I’m not saying it’s a literal witch hunt. Never heard of metaphors and figures of speech?
And just shouting “your opinions suck!” and running away is hardly productive to a healthy discussion. If you have any counter-arguments to the topic at hand (the individual “likes” being hidden on Twitter/X), feel free to present them.
I think people with ridiculous views should not have an issue with being ridiculed for those views.
You’re under no obligation to agree with another person point of view. But, if you’re presenting your arguments in good faith, you should be prepared to listen to the person you disagree with in good faith also. If you immediately disregard what others have to say just because you think it’s “too ridiculous to consider”, or throw the ad hominem starter pack: bigot, nazi, far-right, trumper, etc, then you’re just insulating yourself in a bubble in the best case scenario, or showing you don’t have the capability to articulate your argument effectively in the worst case scenario.
It really feels like you’re the immature bunch, trying to hide who you are because you’re too fragile to own up to it if it’s being scrutinized.
It’s not a matter of trying to hide anything for the sake of it. It’s just that some people use the free availability of a user’s previous posts/likes as a shortcut for “whataboutisms”. You may disagree with other posts I made, but what is being discussed here is the reasonableness of individual “likes” being public or not.
I think the crude scrutiny of a persons past posts to be, in many cases, dishonored. The person being scrutinized may have changed their views since then, specially when the post is years-old.
If you disagree, you’re free to offer your counter-arguments.
You have just proved right there why current internet users in general don’t have the maturity to have likes publicly visible. The urge to do a witch hunt is just too irresistible.
She said she regrets not having publicized her opinions on this subject earlier, so if her likes wouldn’t have exposed her, her subsequent retweets certainly would.
When cancel culture was not on full throttle, maybe likes being public made more sense. If only the global like count is the more widely known metric, hiding who liked what is not too significant of a change. It’s not something totally out of the ordinary either, considering most contries’ electoral systems guarantee the individual votes are kept secret.
Maybe what I said was too harsh, sorry. It’s just what seems the logical conclusion in the following sense:
I’m not saying everyone from Gaza will happily throw away their lives for such a “holy cause”. I’m just saying that there are those who believe this and would commit self-sacrifice, and in my view, it’s an act of devaluing their own lives.
This would be unthinkable in the western countries, because of the christian values spread across its population that dictates self-sacrifice/suicide is a sin.
If Israel really wanted the destruction of all Gazans, they’d not send their soldiers to a prolonged war. They’d rather send their own missiles and everything would be destroyed in seconds. They have that capability, but they didn’t use it. If it’s really a genocide as you suggest, it’s the dumbest one of all time, because they’re risking their soldiers when they can attack safely and decisively from a distance.
Dictionary definition: “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.”
I know right? I’ve always thought calling it genocide a flagrant exxageration. When I think of genocide, it comes to mind images of some evil dictator using poison gas in a population, chemical weapons, an atomic bomb, etc.
To be a true genocide, it must be an indiscriminate elimination of the population of a nation or an ethnicity. It’s not the case of Isreal, which is targeting specifically the militants of Hamas. Just because there are civilian colateral damage in the process does not make it a genocide automatically, because the civilians are not what the IDF is after. They’re after Hamas militants. Gaza has a very high population density, and the Hamas militants don’t use any uniform to differentiate them from the civilians. They do it on purpose to make the IDF hesitant, and get them by surprise. They hide themselves in buildings that they know the IDF would be hesitant to attack, like hospitals, schools and mosques. They play dirty, and then cry genocide when the IDF respond to their missiles sent to Israel’s territory.
I’d take this with a grain of salt because it’s just the tale of one man. But if it’s true, it’s sad becuase it would represent the wheel of hatred turning.
Both statements can coexist without any contradiction. If no numbers can be trusted (due to loggistical concerns I cited in my previous comment), how can Hammas be so sure of the numbers it gives to the press? Not only would Hammas’ numbers be innacurate if they were acting in good faith, but they’d be outright fake in case of bad faith on their part (most likely scenario).
You don’t believe me? Those who are immersed in islamist ideology think quite differently from people of christian heritage (even if they’re not christian themselves, but they inherit a set of values). For the islamists, self-sacrifice if a good thing if done for a holy cause. That’s what motivated the plane terrorists from 9/11: their religion made them believe that what they were doing was just. And as a reward, they’d have the company of multiple virgins in paradise.
In the western countries, due to the inherited christain values, people value life and reject self-sacrifice. Suicide is considered a sin, because the person is throwing away the body given by God, which is a holy thing. That’s why the USA and other west-aligned countries pressure Israel to preserve the life of innocent Gazans: that’s what best aligns with their moral values. If a bank is being robbed with the use of hostages, the police will do its best to preserve the life of the innocent, even negotiate with the robbers if necessary.
That’s a way of thinking that’s the polar opposite of the muslims. For them, if the cause is holy, self-sacrifice is allowed and encouraged. They’re indoctrinated in these values since they’re children. What the Hamas is doing is exploiting the western values for their benefit. That’s why they took hostages, because they knew it would be a huge leverage against Israel. And that’s why they’re always flaunting the number of casualities (which are obviously inflated, because it helps their goals), in an attempt to reach the western countries’ moral values and turn it into pressure for Isreal accept an indefinite ceasefire agreement, even a bad one.
