Oh, this is another Onion piece that reminds me why I don't read it often. It's just too real.
Oh, this is another Onion piece that reminds me why I don't read it often. It's just too real.
Some may call us cowards for our decision. To this, we can only say the following: If a coward is a person who avoids taking a difficult stance on topics for personal expediency, then “coward” is a badge this editorial board will gladly wear, again and again and again.
Oh dear, I wish The Onion the best of luck dealing with that! More seriously though, this article actually sums up the difficulty of discussing the current conflict. While some places like Tildes...
We have enough going on without them getting on our case. The water main broke in our office last Friday and dealing with the super has been a whole thing. He keeps avoiding our calls because obviously he’s going to have to eat the cost of the sump pump.
Oh dear, I wish The Onion the best of luck dealing with that!
More seriously though, this article actually sums up the difficulty of discussing the current conflict. While some places like Tildes have room for nuanced discussions, this is easily one of the most divisive, polarized topics in years. A lot of people equate criticizing Israel to antisemitism, or voicing concern for the civilians in Gaza as supporting Hamas. Then you get the people who think all Muslims are terrorists who should die, which is another can of worms.
Most people see this as a purely religious conflict, but it's most definitely not. The situation has been building for decades, dating back to modern Israel's founding (they were thrown into war literally a day after being declared a country) and is rooted in growing discontent and poverty issues.
But most people don't know that. They just know Hamas is bad and needs to be stopped, and that's it. And since Israel is the victims, anyone criticizing Israel's actions therefore must support Hamas.
So yeah. I appreciate this article, because while satire, it does a good job at summing up the frustrations of dealing with strangers who can only see topics in black and white without calling anyone out.
I'd actually go so far as it's possibly the one topic that absolutely nothing can be said that doesn't get someone mad. Support Israel? Anger Support Hamas? Anger Inbetween and really not sure...
More seriously though, this article actually sums up the difficulty of discussing the current conflict. While some places like Tildes have room for nuanced discussions, this is easily one of the most divisive, polarized topics in years. A lot of people equate criticizing Israel to antisemitism, or voicing concern for the civilians in Gaza as supporting Hamas. Then you get the people who think all Muslims are terrorists who should die, which is another can of worms.
I'd actually go so far as it's possibly the one topic that absolutely nothing can be said that doesn't get someone mad.
Support Israel? Anger
Support Hamas? Anger
Inbetween and really not sure what to think? Anger
Blame the history? Anger
It's the one topic that will unilaterally just cause nothing but anger, grief and sorrow. Simply because that's all the conflict is now.
I do feel like this is the real life version of the trolley problem, where if you have any opinion whatsoever on the matter the public will railroad you onto one of two horrible extremities, so...
I do feel like this is the real life version of the trolley problem, where if you have any opinion whatsoever on the matter the public will railroad you onto one of two horrible extremities, so people would just rather not even look at the lever, let alone pull the lever.
Amazing solution. Thank you for the chuckle. Nuke the site from orbit? Maybe we could find a way if an alien superpower would show up and tell us to find peace by the end of the year or get wiped....
Amazing solution. Thank you for the chuckle.
I'd hate to know what that says about how I feel about this conflict...
Nuke the site from orbit? Maybe we could find a way if an alien superpower would show up and tell us to find peace by the end of the year or get wiped.
But I'd bet that would just create more conflicts about how to deal with the situation and we would probably wipe ourselves out as a result.
If I've learned anything over the years it's that when aliens demand you change or provide something or else get annihilated, you either do nothing or you have some random captain yell at them...
If I've learned anything over the years it's that when aliens demand you change or provide something or else get annihilated, you either do nothing or you have some random captain yell at them with righteous anger about how you must be allowed to do nothing.
My personal opinion on the matter is that everyone sucks here and we wouldn't be in this situation if religion wasn't so big a factor in political dealings. I don't care what religion you follow,...
My personal opinion on the matter is that everyone sucks here and we wouldn't be in this situation if religion wasn't so big a factor in political dealings. I don't care what religion you follow, but if you let your religious beliefs dictate how you politic you're doing it wrong and should take a step away and think about how to best benefit the human being regardless of who or what they worship (or don't).
This conflict and much of the world in general would be better suited to nuke religion from the face of the earth. The religious zealots are the problem on both sides of this war, and the idiot "fundamentalists" from around the world funding both sides of this issue to make it worse are monsters for their own gains.
Edit: and I say this as a culturally Ukranian Jewish person (who doesn't practice) with family in Ukraine and Israel, many of whom in Israel, I don't know the whereabouts of because they've been mobilized. I don't even know if they're still alive.
You could say the same thing about emotions. Just nuke all emotions and we can discuss everything rationally. But that's just not how humans work. We can't nuke what we are. Like we can't nuke...
You could say the same thing about emotions. Just nuke all emotions and we can discuss everything rationally. But that's just not how humans work. We can't nuke what we are. Like we can't nuke cancer because that's how our biology works.
If we there's ever gonna be world peace, it's because we found a way to use religion to our benefit. Create a religion that makes us do good things. I don't know how that would work since we've tried that for literally thousands of years, but I don't see a way around that.
Instead of religiously fighting religion, we need to hack religion and use it to our advantage.
This sums up my opinion to a T. Fuck religion. Hard for me to have any pity for these people (excepting children of course) when they bring this on themselves by committing theocratic genocide to...
This sums up my opinion to a T. Fuck religion. Hard for me to have any pity for these people (excepting children of course) when they bring this on themselves by committing theocratic genocide to secure places of power
I think that's a good way to look at it. But unlike the traditional setup for a trolly problem, you're not going to save more lives by pulling the lever. You've got a legion of people on both...
I think that's a good way to look at it. But unlike the traditional setup for a trolly problem, you're not going to save more lives by pulling the lever. You've got a legion of people on both sides, and there are a lot of them laid across both tracks so they're just going to get hit either way.
My personal view is that it's impossible to even remotely get a grasp on the benefits of taking either actions, so the only moral thing to do is not touch the lever and stay as far away from the situation as possible. But of course major foreign governments have iron grips on that lever and are trying to pull it in the way that benefits them the most.
The situation is more nuanced than simply Israel vs Palestine (even though war has been declared). Standing back and refusing to take a stand effectually signals that a group of insurgents can...
