@donuts@kbin.social avatar

donuts

@donuts@kbin.social

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

"its data".

Ah yes... of course.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

Their TOS says they own your content in any current or future formats or derivative works.

Their ToS could say they own you and your children and grandchildren, but that doesn't make it enforceable.

If I post a frame from the movie Akira on Reddit would any reasonable person suggest that they own not only that frame, but also the entire movie that it came from as a derivative work? There is a glut of second-hand data just like that all over Reddit, Twitter, and every other social media network, and I'm willing to bet that's also part of what's being sold.

But hey... I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the idea that they automatically "own" the things that people post on their website is ridiculous. It's a bit like UPS or FedEx saying they own the contents of your package while delivering it.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

And yet that exact kind of data is all over reddit in ways that are impractical to enforce by case by case DMCA. How many memes are there using footage from popular shows? How much fanart?

More importantly, is that stuff not included as part of the data that reddit "owns" when they sell their data to tech companies? Because whether a DMCA takedown has been requested on that kind of data or not, doesn't change the fact that they don't hold the copyright in the first place. How can they sell things that they don't even own?

Something smells. The logic of this entire industry doesn't add up.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

I think you're conflating two very different things here.

  1. Reddit _hosting/dissemination user-submitted copyrighted data.
  2. Reddit licensing/selling copyrighted data to other parties.

The DMCA covers hosting and dissemination. If a user submits copyrighted data to Reddit that they do not own and Reddit unknowingly (because, to be fair, they can't know what is or isn't owned or by who), then Reddit is not liable for copyright infringement as long as they comply with DMCA takedown requests from people who claim to own the original IP.

But again, none of that implies that Reddit themselves (or Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, etc.) can realistically claim ownership over all of the data that is on their website. The reason they are subject to DMCA at all is because there is a globally shared assumption that data that users submit may or may not be owned by some other party, and while the DMCA protects them from being held liable for simply hosting and disseminating that data, it does not magically make them the owner of all data that hasn't had a DMCA claim made against it.

In other words, if I post a picture of Homer Simpson on Reddit (and there are many), it is ridiculous for anyone to suggest that they have any intellectual property rights over that picture, that character, any trademarks, etc., whether someone has made a formal DMCA take down request or not. And if they don't own the picture, the character, the trademark, etc., when what exactly are they selling (licensing) and where did they get the right to sell it?

They might not be liable for just hosting/distributing it, but just like you can't sell someone else's car, you can't license out someone else's IP.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

If you believe anything that Putin says then I have a pair of $400 golden sneakers to sell you.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

He didn’t hurt your democracy though, he didn’t try to keep the opposition off the ballot.

Yeah he just repeatedly called the election rigged and tried to replace the Biden electoral votes with Trump ones by means of an armed insurrection.

But hey, he failed (just like how he fails at everything else) so no harm no foul. That's how law and society work, right?

donuts , (edited )
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

Just because he wasn't charged with treason doesn't mean he didn't commit treason by advocating an armed insurrection against our democracy. (See: the US post-Civil War Reconstruction Era for further examples.)

And if you want to why he wasn't charged for that, it's because of Republican Special Counsel Ken Starr's disastrous opinion that sitting presidents are above the law and can't be prosecuted, and must instead be impeached--which, if you remember, Trump was, not once but twice. Of course now Trump is arguing that he's still above the law and deserves "total immunity", which only further shows that he is, in fact, a wanna-be dictator.

Saying "Trump wasn't charged with a crime so therefore he did nothing wrong" and "Trump can't be charged with a crime because current and former US Presidents must have total immunity from prosecution" is very clearly circular logic.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

Armed with what?

Guns, knives, blunt weapons, tasers, bear spray, hand cuffs and zip ties.

Taking the stand in the seditious conspiracy case against Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and four associates, Terry Cummings showed jurors an AR-15 firearm and an orange box for ammunition that he contributed to the so-called quick reaction force the Oath Keepers had staged at the hotel outside of Washington in case they needed weapons.

I had not seen that many weapons in one location since I was in the military,” said Cummings, a veteran who joined the Oath Keepers in Florida in 2020.

