complex for you."
• Here's your post from today where you call LibLefts "useful idiots who serve above (authoritarians) only to be purged when the revolution is complete". You also say they support terrorism, and their only solution to community violence is lynch mobs.
• "It doesn’t matter. They don’t believe in democracy, much less convincing people. They’re vanguardist fascists, after all."
• "Wow. Literally saying the quiet part out loud - “As long as the Democrats are not 100% in line with my views, it’s okay to endorse inaction and the takeover of a fascist regime on the pretext that the Democrats Aren’t Good Enough™”"
• "I’m used to tankie whinging about how they can’t support fascist regimes without being called out."
• "The literal opposite of the truth. But I guess the guilt of having MLs backstab the leftist opposition so Fascist Spain could win hurts your point, huh?"
• "Oh, they see the connection. They just want Republicans in office. They don’t give a fuck about the suffering of minorities, they just want the worst possible option in power so they can feel smug about “not supporting the system”."

Those are all examples from just the last 2 hours, across multiple threads. The tragic thing is, I probably agree with a lot of your points. You really do appear to want to deliver those points with as much dehumanization and dismissal as possible however.

I can read your post history. I'm getting tired making the same point but insults are, as near as I can tell, your go-to and I don't even know if you try anything else. You've insulted people disagreeing with you several times just today. I mean, look at how dismissive you are (kindness doesn't work, flower power) of me and Senator Sander's approach of using calmly delivered facts to win over those who will likely decide the upcoming election. It's an attempt to make sure people are convinced you are a true defender of democracy and that your modus operandi of attacks are the only reasonable way to do it properly.

But whatever. I've made my point, given a solid example of what I think is a far more attractive approach that has worked for me and others, and that's all I wanted to add to the conversation. Feel free to reiterate that I'm a idiotic hippy who will usher in unending fascism.

"I'm allowed to call people idiots, fascists, etc. basically daily because I can justify it." Everyone willing to dehumanize and denigrate others has what they believe to be validating reasons. I can't stop you from trying to win people over by insulting everyone who disagrees, but I wanted to be a voice asking for kinder, calmer discourse a la the Bernie video I posted.

Given the attitudes on this platform I'm bracing for the downvotes, but I genuinely wish you and others like you would stop trying to (nearly daily) insult/shame others into voting the way you want. You should watch this video by Bernie Sanders about winning votes for Biden on merit and logic. Note that he never uses insults, and the reasoned arguments Sanders has been making for months convinced me to stop telling people to vote 3rd party months ago. I'm now willing to ask people to vote Biden in spite of my reservations - not because Biden is great but because Trump absolutely cannot be allowed to win.

You and others with the same views could try that approach as opposed to reflexively calling everyone who brings up concerns or expresses reservations fascists, complete idiots, bots, and so on. I have no clue why so many people on Lemmy believe that incessantly attacking everyone who disagrees with them with the most extreme accusations they can muster makes their position welcoming or attractive. I won't speak for others but I was won over by calm reason, not being called slurs every time I opened Lemmy.

I almost never buy multiplayer-focused games anymore. Of course not all gamers are shitty, but enough are to matter. Having left those games behind I can see how they were taking more joy from my life than they added. If friends want to do private co-op that's cool, but it's also rarer now that we're all older.

As far as sales go, I love playing a year or two behind new releases. Patched games at a discount ftw and timing doesn't matter in single-player games.

At first I was like

But within an hour I was all

Got to respect the decision to just step away instead of settling for mediocrity.

Serious answer: I remind myself it's normal to be shocked by some stuff people do/create. I check the content against my ethics, and try to decide if I'm being uptight or if it really is messed up. If it's something that isn't unethical/harmful but I just don't like, then I remind myself that not everyone needs to share my tastes.

If it's genuinely terrible I allow myself to feel the anger/sorrow for a bit, try not to let it become excessive, and congratulate myself on having limits that fit my ethics. I remind myself that good people exist and they are the ones I want to support, emulate, and engage with. As others have mentioned, distraction can also help. Video games, music, socializing - whatever will move your train of thought along.

Upvoted because it's a story worth knowing, but as far as I can tell this is just further harassment/condemnation of anything pro-Palestinian. As of the end of April, independent review "finds no evidence for Israel's claims about UNRWA and Hamas".

Israel has declared organizations as terrorists on bad premises before. E.g. - in 2021 Defence for Children International was formally labelled a terrorist organization after they reported the rape of a 13-year-old Palestinian to the US State Department. Josh Paul, a director involved with the investigation, gives details in an interview about why he resigned from the State Dept. post-Oct. 7th. The short version is: the allegations of rape were credible, Israel was confronted, the next day Israeli forces seized all the local assets of Defence for Children International and declared them terrorists.

EU nations have formally rejected "terrorist organization" labels being applied to humanitarian/watchdog agencies in Israel/OPT before.

Fair point and you may be joking because it's a good question for that. If serious, I honestly don't know what the odds are in a gamble like that. Was he "lucky" or do most people the police abuse like this get big payouts? Is it worth forgoing legal counsel in the hopes that the police screw up in a manner that can be prosecuted into a payout?

If I knew I was going to get 900k I'd likely be willing to go through such a rough day, but those are quite the dice to roll in the moment methinks. If I ever end up in a police station my plan is to get counsel.

Remember in many countries you have the right to legal counsel and to have them present during any questioning. Getting said counsel should be a priority if you find yourself in a police station. Be respectful but clear from the start that you aren't discussing your day until the lawyer/attorney is present.

This story is exactly why people need to be educated about their rights. If this poor guy had asked for an attorney the cops would have had to stop the interview immediately until one was present. I imagine once they resumed the question it would have gone differently with a legal professional in the room.

