i'm pretty uninterested in this as a whole so this is probably going to be my only comment here, but i'd just like to note, like in the original thread on recent israeli operations in gaza, that...
i'm pretty uninterested in this as a whole so this is probably going to be my only comment here, but i'd just like to note, like in the original thread on recent israeli operations in gaza, that the IDF as a combatant in all of these exchanges will always have a vested interest in downplaying total civilian fatalities and potentially because of that fact, their numbers in this respect are pretty much always lower than any other estimate of fatalities (whether it be from palestinian organizations, international watchdogs, journalistic outlets, or supranational bodies like the UN). they also tend to make higher-end estimates of militant fatalities than these groups than any of those organizations.
here are, for example, the estimates for the 2008-9 Gaza War:
notice the pattern. it's possible that in some of the smaller cases of conflict they are actually tracking with other estimates, but all of flareups i could find where militant deaths topped civilian deaths seem to only have one set of estimates so they're unable to be compared in this way (or their casualty figures aren't verified/sourceable). in general though, i think this suggests that the IDF's numbers should not be treated as some sort of gospel but more as a probable lower bound of conflict deaths, in the same way that palestinian estimates generally constitute an upper bound.
i wrote it because you pinged me in one of your comments. also, this is the lamest reply people always make to this point. me commenting here to point out that the IDF has its own vested interest...
Hence you wrote a long text post as a response....;-)
i wrote it because you pinged me in one of your comments. also, this is the lamest reply people always make to this point. me commenting here to point out that the IDF has its own vested interest in presenting casualty numbers and that they should be considered with that in mind does not mean i have an interest in some protracted discussion about the IDF. in fact really the only reason my comment is longer than "the IDF as a combatant in all of these exchanges will always have a vested interest in downplaying total civilian fatalities, so keep that in mind when you read their casualty figures" is because this is tildes, not reddit, and the standard for commenting here is generally higher than reddit.
i've been dealing with comments and dumb snipes of the sort for literally 12 years of my 13 on the internet and not one time in my experience has it ever been used as a joke, so forgive me for not...
i've been dealing with comments and dumb snipes of the sort for literally 12 years of my 13 on the internet and not one time in my experience has it ever been used as a joke, so forgive me for not wanting to prolong my stay in this thread trying to parse that out when my intent was literally to make one comment and leave.
trying to extrapolate my viewpoints on things from comments which have literally nothing to do with those viewpoints will do that. i've taken no stance on humor on tildes at all in this thread or...
I just don't understand your view, which to me seems like you don't want any humor on Tildes.
Also, saying "because this is tildes, not reddit, and the standard for commenting here is generally higher than reddit." is a pretty good way to discourage people from commenting here.
trying to extrapolate my viewpoints on things from comments which have literally nothing to do with those viewpoints will do that. i've taken no stance on humor on tildes at all in this thread or on our standards of commenting, but you've somehow managed to spin me explaining why i wrote a comment in here (i was pinged) and why i didn't respond to the "YOU SAY YOU DON'T CARE YET YOU COMMENTED, CHECKMATE LIBERAL" snipe as a joke (because in 12 years i have never met someone who used it as a joke) into some position on humor on here and managed to spin why i didn't make the only comment i originally intended to make in here as short as i could have (because this website prioritizes discussion and encourages longer comments) into some statement in the affirmative on our community standards.
also, tildes objectively has a higher expectation of commenting than reddit does. it's literally a part of tildes's mission, that's not just some shit i pulled out of my ass or which is my personal hot take. if that somehow scares people off, they were never fit to be here at all.
As long as we're going meta...I think this isn't the best way to try to discuss a complicated topic like this. History is not a tangent, and can never be ignored. In a complicated geopolitical...
Please don't let this devolve into tangential topics, such as Israeli or Palestinian history
As long as we're going meta...I think this isn't the best way to try to discuss a complicated topic like this. History is not a tangent, and can never be ignored.
In a complicated geopolitical situation like Israel & Palestine, everything is path dependent. You can't understand what's happening in the present, or what could / should happen in the future, without understanding the events that led up to now.