The situation is more nuanced than simply Israel vs Palestine (even though war has been declared). Standing back and refusing to take a stand effectually signals that a group of insurgents can attack another state with no repercussions from the international community.
To give an simplistic interpretation of the situation: Hamas attacked and killed Israeli citizens from Gaza; Israel's task is to remove that threat from Gaza and prevent such attacks from happening again. They achieve this by eliminating that threat with as little collateral/civilian casualties as possible, because if they don't, they risk it growing or moving across the region.
This means is in Israel's interests to limit civilian casualties; and should Hamas attempt to use them as human shields, they damage their cause and broader appeal. I can only hope that this self interest helps to reduce needless suffering.
The "trolley problem" analogy really fits. There's a choice: action vs. inaction. It's serious: lives hang in the balance. And there's no obvious right answer: even if the facts of the situation...
The "trolley problem" analogy really fits. There's a choice: action vs. inaction. It's serious: lives hang in the balance. And there's no obvious right answer: even if the facts of the situation were known with 100% certainty (5 people on this track, 1 person on that one...), what's "obvious" to you might be the complete opposite to me.
If anything, the original trolley problem is easier. Which — silver lining — makes me more comfortable with not knowing the answer, as well as grateful that I'm not in charge.
You're not half wrong. It's so quick for people to rally into rage mode with it as well, especially given the various disinformation machines churning out all sorts at the moment. It's easy to...
You're not half wrong. It's so quick for people to rally into rage mode with it as well, especially given the various disinformation machines churning out all sorts at the moment. It's easy to have ones emotions co-opted into something far more sinister and go from "Man, Hamas really did a number on Israel!" to "Fuck them, Carpet bomb the <whoever you've fallen for> back to the stone age" a la the UK / US after 9/11.
There's just so much sorrow in that area of the world, there's nothing this gobshite in London can really do or say that does any of it justice beyond saying something glib like 'war sucks for everyone involved' and leaving it at that.
There is another problem you didn't mention - that apparently you HAVE to have an opinion or people get mad at you. It's boggling to me that in today's world everyone is expected to have an...
There is another problem you didn't mention - that apparently you HAVE to have an opinion or people get mad at you. It's boggling to me that in today's world everyone is expected to have an opinion on everything when so few have the time or wish to put in the effort to educate themselves on things that impact them (let alone things happening on the other side of the planet).
There are so many "things" happening all the time and everyone expects you to stay up to date and deeply invested in them all when in reality 99.9% of them do not in any way impact your day-to-day life unless you get on that hamster wheel and then it impacts your mental health because everything you read is argumentative and "bad news".
Sure there are shitty things happening in the world - however, unless you are bringing something actually valuable experience or insight to the table and coming from a place of actual experience on it - it's likely better to just not engage on it.
Apathy is death and one should be able to follow their moral compass to know what they believe in. One of the greatest things about being alive is the ability to care deeply about the rest of...
Apathy is death and one should be able to follow their moral compass to know what they believe in. One of the greatest things about being alive is the ability to care deeply about the rest of humanity.
That being said, it's wise to know when you don't have enough information to form a stance. You don't need a solution to this maze of an issue, but it's important to care about the people being hurt.
As I've gotten older I've realized the number of people and things I need / want / actually do care about in the world is several orders of magnitude smaller than what I thought it was when I was...
it's important to care about the people being hurt.
As I've gotten older I've realized the number of people and things I need / want / actually do care about in the world is several orders of magnitude smaller than what I thought it was when I was younger. As I've come to understand what I personally can ACTUALLY influence around me and balancing that with the priorities of my family, community, and self - my ability to do more than a surface level "well that sucks" on many things in the world is very select.
I know that sounds very cold - however it's the truth.
This is a common experience, and it's hardly some moral failing, but is it a good thing? As we age, we care more deeply than ever for those we know and love, but more or less must care less as we...
This is a common experience, and it's hardly some moral failing, but is it a good thing? As we age, we care more deeply than ever for those we know and love, but more or less must care less as we learn more of the world in general. It's not healthy to cry over every mugging, but that's hardly justification for willful or even an argument for the inevitability of apathy. We all need our own priorities, and if life is hard, or just complex, and we can't muster the energy to go out of our way to care about everyone, that's all there is to it, we can't be nagging each other for not hitting 110%. That doesn't mean that the breadth of caring that youthful energy enabled was false, or wasteful, or foolish, and sometimes we still need to look in the mirror and interrogate whether we could find the energy somewhere if we wanted to. We should all hold space for emotional engagement that is serious yet reasonable, it's not like a statistically significant number of the people in North America talking about this issue online are going to fully comprehend the scale of tragedy if its potential becomes realized.
Maybe this is just me being jaded but I feel the vast majority of people "talking about this issue online" are doing so for performative or social credit reasons rather than actually caring. They...
We should all hold space for emotional engagement that is serious yet reasonable, it's not like a statistically significant number of the people in North America talking about this issue online are going to fully comprehend the scale of tragedy if its potential becomes realized.
Maybe this is just me being jaded but I feel the vast majority of people "talking about this issue online" are doing so for performative or social credit reasons rather than actually caring. They are filling time essentially - many with a delusion that what they are doing is in some way helpful.
In the same sense that your response may be the result of cynicism, this may not communicate, but it seems like this to me: if many-most of the people who are, from a sterile third person...
In the same sense that your response may be the result of cynicism, this may not communicate, but it seems like this to me: if many-most of the people who are, from a sterile third person perspective, only voicing concern performatively are truly delusional about its usefulness, that counts as a sincere degree of engagement. They aren't helping, and their sincerity is shallow, as you point out, but from their point of view, which is more or less the only useful way to frame their intentions, they are somewhat invested.
But I'm definitely not making the case that if you aren't publicly vocal about everything bad, or even "just" crimes against humanity, you're not trying. The comment I replied to came across as a little too easy as a justification. One that, from a bad actor, could be utilized to silence or discredit meaningful voices. If it wasn't clear, I've totally come to the same conclusion about various issues, it's just something that I'm not proud of (not to imply you are).
Yep. You're expected to know every nuance and extra bit of news that goes on. I think it's okay to have a glib opinion on anything, caveated with "I really don't know enough to say more" as you...
Yep. You're expected to know every nuance and extra bit of news that goes on.
