Scholar

It's not whataboutism. I'm not saying "The Palestinians are doing bad things therefore the Israelis can do bad things too!". I'm saying from an "objective" lense, it is actually good that the Israeli's are killing Palestinians, because in the end you are saving more individuals this way. And not by killing innocence, but by killing rights violators such as mass murderers (people who directly fund and consume the tortured corpses or excretions of rape victims). In fact, they should kill each other as much as they can to reduce the atrocities and violations they engage in. This is more like Hitler killing a bunch of Super-Hitlers who are 10x worse as Hitler, while being ignorant of that fact. This isn't about not being perfect. Would you describe Hitler as "not being perfect"? No, obviously you agree it was justified and good to kill Hitler and his minions. And his minions weren't even that bad, most of them didn't actively participate in atrocities. You cannot fathom this because you are the one who is biased. To you, killing animals is simply "being imperfect". You don't see it the same as the holocaust, but it is. It's worse, in fact. I'm not rationalizing anything, you don't even know my position. I am just describing your own foolishness back to you, and you are completely blind to it. You are arguing with yourself here.

This is the condundrum: In some ways, I would want a mother to sacrifice her child to save 10 others, especially if amongst those 10 others was my child. However, I recognize that this is naive, it contradicts human nature to such a degree, that expecting this behavior, let alone enforcing in in people, would lead not to a utopia, but the opposite. I also recognize that I would rather sacrifice a thousand children before I sacrifice mine. I would sacrifice all the children on the planet, in fact. That is my nature, there is no point in denying it, as little point as there is in denying the nature of the ant. Demanding of the ant to care about humans is absurd, as absurd as these propositions are that are being thrown around here. It's the childish ramblings of fools who will only stoke the fires of suffering and misery.

This is delusional. Most of the western world still supports Israel, especially the US.

Why would I stop whining about the holocaust? I have my own, clear preferences. When the genocide comes for me, I will cry and act outraged. If Israel killed one of my loved ones in, from their perspective, a justified bombing for a priority Hamas leader, I would still be justified to assassinate Netanjahu and violently resist the Israeli occupation. It's funny how you are missing the entire point of what I am saying and flailing about unable to escape the contracted perspective that I have attempted to describe to you the limitation of. It is obvious to any objective outside observer that Palestinians are engaged in the domination and abuse of a minority group (animals). The only reason you don't see that as problematic is because you benefit from it in some way. We can do the moral calculus and I can describe to you how only a fool wouldn't recognize that, from an objective perspective, the death of any human is a positive thing and will be hard to be framed any other way even with attempted utilitarian addendums. But that would go over your head, I'm sure. I can understand the palestinian seeking to resist the Israeli occupation, and I can understand the Israeli desire for security. Both of them are fools, but no greater fools than those who cannot see what I am elucidating here. The difference between you and them is minor to me.

You don't have to defend their actions. All you need to do is declare an ingroup preference for demcratic societies and therefore the support of those societies given an irreconcilable conflict. Or recognize that they are your ally, your family. That's how the world works, and how it needs to work to function. Nobody will be honest about it, or self-aware enough to see this, but in the end, your contracted moral positions are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

There is a very simple way of demonstrating the limitation of uniperspectival moral universalization (eradication of ingroup preference): If you want to be truly moral and say the Israe is not justified to kill a thousand palestinian civilians to save a singular Israeli citizen, then you run into the problem that you have to equally rid yourself of the ingroup preferences which you currently apply to yourself an others. Namely, the fact that there is no justifiable reason to prefer the life of an human over the life of a animal. If you recognize your bias, you will realize that, through a simple moral calculus as applied to basic human rights, maximization of palestinian and israeli causalities, and human causalities in general, could not possibly be viewed as something negative given that that the vast majority of these humans actively participate in behavior equivalent to the worst human genocide that ever occured. The vast majority of those killed in the conflict are mass-murderers, who consume the tortured corpses of individuals in the form of animal products. Now, you will not care about any of this because you are a human, and like any zionist, any fascist, any racial supremacist, you simply do not care about the outgroup. To you it is utterly obvious that the life of a human is worth a thousand animals, maybe millions, maybe all animals. That is what you are, and you have no problem being this way. There is a necessity for this kind of selfishness or ingroup preference that you cannot see, and that you reject fundamentally because of how utterly blind you are to your own biases. You are, from the perspective of a universal ethical position, worse than a racial supremacist vegan zionists who intentionally bombs palestinian civilians.