Consider this: if the roles were reversed: Gaza had immense millitary strenght and Israel was the poor country, the Gazans would invade Isreal in a heartbeat and would care much less about Isrealli innocent civilians: for them the cause is holy, so it is justified to kill indiscriminately.
When I see how easily the Hamas uses their own population as sacrifices, I have doubts they really value their lives. Remember: the Gazan population elected the Hamas with more than 60% of the votes. It’s not too farfetched to say a significant part of the Gazans think like the Hamas in terms of sacrifice, and by extension, how they value their lives.
In the end of the day, humans are like this. If faced with the option of saving oneself or another person, most people would choose themselves (unless it’s a parent/child situation). In fact, in most jurisdictions, it’s not a crime killing in this circustance, but a self-preservation act that nulls any penalty.
In the case of the Israel/Hamas war, Isreal will think of their citizens first and Gaza’s citizen’s last. And let’s not fool ourselves: the Gazan population elected the Hamas with more than 60% of votes. I bet the IDF soldiers think of that before showing excessive pity towards the Gazan population.
I can’t see how the UN and UNICEF can get to an accurate number for the number of casualities, as most bodies are in a zone of war. And just because a building was blown up doesn’t mean there were civilians inside. Most civilians are in tents in refugee camps. I’m not trying to say there’s no casualities in a war, but that it’s impossible to count all bodies right now because of the warfighting, and there’s probably bodies under rubble as well. Only when the war is over it’ll be possible to get an exact number.
Likewise, there’s no independent verification when the Hamas minister of healthcare periodically announces the number of casualties, but the media tends to take it at face value as it was the crystalline truth. When this is most likely an inflated number to keep Israel in the worst light possible, and to exert political pressure for the USA to stop supporting Israel with weapons of war. It’s all with the intent of the Hamas getting away with it.
The Hamas has a history of lying and deception in order to support the narrative in their favor.
There’s the incident of Hamas accusing Israel of bombing an hospital last year, which the media widely reported as truth before checking, but in the end it was in a building a block away from the hospital. Since this embarrassment the media has been more careful before confirming anything coming from Hamas official sources.
Also the Hamas had a guy that multitasked as an News Reporter, Combatant, Healthcare Professional, Bloodied Victim. This was reported in social media, a guy from Hamas appearing in photos doing all those things in different occasions. Give this guy an Oscar already!
The Hamas does not hesitate to manipulate facts to confirm their intended narrative. Their track record is tarnished at this point. But, to be honest, an organization that takes hostages as a leverage to negotiate a ceasefire in a war they themselves started, from this point it was already very clear they’d do anything to achieve their goals. From using civilians as human shields to lying without shame, these things are just the cherry on top of the heinous acts they committed as the catalyst of the war. They were not trustworthy from the start.
And what you say about “IDF using Palestinians as shields” makes no sense. That’s what the Hamas do, actually. The Hamas see their civilians as disposable sacrifice for a religious end. If an IDF soldier took a Palestinians civilian literally as a human shield in order to avoid being shot by a Hamas militant, the militant would shoot both of them without hesitation, because they see their civilians as sacrifices in a religious sense. Just an addendum, the Islamic State leaders used to say “we love death like you love life” as a point of comparison of the radical islamic worldview compared to the western worldview. That’s the kind of thinking that drives the Hamas, and that’s why they’re not ashamed to call for the extermination of all Jews as if it’s the most normal thing in the world.
About the deaths in the West Bank, I’m not too knowledgeable about this to comment further.
I don’t support the indiscriminate bombing of the Gaza territory by the IDF. The IDF should practice restraint and act in a way to minimize civil casualties.
But, consider that the Hamas militants deliberately use civilian buildings (hospitals, schools, mosques, etc.) as their military bases, and try their best to blend in with the civilians, when international law dictates all combatants in a war should be wearing uniforms so as to avoid mixing civilians in the skirmishes.
Under those circumstances, and knowing that until the Hamas is anhilated there won’t be true peace for Israeli civilians (risk of new missile attacks), it’s only natural that Israel will keep pressuring for the destruction on Hamas.
Will there be collateral damage? Sure, like all wars there will be. Especially when Hamas is doing its best to maximize civilian casualties so the useful idiots in the west take pity on them.
Should Israel be scrutinized for their effectiveness in minimizing civilian casualties? Sure. But I don’t think that we, living comfortably in countries in which there’s no neighbouring nation trying to send missiles at us, should be in a position to demand they cease the war just because we want them to, or pressure them to accept any ceasefire deal that’s not good for them. It’s primarily up to Israel to decide what’s best for the security of their citizens. And also for the security of their soldiers, which have families awaiting for their safe return home when this war’s over.
In this scenario, I’d not blame the IDF if they’re a little more trigger-happy than we would feel it’s reasonable. It’s easy for us to judge when we’re safe and sound in our countries. But the soldiers are human too and they’ll do what’s best to preserve their lives. If a neighbouring country launched missiles against my country, I’m sorry for sounding cold, but I’d rather they die them my people die. Of course, I’d prefer if the military acted in a way to minimize casualties so as to preserve the innocent, but if being too careful in this quest endangers the soldiers of my country, I’d prefer my soldiers enhance their survival rate a little more than grant this benefit to the nation that attacked me first.
I’m actually trying to do the opposite. For some reason my phone keeps the old Twitter icon on my home screen while it is already updated to X in the Google Play Store.
I read it too fast that I thought TorrentFreak was down. 😅