I think it's okay to have a glib opinion on anything, caveated with "I really don't know enough to say more" as you either do want to know more, or you don't.
Add two more bullet points to that list for me, will ya? Describe that certain actions are causally related to previous events, without talking about blame or making excuses? Anger Inbetween and...
Add two more bullet points to that list for me, will ya?
Describe that certain actions are causally related to previous events, without talking about blame or making excuses? Anger
Inbetween and at least somewhat opinionated (i.e. split/complicated allegiances, but not opinionless)? You guessed it.
I guess the only reason that "shutting the fuck up" doesn't elicit anger is that staying quiet on the internet means you basically stop existing for a bit, so no one notices that you didn't say anything.
Sure, but it's covered in my "history" remark. The problem is, everyone wants to point the finger everywhere else to solve or at least blame the mess. Even this comment adds to that, it's insane...
Sure, but it's covered in my "history" remark. The problem is, everyone wants to point the finger everywhere else to solve or at least blame the mess. Even this comment adds to that, it's insane how complicated and sad the entire topic is.
British did it? It's their fault!
America supplied the arms? Their fault!
Egypt or Russia in cahoots? Their fault!
I honestly think the blame game is just... Exhausted now. There's nothing some fools around the world are going to solve by bickering on the Internet as if it's a hearts and souls operation.
What would be better, is acknowledging the fucked up system we exist in that even permits this from happening in the first place. It requires huge amounts of political emotional maturity that democracies and autocracies absolutely do not have (the joys of group think), but is absolutely going to be necessary to get out of these shitty wars before they escalate into full regional conflicts.
The frustration is, when you try and talk in a utopic fashion you will be decried as "Naive" or "arrogant" or "colonially minded", rather than just really wishing we could work towards a system that allowed us all lives where we didn't bicker about war crimes.
I think it's fine to talk in a utopic fashion when you just want to make that general point that you wish we could work toward a better system. But obviously just having that simple conversation...
I think it's fine to talk in a utopic fashion when you just want to make that general point that you wish we could work toward a better system.
But obviously just having that simple conversation about how bad certain things are and how it'd be better if things were different will not be enough, because people have that conversation all the time and it's never enough.
If you are hoping to achieve some kind of change, then someone, somewhere needs to agree to change their current perspective or behavior. And typically, if someone else is trying to talk to you about a political topic, then they are probably angling for that person to be you, in some regard. That's why people get immediately defensive nowadays.
The converse is that we all seem to collectively dwell in how awful things can be. We have reams of articles, stories, essays and even memes to describe how absolutely awful things are. But if you...
I think it's fine to talk in a utopic fashion when you just want to make that general point that you wish we could work toward a better system.
The converse is that we all seem to collectively dwell in how awful things can be. We have reams of articles, stories, essays and even memes to describe how absolutely awful things are.
But if you want to do the opposite? It's not really permitted (I wonder if that's a side effect of the drive for 'engagement' that we've all been co-opted into?)
But obviously just having that simple conversation about how bad certain things are and how it'd be better if things were different will not be enough, because people have that conversation all the time and it's never enough.
You're right. The light conversation is needed, the "Man, this sucks" happens all the time. It's the conversation all of us have with a partner after a bad day and we either solutionise, or just listen and empathise.
With topics like this one (and others of such significance)? It can get frustrating to just bemoan the present state of affairs, rather than wanting to talk and maybe postulate some utopian approaches. Hell, how does anyone do anything if there aren't goals and targets to set? Surely they should be realistic and yet ideal as we can get? (Then there's compromise obviously.)
If you are hoping to achieve some kind of change, then someone, somewhere needs to agree to change their current perspective or behavior. And typically, if someone else is trying to talk to you about a political topic, then they are probably angling for that person to be you, in some regard. That's why people get immediately defensive nowadays.
Aye, I happen to agree. A lot of conversation does seem to go down the pan quite quickly. I've got a close friend who we talk philosophy a lot. He and I differ on some pretty big points (he's quite supportive of capitalism, I'm not so supportive), but we engage in these conversations in a really intense, but respectful way. It's something lost on online discourse and often in person.
I wonder how we correct that?
All this being said? I really never want to lose my utopic thinking. It's nice to imagine a world to at least throw a dart at and go "That way!" for a lot of folk around (I do that at work, it goes down REALLY well.)
I like utopic thinking too, I just prefer to do it on my own. Sometimes people get so excited about their own good idea that they start shooting down other people's ideas so they can keep the...
I like utopic thinking too, I just prefer to do it on my own. Sometimes people get so excited about their own good idea that they start shooting down other people's ideas so they can keep the conversation on their thing. It's very demoralizing and it makes me just not want to have to get into that conversation to begin with.
I think if the stakes could be removed and it was never anyone's goal to specifically try to influence someone else then it'd be easier for people to not feel defensive, but there's no real way to enforce that in a conversation.
I think that was in Plato somewhere. Like just seeking knowledge for knowledges' sake.
I know what you're getting at. I think there's a difference between the attempt at forcing an idea, and simply stating utopic ideas. It's the old "I've got this great idea for an app"...
I know what you're getting at. I think there's a difference between the attempt at forcing an idea, and simply stating utopic ideas.
It's the old "I've got this great idea for an app" conversation. If it's that great then why aren't you coding it and why do you need me? Vs someone who's just talking to you about what they're building and rolling with whatever feedback they get.
Talk about something else? Performative anger: “why don’t you care about the current thing?” Shutting up entirely? No one notices you’re gone and you are left in peace.
Talk about something else? Performative anger: “why don’t you care about the current thing?”
Shutting up entirely? No one notices you’re gone and you are left in peace.
You can support Palestine without supporting Hamas. Like, Israel is free to kill the Hamas leadership if they like - but not if they're using carpet bombing. Hamas are controlled opposition (more...
Support Israel? Anger
Support Hamas? Anger
You can support Palestine without supporting Hamas. Like, Israel is free to kill the Hamas leadership if they like - but not if they're using carpet bombing.
Hamas are controlled opposition (more accurately something like "enabled opposition", they're propped up at times but nobody controls them) that help Netanyahu look sane in comparison, they're insane jihadists that nobody sane actually supports. But they're not the problem, they're just a symptom.
I'm not going to address the specifics of the comment, I genuine stick to my "The situation is full of anger, frustration, sadness and sorrow" remarks. Much like your comment is part of the...