Agreed. This is more about the court saying, "You countries signed us into existence to monitor the most serious instances of international law and here's our ruling as legal experts. Now it's up to you to decide what to do with it."

I still love seeing this because:

• It lends legitimacy to the accusations against Israel and provides a legal foundation upon which to start measures meant to bring Israel back into line with international law.
• In recent months my dreams have changed. If given the choice I'd give up personal wealth and fulfillment to see Netanyahu and his cabinet of thugs prosecuted in a modern Nuremberg Trial and end their lives in prison as befits the war criminals they are. Leaders should be held accountable for things like bombing hospitals and starving millions no matter which nation they represent.

Too much clean energy that is nearly free sounds like a much better type of problem to solve than most.

I totally missed that when I wrote it.

Every time I get close it says "Press X to Interact" but I don't think my stats are high enough yet. I'm grinding on unattended toddlers until I level a few times.

If the senior citizens near-ruling the USA from the SCOTUS find that making unpopular and legally questionable decisions is exhausting then they are free to retire. People will care a lot less about luxury RV's, free vacations, flags, etc. when they're no longer steering things like national reproductive rights and who actually has to obey the law.

My favorite part is the Marine riding a jetboard(?) of some kind using a bolter to do what looks like an attack run against a Titan.

Those are some mental gymnastics, to try to tell me that when a Palestinian purchases fuel or other products in Palestine and the tax money goes to Israel that it's not Palestinian taxes. That it's Israeli money and is only returned (or sometimes not) because Israel is kind to Palestine. Or that when Israel collects the taxes on a Palestinian's job located in the OPT, i.e. all work is done outside Israeli borders, that it's not Israel collecting Palestinian taxes.

Edit: Just to make sure I was doing my homework, I actually found a copy of the relevant agreement. Read Annex V point 1 (1st page) and Appendix V point 4 (2nd page). Both make it clear that Israel is collecting Palestinian taxes from Palestinians and on purchases made wholly in Palestine with a final destination inside Palestine. Given the very specific language of the agreement, I'm even more sure your assertion that it's Israeli-sourced money is incorrect.

Your word alone is not enough, and in the absence of requested evidence I'm going to disregard it. I have found MANY sources going back years that state that Israel is collecting Palestinian taxes, as in money that Palestine would be collecting if it wasn't occupied/was a self-governing nation. Israel also frequently withholds these taxes as a political bludgeon even though they are bound by their own signed agreements to pass that money along to Palestinian authorities. Israel even charges a 3% fee to do this for Palestine. I cannot find a single source that backs up your assertion that it's actually Israel's money transferred as an act of charity. Moreover, the idea that Israel is being unnecessarily kind clashes with decades of evidence about how Israel views, controls, and abuses Palestinians.

Worked through my obsessions a bit and let go of them. In the following weeks I asked three women out and got shot down each time instead of thinking about doing so for a month and being a creep.

Unironically, good on you. That's character progress and it takes a lot of courage and self-confidence to accept rejection in a mature way and keep trying regardless. For what it's worth I as an Internet stranger think we should help more people do the same sort of things.

Her name is [kept to myself because I'm a gentleman who doesn't kiss and tell]. I hope I, in turn, am not someone's most alarming thing but it's possible :P

As best as -I- can tell, Israel is collecting Palestinian taxes. Here's another article from a different outlet:

What are the Palestinian funds that Israel collects?

Israel collects Palestinian import tax revenue as agreed to in the 1994 Paris Accords signed by the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Israel. The tax revenue Israel collects is made up of indirect taxes imposed on Palestinian imports. It comes from two primary sources: VAT on goods and import tax on goods brought in from outside Israel.

These are taxes that would normally be collected by a country for transactions within/at their borders, not charity/extra taxes paid for by Israelis. From the Wikipedia article, Israel collects taxes on goods/services that end up in Palestine, and controls/collects tariffs on goods entering Palestine. They tax Palestinian labor both in Israel and in the illegal settlements in OPT. They have also used withholding those taxes as a form of control several times in history and those are listed in the article.

As you note, this situation was only supposed to last 5 years, instead Israel has enforced it for 30 and according to the UN it's not because Israelis are "giving them free money". "However, 30 years later, the financial settlement continues to give the Israeli state what the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has called “a disproportionate influence on the collection of Palestinian fiscal revenue, leading to deficiencies in the structure and collection of customs duties resulting from direct and indirect importing into Palestine”.

I am not an expert. I may be wrong. But none of the sources I'm finding frame the issue as Israel withholding charity or bonus payments or anything similar - they all say Israel is holding Palestinian taxes. I only care about proof, so if you can provide it I'll check it and if it outweighs the evidence I've found and linked I'll change my mind.

Edit: I tracked down a copy of the actual relevant agreement, and it definitely is money collected from Palestinians and on purchases made in Palestine on products that are brought into Palestine. Discussion a few comments down if interested.

I'm not sure if they collect all taxes, but according to the article they do collect at least some (and a meaningful amount):

"Under decades-old agreements, Israel collects customs and import taxes on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. Those revenues constitute most of the Palestinian budget, particularly as international aid has declined. "

Alternatively, a fusion with the Canadian Tuxedo - the Canono.

Prison labor = slave labor, black votes are systematically made worth less than white votes...this is starting to sound familiar.

For a lot of wild animals, smiling can be a sign of aggression or unease. This is just an initiative to help humanity rediscover it's natural roots by changing the meaning of smiles back.

So in addition to all the other forms of control, Israel collects and can restrict Palestinian taxes. Tell me again, Israeli propagandists, how Israel doesn't actually occupy what is rightfully internationally known as Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).