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-florida-virginia-conspiracy-government-and-politics-6ac80882e8cf61af36be6c46252ac24c

But a review of the federal charges against the alleged rioters shows that they did come armed, and with a variety of weapons: stun guns, pepper spray, baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs. An additional suspect also allegedly planted pipe bombs by the headquarters of the Democratic and Republican parties the night before the riot and remains at large.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used

Online sleuths who have aided in hundreds of Jan. 6 prosecutions say he is the same man they identified to the FBI who is currently individual No. 200 on the bureau’s Capitol Violence page, which he first appeared on three years ago. Videos and photographs from the Capitol on Jan. 6 showed him with what appears to be a gun in his waistband. As NBC News previously reported, that man, John Emanuel Banuelos, told Salt Lake City police that he was at the Capitol and had been captured on film with a gun. “I was in the D.C. riots,” he told the investigators, according to a police transcript. “I’m the one in the video with the gun right here.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/new-jan-6-footage-appears-show-rioter-firing-gun-air-capitol-attack-rcna138137

And I recall Hillary’s plot to get electors to “vote their concious”

The source you've linked quotes Martin Sheen and other "celebrities", not Hillary Clinton, who conceded the election as someone who believed in democracy would (despite being much more popular than Trump and winning the national vote by millions).

Also, you should know that official electors are not always bound. As a Trump voter I know you're not big on education or knowledge, but if you want you can read all about unpledged electors here.

Meanwhile, what Trump and his gang of indicted co-conspirators did was to submit a slate of fraudulent and fake electors to the election certification process in order to literally steal swing state electoral college votes and appoint himself President. Or as he likes to say "dictator on day one".

Here's a list of the names of the fraudulent electors in each state that Trump tried to overthrow.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

They're gonna make us microdose edibles every morning. To make matters worse there'll be a taco truck on every corner.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

I understand what you mean, and people should get a chance to vote in the primaries for the person who they think is best, but Biden is the incumbent, and he's out there winning primaries with like >85% of the vote. Hell, he even won the write-in campaign in Iowa. ( That's to say nothing of him winning against more than a dozen other, younger candidates in 2020. ) Marianne Williamson is the only other candidate to regularly crack 1%, and she's not exactly "president material" if you ask me.

It's going to Biden vs Trump. Two old ass white dudes who aren't exactly sharp (though Trump is most certainly dumber, weirder and not to mention a fucking criminal fascist). For me, that makes it the easiest choice of my year.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

The majority of American elections are winner-takes-all, first-past-the-post races decided with plurality voting. Among other things, this means that if you are voting for someone outside of the realm of the statistical possibility for victory, you are simply throwing your vote away. That is the way the system works today, whether we like it or not, and wasting my vote by writing in Bugs Bunny or whatever isn't actually a reasonable, productive, grown-up, or intelligent thing to do--especially not in the face of impending autocratic fascism.

In other words, the winner of the 2024 Presidential Election will either be Joe Biden (D) or Donald Trump (R). Of those two, I can easily pick Joe Biden as the person I would like to see running the country, controlling the US nuclear arsenal, and watching over the western world. Again, it's an easy choice for me. As someone who does probably too much research and overthinking into voting, I've never had an easier choice.

But hey, if you're like me and you don't like the current American two-party political system, then I encourage you to vote for democratic reforms like Ranked Choice Voting, STAR voting, approval voting, etc. Multiple states have implemented better, more democratic voting systems, and more will hopefully continue to in future years, because unsurprisingly they are almost all better and more democratic than plurality voting.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

Anyway, I’ve found that if I drink 32 ounces of water before bed every night, I have a reason to get out of bed every day…

Needing to pee is often a great motivator to get out of bed, unless you're really depressed.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

As was foretold in... THE PROPHECY!

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

Well I didn't really want to go there but I don't kink shame.

I've recently turned 20. What highly specific advice you, lemmy users, would offer me?

A lot of people answering this struggle to understand what highly-specific means. I'm looking to, for the sake of experiment, highly-specific advice that gives a reader clear understanding of what they should do. Unlike the vague advice, on the contrary, that may be too abstract to get implementing it right away....

donuts , (edited )
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

I'd also say to develop a healthy attitude towards soft drugs like alcohol and weed.

Hard drugs can fuck your life up faster, but addiction to soft drugs can also do a lot of damage. Have fun, but keep perspective. You're probably gonna be around people do stupid shit from time to time, but resist the temptation to be the person doing the stupidest shit.

donuts , (edited )
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

Whatever you want to do in life, start right away.