I'm not going to address the specifics of the comment, I genuine stick to my "The situation is full of anger, frustration, sadness and sorrow" remarks.
But they're not the problem, they're just a symptom.
Much like your comment is part of the problem I described. You've taken my entire remarks out of context because I didn't mention the thing you want to say, but you want to say it anyway.
It's half the issue with discourse online, everyone fervantly wants to say <something> even if it really doesn't contribute anything to the conversation. My comment had nothing to do with supporting / decrying / inclusive-specificity towards anyone, but I was remarking at how impossible it is to make any kind of statement or opinion without someone correcting or forcing their view into the topic proper.
I wasn't trying to comment on your comment's thesis, I was dissecting the "Israel/Hamas" false dichotomy that's so commonly used, that was implicit in your comment. People treat Palestine and...
Exemplary
I wasn't trying to comment on your comment's thesis, I was dissecting the "Israel/Hamas" false dichotomy that's so commonly used, that was implicit in your comment. People treat Palestine and Hamas as equivalent and that's not just minorly wrong, it's critical to the entire discussion.
If that doesn't adhere to your ordained topic as much as you'd like, then I'm sorry but online conversations don't work that way - I'm not taking your comment out of context, that context is just irrelevant to what I'm talking about.
Those terms were used to describe what I was referring to. I don't believe that Hamas = Palestine, and yet you've looked past the intent of the words and into your own cognition that 'this person...
Exemplary
I wasn't trying to comment on your comment's thesis, I was dissecting the "Israel/Hamas" false dichotomy that's so commonly used, that was implicit in your comment. People treat Palestine and Hamas as equivalent and that's not just minorly wrong, it's critical to the entire discussion.
Those terms were used to describe what I was referring to. I don't believe that Hamas = Palestine, and yet you've looked past the intent of the words and into your own cognition that 'this person MUST be corrected!' It's frustrating behaviour to observe, let alone be on the recieving end of.
If that doesn't adhere to your ordained topic as much as you'd like
what I'm talking about.
Here lies the conciet in so many conversations with people online. I didn't mention anything you've talked at me about.
Here's what I did, I used a list to stipulate that people will get angry / frustrated at an opinion on a topic, regardless of the side that said opinion takes (Thank you for proving that right by the way.)
You've taken umbridge at a percieved slight because I used terms you didn't like / thought were wrong, despite the fact that the context behind the words was relevant to what I was saying. You've decided that my message doesn't matter and that the conversation and points I have are irrelevant because they don't fit the scope of what you wanted to talk at me about instead.
Therefore I am wrong and in need of correction. If I rebutt you in any way, this will turn into a flamewar or some inane argument where we end up talking about 'strawmen' and feeling very glad and jolly that we're both intellectually bright and can use a keyboard... and it's bloody exhausting. It's the main reason I avoid most of the internets comment threads these days that are around more sensitive or challenging topics.
then I'm sorry but online conversations don't work that way
Perhaps they should? Perhaps we should have respect for conversations that are happening online to the same degree as we do in person? This conversation would probably have gone down "Hey, did you know Hamas and Palestine are different things man?" and I'd have gone "Totally, it's just words for effect of what I was trying to say" ... and that'd be the end of it. Instead we've got into this weird, quasi-intellectual joust.
I like the concept that the Broken Window Theory also applies to discourse online. If people are going at it? Then there's nothing but trolling, hate and rage to be had so the thread can be ignored. But if people can have conversations the same way they would in person? I'm down for that (providing they don't engage in the same rhetoric, slander and hand throwing.) That means engaging in conversation with how you'd like others to do so towards you (I'm not perfect on this by any means, but I try.)
Edit: I have disengaged from this conversation. I'm not interested what anyone has to say on this matter anymore. If you think what I've said is wrong then tag it as "malice" and let the admins decide.
I don't know what you think, only how the comment read. It conveyed a thing, I responded to the thing, not to you. I didn't mean to convey any emotional heat. Honestly, you're framing this weirdly...
I don't know what you think, only how the comment read. It conveyed a thing, I responded to the thing, not to you. I didn't mean to convey any emotional heat.
Honestly, you're framing this weirdly personally - I'm not mad at you, in a sense I wasn't even talking to you - I was responding to the comment as it reads. Death of the author, I was trying to nitpick one very important misconception-as-it-reads without butting in on the rest of the discussion.
I say "death of the author" because it almost doesn't matter whether you know Hamas is Palestine or not - if you say a phrase that implies Hamas is Palestine, then anyone who doesn't know will assume you're implying it deliberately, and my comment will help them.
"I don't know why people get so mad about WW2 -
I support the Nazis? Anger.
I support the USSR? Anger.
In between and I don't know what to think? Anger.
It's like no matter who I support, I only get anger in response."
That's how your comment reads, and can you not see how important the false dichotomy is?
I've been reading and re-reading my prior comments every time you respond and say I'm replying in [bad faith, intellectual posturing or whatever], and frankly no, you're just overreacting.
You keep calling me mad, claiming I "took umbridge", etc etc. No, I corrected a (perceived) misconception, and now you're throwing spicy words at me.
I'm gonna keep my reply short. My remark in paraphrase on my first comment is "No matter what you say about this topic, someone has grief or an argument to start" Here we are, bickering about...
I'm gonna keep my reply short.
My remark in paraphrase on my first comment is "No matter what you say about this topic, someone has grief or an argument to start"
Here we are, bickering about nonsense for the sake of nonsense.
I'm disengaging mate. Have a good Sunday in your bit of the world wherever that may be.
To give a third-party view on this, that is not at all how this reads to me. To me, their initial response read as adding context and clarification to what you wrote, and you seemingly treating it...
Those terms were used to describe what I was referring to. I don't believe that Hamas = Palestine, and yet you've looked past the intent of the words and into your own cognition that 'this person MUST be corrected!' It's frustrating behaviour to observe, let alone be on the recieving end of.
You've taken umbridge at a percieved slight because I used terms you didn't like / thought were wrong, despite the fact that the context behind the words was relevant to what I was saying.
Perhaps we should have respect for conversations that are happening online to the same degree as we do in person? This conversation would probably have gone down "Hey, did you know Hamas and Palestine are different things man?" and I'd have gone "Totally, it's just words for effect of what I was trying to say" ... and that'd be the end of it. Instead we've got into this weird, quasi-intellectual joust.