You say that, but you also say: and So it seems like you've taken a distinct stance on what is and is not relevant to this thread, even as you're saying that people can say whatever they want. And...
You say that, but you also say:
Please don't let this devolve into tangential topics, such as Israeli or Palestinian history, or the merits or flaws of BDS.
and
I am fine with discussions of the immediate history that relates to this topic, but if you start discussing Kfar Etsion or Deir Yassin or the Balfour Declaration or what Yasser Arafat ate for breakfast, then I think you are getting off topic. All I am saying is keep it relevant.
So it seems like you've taken a distinct stance on what is and is not relevant to this thread, even as you're saying that people can say whatever they want. And indeed they can, but you've set what you consider the acceptable terms of the discussion ahead of time. Do you see how that might limit the discussion?
i'm pretty uninterested in this as a whole so this is probably going to be my only comment here, but i'd just like to note, like in the original thread on recent israeli operations in gaza, that the IDF as a combatant in all of these exchanges will always have a vested interest in downplaying total civilian fatalities and potentially because of that fact, their numbers in this respect are pretty much always lower than any other estimate of fatalities (whether it be from palestinian organizations, international watchdogs, journalistic outlets, or supranational bodies like the UN). they also tend to make higher-end estimates of militant fatalities than these groups than any of those organizations.
here are, for example, the estimates for the 2008-9 Gaza War:
the estimates for 2012's Operation Pillar of Defense:
and the estimates for the 2014 Gaza War:
notice the pattern. it's possible that in some of the smaller cases of conflict they are actually tracking with other estimates, but all of flareups i could find where militant deaths topped civilian deaths seem to only have one set of estimates so they're unable to be compared in this way (or their casualty figures aren't verified/sourceable). in general though, i think this suggests that the IDF's numbers should not be treated as some sort of gospel but more as a probable lower bound of conflict deaths, in the same way that palestinian estimates generally constitute an upper bound.
i wrote it because you pinged me in one of your comments. also, this is the lamest reply people always make to this point. me commenting here to point out that the IDF has its own vested interest in presenting casualty numbers and that they should be considered with that in mind does not mean i have an interest in some protracted discussion about the IDF. in fact really the only reason my comment is longer than "the IDF as a combatant in all of these exchanges will always have a vested interest in downplaying total civilian fatalities, so keep that in mind when you read their casualty figures" is because this is tildes, not reddit, and the standard for commenting here is generally higher than reddit.
i've been dealing with comments and dumb snipes of the sort for literally 12 years of my 13 on the internet and not one time in my experience has it ever been used as a joke, so forgive me for not wanting to prolong my stay in this thread trying to parse that out when my intent was literally to make one comment and leave.
trying to extrapolate my viewpoints on things from comments which have literally nothing to do with those viewpoints will do that. i've taken no stance on humor on tildes at all in this thread or on our standards of commenting, but you've somehow managed to spin me explaining why i wrote a comment in here (i was pinged) and why i didn't respond to the "YOU SAY YOU DON'T CARE YET YOU COMMENTED, CHECKMATE LIBERAL" snipe as a joke (because in 12 years i have never met someone who used it as a joke) into some position on humor on here and managed to spin why i didn't make the only comment i originally intended to make in here as short as i could have (because this website prioritizes discussion and encourages longer comments) into some statement in the affirmative on our community standards.
also, tildes objectively has a higher expectation of commenting than reddit does. it's literally a part of tildes's mission, that's not just some shit i pulled out of my ass or which is my personal hot take. if that somehow scares people off, they were never fit to be here at all.
As long as we're going meta...I think this isn't the best way to try to discuss a complicated topic like this. History is not a tangent, and can never be ignored.
In a complicated geopolitical situation like Israel & Palestine, everything is path dependent. You can't understand what's happening in the present, or what could / should happen in the future, without understanding the events that led up to now.
Who determines relevance in a situation like this?
Whoever shouts loudest and longest.
You say that, but you also say:
and
So it seems like you've taken a distinct stance on what is and is not relevant to this thread, even as you're saying that people can say whatever they want. And indeed they can, but you've set what you consider the acceptable terms of the discussion ahead of time. Do you see how that might limit the discussion?