  • If you want to start a business, start developing it and putting the pieces into place as soon as you can.
  • If you want to be a artist/musician/writer/etc, take yourself seriously and start gigging or creating right away.
  • If you want to reach the top of the academic pyramid, study more than what you're assigned and start developing your ideas.
  • If you want to be involved in politics, then start getting involved in politics.
  • etc...

I'm not saying this because it'll be too late if you don't, or anything like that. It's never really too late to change course or start doing what you want.

But don't wait until you're finished school. Don't wait until you feel "ready". Dispel is the idea that you're still a kid or that you're just going through the motions until your life really begins. Life is now. So, plant the seeds of your future as soon as you possibly can.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

What does any of that have to do with LGBT rights? Seems like an ad hominem at best.

Is this the part where y'all jump the shark and pretend like Palestine is a mecca of progressivism and civil rights?

donuts , (edited )
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

Hardware wise, you'll be hard pressed to find any even half-way popular computer that can't run some form of Linux. So I'd say just get something that's within your budget. Those x86 APU-based mini pcs that you can find for ~$200 are becoming pretty popular for projects these days. Something like a Raspberry Pi or Orange Pi or whatever might also be fine depending on what you want to do with it, just keep your power expectations in check. If you want to spend more money on something with graphics hardware, I'd recommend going for AMD over NVidia, just because the drivers are built into the kernel and essentially no-hassle.

When it comes to software, especially if you're on x86, just arbitrarily pick one of the reasonably popular distros like Ubuntu, Fedora, PopOS, or any of the other ones you've probably heard of. One of the first things to learn about "Linux" is that there's a whole ecosystem of software projects behind it, and there is a lot of overlap between the software that each distro runs. Yes, there are some meaningful differences between, for example, Ubuntu and Fedora, but I think they are much less meaningful to a noobie (who is just learning the basics of Linux) or an expert (who probably knows enough to bend and customize just about any distro into whatever they want).

Small caveat #1: If you prefer to have a desktop that more closely resembles Windows (like the one of the Steam Deck's desktop mode) you might want to pick a distro spin that uses the KDE Plasma desktop. On the other hand, if you want to play around with something that's a bit different than what you're used to, it might be worth checking out a distro spin that uses the Gnome desktop. I can recommend them both for different reasons, so you might want to check out some videos of them to see what you're more into before picking. (Other desktops are available, these are just the two big ones! So there truly are a ton of options to explore here if you want to.)

Small caveat #2: At this point in time are you more interested in stability or customization? If you want a truly rock-solid Linux system that's hard to ever break, you might want to consider one of the new "atomic" distributions like Fedora Silverblue/Kinoite (or others), though you might find some of their limitations annoying. On the other side of the spectrum, if deep customization and flexibility is what you're looking for, then you might want to venture into the deep end with things like NixOS or ArchLinux, just keep in mind that they can be very technical and overwhelming for noobs. Personally I have been using Fedora Silverblue for a couple years now and I love the stability of it, and I can work around it's limitations with distrobox.

Another thing to consider is just using what you already have. For example, playing around with Linux in a virtual machine, setting up a Linux-based server on one of the popular VPS services, or just plugging your Steam Deck into a dock with a keyboard and monitor attached and playing with something like distrobox (which you can probably find a guide on how to set that up for your deck).

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

If we are going to start outlawing things that could, in some very vague and abstract way, be considered "harmful", then we would have to start banning many more things than just low-level drugs.

Cannabis is a natural plant that has existed throughout the entirety of human history. Medicine to some, religion to others, recreation and inspiration for the rest. Likewise, cannabinoids are a natural chemical compound that can be found naturally in your body and the body of most living things on Earth. Cannabis makes us feel good because it just so happens to contain the same kinds of cannabinoids that our body produces, which also make us feel good.

Cannabis might be addictive in the same way that anything pleasurable is addictive. But you don't see people dying of cannabis overdoses, nor do you see people winding up on the streets with crippling cannabis addictions that overwhelm their entire life.