To give a third-party view on this, that is not at all how this reads to me. To me, their initial response read as adding context and clarification to what you wrote, and you seemingly treating it as an attack on your person.
If you look in retrospect at your reply, if you wish to strive for a more respectful conversation, would a response from you in line with your example not be more likely to achieve that goal? Even during in-person conversations there are misunderstandings. If the conversation is in good faith, acknowledging such occurrences is, to me, a much better way to not escalate the tension or hostility.
For instance:
"You're right that Hamas and Palestine are separate, but even so supporting Palestine still evokes anger from some people as they do not see or make that distinction."
I've been avoiding this topic for a while because it's probably the one thing I just have the greatest possible quantity of hate for. There is nothing redeemable about it. I hate both sides. I...
I've been avoiding this topic for a while because it's probably the one thing I just have the greatest possible quantity of hate for. There is nothing redeemable about it. I hate both sides. I wish it were something so simple that I could just say "I wish that they'd just wipe eachother out", but no, that's actually much worse somehow. I can't even imagine talking to people about this because talking about the conflict before this happened was already a minefield that only ends up hurting both members of that conversation.
Wars are often talked about how "the good guys won" or "the bad guys won". But that's never the case. Both sides are the bad guys.
I don't know why I waited so long to filter these tags out.
The past week has shown humanity at its worst: A horrific terrorist attack left at least 1,300 Israelis dead, among them peace activists and even innocent children. The fates of many more kidnapped civilians still lie in the balance. Meanwhile, statements from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggest retaliation against Palestinians in Gaza will be swift and merciless. More than 1,500 Gazans are already dead, and 338,000 others have been displaced. In moments of turmoil such as this, some believe it is the responsibility of a newspaper of record like The Onion to delve fully into the nuances of a complex and multifaceted conflict that stretches back not just decades but centuries. These people are wrong.
One of the excellent touches is that the signatures of "The Onion editorial board" include some I can't make out, but definitely includes the Unabomber and a prior editor, no longer with The...
One of the excellent touches is that the signatures of "The Onion editorial board" include some I can't make out, but definitely includes the Unabomber and a prior editor, no longer with The Onion. Can anyone catch the rest of them?
That was the most informative article I've read on this issue about which I am largely uninformed. This has to be one of the best things I have ever read.
That was the most informative article I've read on this issue about which I am largely uninformed.
This has to be one of the best things I have ever read.
Signing off with The Onion's motto, "Tu stultus es" ("You are dumb"), seems particularly apposite here. I have an opinion and personal interests in the outcome. Expressing that opinion here or...
Signing off with The Onion's motto, "Tu stultus es" ("You are dumb"), seems particularly apposite here.
I have an opinion and personal interests in the outcome. Expressing that opinion here or elsewhere online is of infinitesimal significance or worth given my level of knowledge, ability to influence, moral standing, and resources. There are other avenues to apply myself more usefully.
Maybe that's cowardly, but I suspect many of us would be better able to help guide the situation if we spent less time trying to be most "right", and more time doing what we can.
Caring and having an opinion or perspective doesn't need to be utilitarian. You should think about the situation, and talk about it with others even if you aren't on some government employee on a...
Caring and having an opinion or perspective doesn't need to be utilitarian. You should think about the situation, and talk about it with others even if you aren't on some government employee on a foreign policy team. You and I are not arranging peace talks or weapon shipments (I assume) but we can share our compassion and refine our understanding.
It's not simply a utilitarian concern for me. To set my response in context, I lived through decades of bitter argument about Israel/Palestine among family members in the U.S., Ukraine, Russia,...
It's not simply a utilitarian concern for me. To set my response in context, I lived through decades of bitter argument about Israel/Palestine among family members in the U.S., Ukraine, Russia, Canada, and in Israel. [Aside from the aliyah family branch that left Russia in the 1990's, I've also got cousins who are West Bank "settlers".] The usual end result was various partisans not speaking to each other, sometimes permanently.
At this point, I'm not willing to have the same discussions with the reasonable people of Tildes, let alone the broader landscape of social media. There is a horror happening and I'm not interested in whether my opinion is validated or not.
Oh, this is another Onion piece that reminds me why I don't read it often. It's just too real.
Hard to satire life, when life so often feels like satire.
Oh dear, I wish The Onion the best of luck dealing with that!
More seriously though, this article actually sums up the difficulty of discussing the current conflict. While some places like Tildes have room for nuanced discussions, this is easily one of the most divisive, polarized topics in years. A lot of people equate criticizing Israel to antisemitism, or voicing concern for the civilians in Gaza as supporting Hamas. Then you get the people who think all Muslims are terrorists who should die, which is another can of worms.
Most people see this as a purely religious conflict, but it's most definitely not. The situation has been building for decades, dating back to modern Israel's founding (they were thrown into war literally a day after being declared a country) and is rooted in growing discontent and poverty issues.
But most people don't know that. They just know Hamas is bad and needs to be stopped, and that's it. And since Israel is the victims, anyone criticizing Israel's actions therefore must support Hamas.
So yeah. I appreciate this article, because while satire, it does a good job at summing up the frustrations of dealing with strangers who can only see topics in black and white without calling anyone out.
I'd actually go so far as it's possibly the one topic that absolutely nothing can be said that doesn't get someone mad.
Support Israel? Anger
Support Hamas? Anger
Inbetween and really not sure what to think? Anger
Blame the history? Anger
It's the one topic that will unilaterally just cause nothing but anger, grief and sorrow. Simply because that's all the conflict is now.
I do feel like this is the real life version of the trolley problem, where if you have any opinion whatsoever on the matter the public will railroad you onto one of two horrible extremities, so people would just rather not even look at the lever, let alone pull the lever.
This has always been my favorite solution to the trolley problem. I'd hate to know what that says about how I feel about this conflict...
My favorite solution to the trolley problem is pulling the lever to send the trolley down a path where someone else is faced with the trolley problem.
Amazing solution. Thank you for the chuckle.
Nuke the site from orbit? Maybe we could find a way if an alien superpower would show up and tell us to find peace by the end of the year or get wiped.
But I'd bet that would just create more conflicts about how to deal with the situation and we would probably wipe ourselves out as a result.
If I've learned anything over the years it's that when aliens demand you change or provide something or else get annihilated, you either do nothing or you have some random captain yell at them with righteous anger about how you must be allowed to do nothing.
After COVID I'm thinking we'd get wiped out. 30% of people just can't stand being told what to do, especially if it goes against their own desires.
My personal opinion on the matter is that everyone sucks here and we wouldn't be in this situation if religion wasn't so big a factor in political dealings. I don't care what religion you follow, but if you let your religious beliefs dictate how you politic you're doing it wrong and should take a step away and think about how to best benefit the human being regardless of who or what they worship (or don't).
This conflict and much of the world in general would be better suited to nuke religion from the face of the earth. The religious zealots are the problem on both sides of this war, and the idiot "fundamentalists" from around the world funding both sides of this issue to make it worse are monsters for their own gains.
Edit: and I say this as a culturally Ukranian Jewish person (who doesn't practice) with family in Ukraine and Israel, many of whom in Israel, I don't know the whereabouts of because they've been mobilized. I don't even know if they're still alive.
You could say the same thing about emotions. Just nuke all emotions and we can discuss everything rationally. But that's just not how humans work. We can't nuke what we are. Like we can't nuke cancer because that's how our biology works.
If we there's ever gonna be world peace, it's because we found a way to use religion to our benefit. Create a religion that makes us do good things. I don't know how that would work since we've tried that for literally thousands of years, but I don't see a way around that.
Instead of religiously fighting religion, we need to hack religion and use it to our advantage.
This sums up my opinion to a T. Fuck religion. Hard for me to have any pity for these people (excepting children of course) when they bring this on themselves by committing theocratic genocide to secure places of power
I think that's a good way to look at it. But unlike the traditional setup for a trolly problem, you're not going to save more lives by pulling the lever. You've got a legion of people on both sides, and there are a lot of them laid across both tracks so they're just going to get hit either way.
My personal view is that it's impossible to even remotely get a grasp on the benefits of taking either actions, so the only moral thing to do is not touch the lever and stay as far away from the situation as possible. But of course major foreign governments have iron grips on that lever and are trying to pull it in the way that benefits them the most.
The situation is more nuanced than simply Israel vs Palestine (even though war has been declared). Standing back and refusing to take a stand effectually signals that a group of insurgents can attack another state with no repercussions from the international community.
To give an simplistic interpretation of the situation: Hamas attacked and killed Israeli citizens from Gaza; Israel's task is to remove that threat from Gaza and prevent such attacks from happening again. They achieve this by eliminating that threat with as little collateral/civilian casualties as possible, because if they don't, they risk it growing or moving across the region.
This means is in Israel's interests to limit civilian casualties; and should Hamas attempt to use them as human shields, they damage their cause and broader appeal. I can only hope that this self interest helps to reduce needless suffering.
The "trolley problem" analogy really fits. There's a choice: action vs. inaction. It's serious: lives hang in the balance. And there's no obvious right answer: even if the facts of the situation were known with 100% certainty (5 people on this track, 1 person on that one...), what's "obvious" to you might be the complete opposite to me.
If anything, the original trolley problem is easier. Which — silver lining — makes me more comfortable with not knowing the answer, as well as grateful that I'm not in charge.
You're not half wrong. It's so quick for people to rally into rage mode with it as well, especially given the various disinformation machines churning out all sorts at the moment. It's easy to have ones emotions co-opted into something far more sinister and go from "Man, Hamas really did a number on Israel!" to "Fuck them, Carpet bomb the <whoever you've fallen for> back to the stone age" a la the UK / US after 9/11.
There's just so much sorrow in that area of the world, there's nothing this gobshite in London can really do or say that does any of it justice beyond saying something glib like 'war sucks for everyone involved' and leaving it at that.
There is another problem you didn't mention - that apparently you HAVE to have an opinion or people get mad at you. It's boggling to me that in today's world everyone is expected to have an opinion on everything when so few have the time or wish to put in the effort to educate themselves on things that impact them (let alone things happening on the other side of the planet).
There are so many "things" happening all the time and everyone expects you to stay up to date and deeply invested in them all when in reality 99.9% of them do not in any way impact your day-to-day life unless you get on that hamster wheel and then it impacts your mental health because everything you read is argumentative and "bad news".
Sure there are shitty things happening in the world - however, unless you are bringing something actually valuable experience or insight to the table and coming from a place of actual experience on it - it's likely better to just not engage on it.
Apathy is death and one should be able to follow their moral compass to know what they believe in. One of the greatest things about being alive is the ability to care deeply about the rest of humanity.
That being said, it's wise to know when you don't have enough information to form a stance. You don't need a solution to this maze of an issue, but it's important to care about the people being hurt.
As I've gotten older I've realized the number of people and things I need / want / actually do care about in the world is several orders of magnitude smaller than what I thought it was when I was younger. As I've come to understand what I personally can ACTUALLY influence around me and balancing that with the priorities of my family, community, and self - my ability to do more than a surface level "well that sucks" on many things in the world is very select.
I know that sounds very cold - however it's the truth.
This is a common experience, and it's hardly some moral failing, but is it a good thing? As we age, we care more deeply than ever for those we know and love, but more or less must care less as we learn more of the world in general. It's not healthy to cry over every mugging, but that's hardly justification for willful or even an argument for the inevitability of apathy. We all need our own priorities, and if life is hard, or just complex, and we can't muster the energy to go out of our way to care about everyone, that's all there is to it, we can't be nagging each other for not hitting 110%. That doesn't mean that the breadth of caring that youthful energy enabled was false, or wasteful, or foolish, and sometimes we still need to look in the mirror and interrogate whether we could find the energy somewhere if we wanted to. We should all hold space for emotional engagement that is serious yet reasonable, it's not like a statistically significant number of the people in North America talking about this issue online are going to fully comprehend the scale of tragedy if its potential becomes realized.
Maybe this is just me being jaded but I feel the vast majority of people "talking about this issue online" are doing so for performative or social credit reasons rather than actually caring. They are filling time essentially - many with a delusion that what they are doing is in some way helpful.