It's a safe, natural, and mild high, and there has never been any good reason for it to be illegal.

edit: Oh, he's just a troll. Whatever.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

It's very misleading (at best) to cherry-pick a single poll and use it as a heuristic for what would happen if the election was held today. There's a good reason why none of the big election forecasters do this. It's one thing to link individual state polls, and they are worth paying attention to, but if FiveThirtyEight thought they had enough data right now to build an accurate forecast without a huge amount of uncertainty, don't you think they would have done that themselves?

We aren't even out of the primary yet.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

Why it’s important to keep looking I guess

You're learning the wrong lesson here...

The right lesson is to stop looking at only the most recent poll as if it's a good indicator of anything. There is a reason why professional election prediction models using a weighted combination of every poll, on top of things like historical election data, while factoring in things like uncertainty and time from now until the election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recency_bias

It could very well be that Trump is ahead and wins in every swing state, but you can't reasonably forecast that by looking at any single poll, even if it happens to be the most recent one.

People should understand that Trump is almost certain to be the Republican candidate and he has a very real chance of winning. People should also understand that Biden is almost certain to be the Democratic candidate and he also has a very real chance of winning.

Man Displays Father’s Severed Head in Horrific Video Railing Against Biden, Immigration, ‘Far-Left Woke Mobs’ (www.mediaite.com)

Justin Mohn, a 32-year-old Pennsylvania man, is in police custody after allegedly murdering and decapitating his father, claiming the latter was a "federal employee" and a "traitor." Before his arrest, Mohn posted a 14-minute video to YouTube in which he displayed his father's severed head, proclaiming: "This is the head of Mike...

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

What the ever loving fuck..?

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

If the question is whether you're pro/neutral/anti fascism, I think being anti-fascist is the only reasonable answer personally.

donuts OP ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

$83 million

That's 638.46 stormies, for those playing along at home.

donuts , (edited )
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

If Texas has complete control and final authority over their majority portion of the southern border, shouldn't they be the ones are responsible for spending the resources for securing it as well as being accountable for the humanitarian disaster?

The Republicans want it both ways: They want to blame the President and federal government for the situation at the border (but only when it's the Democrats in office and never when they are, of course), and at the exact same time they want to claim total authority over border policy on the state level. On top of that, they love to pull political stunts wrt the border every election year, but when it comes to actually passing an immigration bill, they'll tank it because Trump doesn't want to let Biden have yet another win.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too. Fucking pick one you disingenuous scumbag clowns.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

Trump leading another insurrection, but this time against the judicial branch instead of the legislative branch???

SHOCKED fucking PIKACHU fucking FACE.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

You could tell that the GOP had no interest in an honest primary when they decided that Trump didn't have to participate in the debates.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

It just shows that the Republicans can't get shit done even when it's shit that they claim they want to do. They are incompetent at best and a blight on our society at worst.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

Microsoft basically tied with Apple for the title of richest company in the world, by the way.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

In my experience yabridge is fantastic. With a bit of initial setup, it's the closest thing to a native experience that I've come across.

You do control it with a CLI interface, so you need to be comfortable with that.

You also need to have already installed the Windows VSTs manually using WINE or whatever, and so there's a bit of a typical "how well does this work under wine" crapshoot and a bit of a learning curve there.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

Modartt's Pianoteq is a nice Linux native, physically modeled piano plugin.

Trump leans into voter fraud playbook, preparing to cry foul if he loses expected Biden rematch (apnews.com)

After he won the New Hampshire Republican primary Tuesday night, former President Donald Trump complained about his main GOP rival, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, about immigration, inflation, and his likely opponent in November, President Joe Biden....

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

Don't worry, Trump's gonna claim foul play no matter whether he wins or loses and by how much.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

Good for him. Nobody should be forced to fight in a war they don't believe in.

donuts OP ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

Proving once again that if you can identify a whale in a lineup of 3 different animals, you too can be the Republican nominee for President.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

No. I do expect coherent and factual arguments from those who do, however. I've had my fill of word salad for 2024 already. Am I asking too much?

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

Feelings aside, Biden is objectively one of the most, if not the most, progressive President we've had in modern history.

[Bernie] Sanders said that some of the early goals that the Biden administration and a Democratic Congress were able to accomplish in the first two years of Biden’s presidency were progressive victories, including the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan.