In the same sense that your response may be the result of cynicism, this may not communicate, but it seems like this to me: if many-most of the people who are, from a sterile third person perspective, only voicing concern performatively are truly delusional about its usefulness, that counts as a sincere degree of engagement. They aren't helping, and their sincerity is shallow, as you point out, but from their point of view, which is more or less the only useful way to frame their intentions, they are somewhat invested.
But I'm definitely not making the case that if you aren't publicly vocal about everything bad, or even "just" crimes against humanity, you're not trying. The comment I replied to came across as a little too easy as a justification. One that, from a bad actor, could be utilized to silence or discredit meaningful voices. If it wasn't clear, I've totally come to the same conclusion about various issues, it's just something that I'm not proud of (not to imply you are).
Yep. You're expected to know every nuance and extra bit of news that goes on.
I think it's okay to have a glib opinion on anything, caveated with "I really don't know enough to say more" as you either do want to know more, or you don't.
But that prompts arguments as well.
Add two more bullet points to that list for me, will ya?
Describe that certain actions are causally related to previous events, without talking about blame or making excuses? Anger
Inbetween and at least somewhat opinionated (i.e. split/complicated allegiances, but not opinionless)? You guessed it.
I guess the only reason that "shutting the fuck up" doesn't elicit anger is that staying quiet on the internet means you basically stop existing for a bit, so no one notices that you didn't say anything.
Sure, but it's covered in my "history" remark. The problem is, everyone wants to point the finger everywhere else to solve or at least blame the mess. Even this comment adds to that, it's insane how complicated and sad the entire topic is.
British did it? It's their fault!
America supplied the arms? Their fault!
Egypt or Russia in cahoots? Their fault!
I honestly think the blame game is just... Exhausted now. There's nothing some fools around the world are going to solve by bickering on the Internet as if it's a hearts and souls operation.
What would be better, is acknowledging the fucked up system we exist in that even permits this from happening in the first place. It requires huge amounts of political emotional maturity that democracies and autocracies absolutely do not have (the joys of group think), but is absolutely going to be necessary to get out of these shitty wars before they escalate into full regional conflicts.
The frustration is, when you try and talk in a utopic fashion you will be decried as "Naive" or "arrogant" or "colonially minded", rather than just really wishing we could work towards a system that allowed us all lives where we didn't bicker about war crimes.
I think it's fine to talk in a utopic fashion when you just want to make that general point that you wish we could work toward a better system.
But obviously just having that simple conversation about how bad certain things are and how it'd be better if things were different will not be enough, because people have that conversation all the time and it's never enough.
If you are hoping to achieve some kind of change, then someone, somewhere needs to agree to change their current perspective or behavior. And typically, if someone else is trying to talk to you about a political topic, then they are probably angling for that person to be you, in some regard. That's why people get immediately defensive nowadays.
The converse is that we all seem to collectively dwell in how awful things can be. We have reams of articles, stories, essays and even memes to describe how absolutely awful things are.
But if you want to do the opposite? It's not really permitted (I wonder if that's a side effect of the drive for 'engagement' that we've all been co-opted into?)
You're right. The light conversation is needed, the "Man, this sucks" happens all the time. It's the conversation all of us have with a partner after a bad day and we either solutionise, or just listen and empathise.
With topics like this one (and others of such significance)? It can get frustrating to just bemoan the present state of affairs, rather than wanting to talk and maybe postulate some utopian approaches. Hell, how does anyone do anything if there aren't goals and targets to set? Surely they should be realistic and yet ideal as we can get? (Then there's compromise obviously.)
Aye, I happen to agree. A lot of conversation does seem to go down the pan quite quickly. I've got a close friend who we talk philosophy a lot. He and I differ on some pretty big points (he's quite supportive of capitalism, I'm not so supportive), but we engage in these conversations in a really intense, but respectful way. It's something lost on online discourse and often in person.
I wonder how we correct that?
All this being said? I really never want to lose my utopic thinking. It's nice to imagine a world to at least throw a dart at and go "That way!" for a lot of folk around (I do that at work, it goes down REALLY well.)
I like utopic thinking too, I just prefer to do it on my own. Sometimes people get so excited about their own good idea that they start shooting down other people's ideas so they can keep the conversation on their thing. It's very demoralizing and it makes me just not want to have to get into that conversation to begin with.
I think if the stakes could be removed and it was never anyone's goal to specifically try to influence someone else then it'd be easier for people to not feel defensive, but there's no real way to enforce that in a conversation.
I think that was in Plato somewhere. Like just seeking knowledge for knowledges' sake.
I know what you're getting at. I think there's a difference between the attempt at forcing an idea, and simply stating utopic ideas.
It's the old "I've got this great idea for an app" conversation. If it's that great then why aren't you coding it and why do you need me? Vs someone who's just talking to you about what they're building and rolling with whatever feedback they get.
Talk about something else? Performative anger: “why don’t you care about the current thing?”
Shutting up entirely? No one notices you’re gone and you are left in peace.
You can support Palestine without supporting Hamas. Like, Israel is free to kill the Hamas leadership if they like - but not if they're using carpet bombing.
Hamas are controlled opposition (more accurately something like "enabled opposition", they're propped up at times but nobody controls them) that help Netanyahu look sane in comparison, they're insane jihadists that nobody sane actually supports. But they're not the problem, they're just a symptom.
I'm not going to address the specifics of the comment, I genuine stick to my "The situation is full of anger, frustration, sadness and sorrow" remarks.
Much like your comment is part of the problem I described. You've taken my entire remarks out of context because I didn't mention the thing you want to say, but you want to say it anyway.
It's half the issue with discourse online, everyone fervantly wants to say <something> even if it really doesn't contribute anything to the conversation. My comment had nothing to do with supporting / decrying / inclusive-specificity towards anyone, but I was remarking at how impossible it is to make any kind of statement or opinion without someone correcting or forcing their view into the topic proper.
So here we are.
I wasn't trying to comment on your comment's thesis, I was dissecting the "Israel/Hamas" false dichotomy that's so commonly used, that was implicit in your comment. People treat Palestine and Hamas as equivalent and that's not just minorly wrong, it's critical to the entire discussion.
If that doesn't adhere to your ordained topic as much as you'd like, then I'm sorry but online conversations don't work that way - I'm not taking your comment out of context, that context is just irrelevant to what I'm talking about.