“I think the American Rescue Plan that we passed early in his agenda, in the midst of the terrible pandemic, the economic collapse, was, in fact, one of the most significant pieces of legislation for the working class in this country, in the modern history of America,” Sanders said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/3865355-sanders-biden-a-more-progressive-president-than-he-was-as-senator/

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

That's fair. You're right.

I just thought it was funnier than going point by point through that incoherent nonsense to try to correct it, because sometimes I feel like it's better to laugh than it is to try to engage with political talking points that are so mired in bullshit that they are hard to take in good faith. It's also flawed to assume that everybody who is engaging in conversations around American politics are American citizens acting in good-faith, based on what we know about the history of foreign meddling in global elections, but I digress.

It's possible that you've taken it more seriously than I meant it to be, but ultimately I said something that may have been offensive and exclusionary to ESL speaking people, and for that I'll just say sorry.

donuts ,
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

Reread the comment that I was responding to.

donuts , (edited )
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

For all of his progressive economic accomplishments, FDR also interned in the Japanese and allowed for the creation of one of the world's worst toxic waste sites.

The point being that I don't expect inhuman levels of perfection for my political leaders, and I don't think you should either. There was much more to FDR's administration than the New Deal, and when it comes the historical comparison Biden may have fallen short on matching the New Deal (although objectively he passed the biggest infrastructure and progressive economics bill since the New Deal), he has an undeniably better track record than FDR in terms of human rights, civil rights and environmental protection. There's really no comparison.

(FWIW, it's also worth noting that FDR had a significantly stronger Democratic backing in congress, with IIRC, a large supermajority in the Senate for multiple years. Historical political context is also important.)

Like it or not, It's just a point of fact that Biden is the most progressive president we've had in at least 50 years, if not a century, when looking at the entirety of his record so far.

donuts , (edited )
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

The world's first two-way genocide 🙄

The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, 'O Muslim, O servant of God, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' Only the Gharkad tree would not do that, because it is one of the trees of the Jews

Hamas Founding Charter, Article VII, 1988
https://sunnah.com/muslim:2922

donuts , (edited )
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

A) Glad you were eventually able to edit your post to more than a single emoji

It's only fair, I was just short on time.

B) You know that Palestinians aren’t Hamas, right?

Not all Palestinians are Hamas or even sympathetic to Hamas. Not all Israelis are IDF or supporters of Netenyahu.

Every single innocent person on either side of this war is a victim.

C) You understand that it’s not a, “two-way genocide,” if only side can actually commit genocide, right?

This is a stunningly bizarre point.

We've already established that the founding mission of Hamas was a jihad in the name eliminating Israeli Jews. To take it a step further, nations like Iran, who back Hamas, have openly called for "wiping Israel of the map" on multiple occasions. So not only is the intent real and well documented, but the actions of Hamas, including the war crimes of taking civilian hostages, are consistent with those original goals. Hamas leaders are still openly talking about a one state solution today, as are most of their supporters, even in the west.

But to your point, that intent doesn't matter and only capability matters.

I find that quite ironic considering the thousands of missiles fired from Gaza into Israel by Hamas as part of their coordinated terror attack. The IDF estimates (grain of salt, best number I can find right now) there were 2000 Hamas missile attacks on October 7th alone. There have been continuous attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah since then.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-gaza-rockets.html

The only thing stopping those missiles from hitting Israeli civilians was the American Iron Dome missile defense system. Had it not been for American support of Israel, it's very possible that the combined forces of Hamas and Hezbollah, with the backing of Iran and Russia, could have very well been capable of waging an all out genocidal attack on Israel, as they have repeatedly stated is their shared intention.

In that regard, are Israel guilty of simply being able to defend themselves better than Hamas could defend Gaza? Would it have been better if Israel hadn't had Iron Dome and been hit with some thousand missiles from multiple different Islamic militant groups on multiple fronts?

Of course not, which is also why the "accusation" of genocide against Israel has been rejected by every key member of the UN as baseless and without merit or evidence.

We don't get to simply refine words until they mean what we want them to mean. Hamas and Netenyahu both wanted war, played off each other for political power, and have both openly called for a unacceptable single-state solution "from river to sea". Which, as a worst and most cynical interpretation, can be seen as a call for genocide from both parties. Neither should have ever been given political power, and neither should be allowed to hold power in the future. But it does take two to tango, and Hamas' intent and actions do matter here as well, especially when they are not helpless and have used plenty of potentially lethal force towards Israel. (And again, there is the war crime of taking civilian hostages.)

This is on them, not the United States, who have (thanks to Iron Dome) protected the lives of countless innocent Israelis and who have called for the IDF to show restraint and to work towards a two-state solution with an autonomous Palestine that Hamas are unfit to rule over.

Doesn't matter if it's Biden, Bernie or FDR's ghost in the Oval Office, America will continue to support its most important ally in the middle east, especially as they take heavy fire from all directions by groups whose state intent has always been their annihilation.

donuts , (edited )
@donuts@kbin.social avatar

So, if you think that this case is meritless because, “key,” U.N. members don’t support it

No, the accusation is meritless because there is little evidence to support it:

"This killing is nothing short of destruction of Palestinian life," South African lawyer Adila Hassim

There are upwards of 2 million Palestinians in Gaza alone, and if Israel's intention was to inflict destruction of Palestinian life, wouldn't there be far more than 20,000 of Palestinians dead? And, if the goal was genocide, why would Israel be only focusing Gaza and not the West Bank where there are upwards of 3 million? Not to mention the population of ethnic Palestinians who live or work safely and peacefully inside of Israel.

The world has seen genocide many times, from the American genocide of Native People, to the Armenian Genocide, to the Holocaust. Jews know first hand what a ethnic genocide looks like, and this ain't it.

It really doesn't matter who does or doesn't support accusations, or who are allies with who, because legal matters are not democratic and instead based on evidence.

Now when it comes to Hamas, on the other hand, they have made it easy by writing their genocidal intent directly into their founding language. They said their quiet part out loud on day 1, and while they've tried to legitimize themselves by moderating their official language, they clearly haven't moderated their actions. Their allies and backers have made it equally clear that their intent is the complete destruction of Israel and Israeli Jews.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent
to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such: (Genocide Convention, Article II)

Please don't omit the parts that hurt your argument, it's a waste of time and it doesn't work or help.

Remember when you said:

it’s not a, “two-way genocide,” if only side can actually commit genocide, right?
[...]
Genocide isn’t just a declaration in a charter, it is a specific series of actions against an ethnic group,

The Genocide Convention does not support your original claim that Hamas' actions cannot be considered genocide because they aren't capable. The part that you omitted is very clear that intent is everything.

Killing members of the group (check); Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (check);

What? By that definition alone, every war in human history could/should be labeled a genocide.

That doesn't pass the smell test, and its why you're not doing a service to your argument by omitting inconvenient parts of definitions. It's doing these things "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" that meets the criteria for genocide under the Genocide Convention.

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (check);

I'm not sure what you're citing here, as it links to an entire CNN news feed.

Not that it's relevant, because as we've just established, you've omitted important language from your mischaracterized version of the definition.

But to get back to it, it is Hamas whose intent (as expressed in their founding charter and many times since) and actions (as perpetrated on and after October 7th) most certainly meet the Genocide Convention standards for genocide that you've (at least partially) listed here.

Finally, you seem very concerned with what could happen while ignoring what is happening.

...You seem to have lost the thread on your own argument: that Hamas' actions cannot be considered genocide as the don't have the capacity to pull it off. (Which, again, is an ass-pull and not consistent with the Genocide Convention definition in the slightest.)

Hamas, combined with its allies and backers, absolutely have the capability to murder massive numbers of Israeli civilians. They have also all expressed genocidal intent against Israel at various points in time. Israel is facing attacks from multiple Islamic militant groups as we speak.

These are not opinions, but facts.

If not for Israel's ability to defend itself from these very real attacks, a direct result of ~$130 Billion of US military aide since its inception, we would be seeing massive numbers of Israeli civilians dead from the very real attacks on Israel during this war.

The fact that Israel is able to defend itself from most of Hamas attacks, has no bearing on the classification of this war as a genocide. American investment in Israeli defense has helped save countless lives of innocent Israelis from a daily volley of missiles from openly genocidal, Iran-backed groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • updates
  • testing
  • tech
  • drbboard
  • programming
  • til
  • wanderlust
  • bitcoincash
  • Sacramento
  • All magazines