Those terms were used to describe what I was referring to. I don't believe that Hamas = Palestine, and yet you've looked past the intent of the words and into your own cognition that 'this person MUST be corrected!' It's frustrating behaviour to observe, let alone be on the recieving end of.
Here lies the conciet in so many conversations with people online. I didn't mention anything you've talked at me about.
Here's what I did, I used a list to stipulate that people will get angry / frustrated at an opinion on a topic, regardless of the side that said opinion takes (Thank you for proving that right by the way.)
You've taken umbridge at a percieved slight because I used terms you didn't like / thought were wrong, despite the fact that the context behind the words was relevant to what I was saying. You've decided that my message doesn't matter and that the conversation and points I have are irrelevant because they don't fit the scope of what you wanted to talk at me about instead.
Therefore I am wrong and in need of correction. If I rebutt you in any way, this will turn into a flamewar or some inane argument where we end up talking about 'strawmen' and feeling very glad and jolly that we're both intellectually bright and can use a keyboard... and it's bloody exhausting. It's the main reason I avoid most of the internets comment threads these days that are around more sensitive or challenging topics.
Perhaps they should? Perhaps we should have respect for conversations that are happening online to the same degree as we do in person? This conversation would probably have gone down "Hey, did you know Hamas and Palestine are different things man?" and I'd have gone "Totally, it's just words for effect of what I was trying to say" ... and that'd be the end of it. Instead we've got into this weird, quasi-intellectual joust.
I like the concept that the Broken Window Theory also applies to discourse online. If people are going at it? Then there's nothing but trolling, hate and rage to be had so the thread can be ignored. But if people can have conversations the same way they would in person? I'm down for that (providing they don't engage in the same rhetoric, slander and hand throwing.) That means engaging in conversation with how you'd like others to do so towards you (I'm not perfect on this by any means, but I try.)
Edit: I have disengaged from this conversation. I'm not interested what anyone has to say on this matter anymore. If you think what I've said is wrong then tag it as "malice" and let the admins decide.
I don't know what you think, only how the comment read. It conveyed a thing, I responded to the thing, not to you. I didn't mean to convey any emotional heat.
Honestly, you're framing this weirdly personally - I'm not mad at you, in a sense I wasn't even talking to you - I was responding to the comment as it reads. Death of the author, I was trying to nitpick one very important misconception-as-it-reads without butting in on the rest of the discussion.
I say "death of the author" because it almost doesn't matter whether you know Hamas is Palestine or not - if you say a phrase that implies Hamas is Palestine, then anyone who doesn't know will assume you're implying it deliberately, and my comment will help them.
"I don't know why people get so mad about WW2 -
I support the Nazis? Anger.
I support the USSR? Anger.
In between and I don't know what to think? Anger.
It's like no matter who I support, I only get anger in response."
That's how your comment reads, and can you not see how important the false dichotomy is?
I've been reading and re-reading my prior comments every time you respond and say I'm replying in [bad faith, intellectual posturing or whatever], and frankly no, you're just overreacting.
You keep calling me mad, claiming I "took umbridge", etc etc. No, I corrected a (perceived) misconception, and now you're throwing spicy words at me.
I'm gonna keep my reply short.
My remark in paraphrase on my first comment is "No matter what you say about this topic, someone has grief or an argument to start"
Here we are, bickering about nonsense for the sake of nonsense.
I'm disengaging mate. Have a good Sunday in your bit of the world wherever that may be.
To give a third-party view on this, that is not at all how this reads to me. To me, their initial response read as adding context and clarification to what you wrote, and you seemingly treating it as an attack on your person.
If you look in retrospect at your reply, if you wish to strive for a more respectful conversation, would a response from you in line with your example not be more likely to achieve that goal? Even during in-person conversations there are misunderstandings. If the conversation is in good faith, acknowledging such occurrences is, to me, a much better way to not escalate the tension or hostility.
For instance:
"You're right that Hamas and Palestine are separate, but even so supporting Palestine still evokes anger from some people as they do not see or make that distinction."
I've been avoiding this topic for a while because it's probably the one thing I just have the greatest possible quantity of hate for. There is nothing redeemable about it. I hate both sides. I wish it were something so simple that I could just say "I wish that they'd just wipe eachother out", but no, that's actually much worse somehow. I can't even imagine talking to people about this because talking about the conflict before this happened was already a minefield that only ends up hurting both members of that conversation.
Wars are often talked about how "the good guys won" or "the bad guys won". But that's never the case. Both sides are the bad guys.
I don't know why I waited so long to filter these tags out.
One of the excellent touches is that the signatures of "The Onion editorial board" include some I can't make out, but definitely includes the Unabomber and a prior editor, no longer with The Onion. Can anyone catch the rest of them?
Joe Sakic #19 is an NHL HoF player from the 90s-2000s, high up in management with the Avs today.
Mary Kay Letourneau is the teacher to was with her 12 year old student.
That was the most informative article I've read on this issue about which I am largely uninformed.
This has to be one of the best things I have ever read.
Here is one serious source if you are interested, but the origins of the struggle go back to the founding of Israel and before.
What is Hamas
Oh, I am familiar with the history. It is the news I'm not following ;)
Signing off with The Onion's motto, "Tu stultus es" ("You are dumb"), seems particularly apposite here.
I have an opinion and personal interests in the outcome. Expressing that opinion here or elsewhere online is of infinitesimal significance or worth given my level of knowledge, ability to influence, moral standing, and resources. There are other avenues to apply myself more usefully.
Maybe that's cowardly, but I suspect many of us would be better able to help guide the situation if we spent less time trying to be most "right", and more time doing what we can.
Caring and having an opinion or perspective doesn't need to be utilitarian. You should think about the situation, and talk about it with others even if you aren't on some government employee on a foreign policy team. You and I are not arranging peace talks or weapon shipments (I assume) but we can share our compassion and refine our understanding.
It's not simply a utilitarian concern for me. To set my response in context, I lived through decades of bitter argument about Israel/Palestine among family members in the U.S., Ukraine, Russia, Canada, and in Israel. [Aside from the aliyah family branch that left Russia in the 1990's, I've also got cousins who are West Bank "settlers".] The usual end result was various partisans not speaking to each other, sometimes permanently.
At this point, I'm not willing to have the same discussions with the reasonable people of Tildes, let alone the broader landscape of social media. There is a horror happening and I'm not interested in whether my opinion is validated or not.