None of the statistics on Israeli civilian causality ratios (as declared by Hamas themselves) indicate indiscriminate killing or a genocide. This is simply a childish and false notion. Genocide also requires a systemic intent of eradication, for which there is no evidence of. At best you can point to some right wing nutjobs who make unhinged statements. The problem with this whole idea of genocide is that you would expect to see the same civilian causality ratios and general military behavior in the context of any nation given it participated in war against an insurgency group like Hamas, in a highly populated civilian area. You can say that Israel is exploiting the general conflict to expand it's security and interests, as it has from the beginning, but it in no way had any interest in "genociding" palestinians, nor does it have such interest now. The behavior is in line with how any nation state would respond to an attack such as october 7th. As far as the oppressive dynamics between Israel and Palestine, those can equally be expected given the historical context, from any equivalent nation state. In fact, many nations states would have long committed a full and complete ethnic cleansing, such as to render the problem a non-issue. The problem with uni-perspectival moralistic analyses is that they fundamentally fail to capture the real dynamics of human behavior and therefore such perspectives become ineffective in understanding conflict. For most people it is hard to reconcile that from the perspective of the israeli's, oppressive means are justified to maintain a jewish nation state and therefore a collective, ethnocentric security. Considering the persecution of jews throughout history, it can be expected that they as a people would prioritize their kin over an outgroup which participated in attempts of their eradication throughout the 20th century, to such a degree that they are willing to forgo universal morality to achieve the basic survival of their family. In the end, a human will eradicate a thousand innocent lifes before they sacrifice their own kin. A naive, stage green notion of morality dictates that the proper moral viewpoint is universal, that somehow the interest of everyone can be fundamentally aligned and reconciled. This is a profoundly destructive and naive view, because the interests of individuals can be existentially opposed. A fully universalized understanding of harmony will include oppositional, ingroup preference. If an ant had to make the decision between killing it's own queen or to condemn a million human beings to death, the right thing to do for the ant would be to condemn the humans. The reason for why this is necessary lies in the holonic nature of reality, in that, you cannot actually centralize the distribution of love without losing the foundation upon which interest is built in the first place. Ingroup preference is the root from which more universal considerations can sprout. In this way, a palestinian who has lost his family to a bombing targetting a Hamas general can be justified to kill Israeli soldiers, and even to assassinate Israeli politicians, while the Israeli military was justified in killing the Hamas general to protect their own kin. Once you recognize the reality of this proposition, you realize why conflict is so tricky, and why naive notions of universalism do not help the situation at all. Universalism is necessarily uni-perspectival, and engaging in it will make you blind to the workings of reality, and to the wisdom of the dynamics at play. It could not possibly work for a singular, universal morality to maximize the interests of most beings, because there are existential contradictions in the interests of beings. You see this best in nature. You can complain about the lion eating the gazelle, but the lion won't give a shit because it will always love itself and it's cubs more than the gazelle. There is no reconciling this situation, there is no peace between the gazelle and the lion. Now, human beings have potential to eventually achieve peace, but it is naive to expect this to happen everywhere, instantly. The best way to do so is to give humans security, so they feel comfortable expanding their identity and care.

Calling it a genocide is childish.

"Bad on gay rights" is the understatement of the year.

Jews really suck at propaganda, this was a cringefest. He literally did the chickens for KFC meme, like an old boomer trying to sell it as his own joke.

You can tell the police officer is likely a genuine sociopath considering the way he commented and framed the situation after he killed her.

It's definitely the cops fault in this case, socially incompetent. It all started because they both took a step back, explaining that it was because of the boiling water. The cop didn't understand that this offended the woman because it implied she would throw boiling water at them (even though she seems to have just wanted to pour it away). Subsequently she said "I rebuke you in the name of jesus", which the officer took as an actual threat instead of treating it as a woman being offended by what she might have perceived as a racist implication. Then he started escalating like a complete neanderthal, point the gun at her which immediately made her panic, and at that point you don't know what a person in this mental state might do. At best the cops shoul have retreated if they felt they were in danger, unbelievable that they would stand their ground with this woman and shoot her after basically escalating the situation in the most incompetent way possible. US cops are just badly trained. Defund them some more so they get even more incompetent.

The way it was has worked and was reasonable. The reason why there was "lawfare" is because Trump is an insanely corrupt president. The president already had immunity from civil persecution. That is more than sufficient. None of this was a problem at all before Trump started literally trying to overtake the government.

The irony of republicans saying the government is corrupt for years and years and then they are the driver of a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't even know how you guys will return to a norm from this.

Destiny is pretty much the only big political pundit who actually talks about this very issue. If he had listened to Destiny, he'd know about it, because that's one of the reasons why Destiny is going so insane. He assumed that the US institutions were strong and that Trump would be taken accountable. But then he was literally declard immune from criminal persecuting by the supreme court. That's why he is on this whole sharade right now, the fact that the right basically supports someone who wanted to insurrect the government. It's actually mindblowing how little this is reported on by political pundits and the news in general. Almost nobody in your country is aware of what happened.

Well it should be apparent that Destiny is a sociopath based on his takes on animal rights. He thinks it's okay to skin animals alive for fun because he knows if he were to extend care to animals he'd have to be vegan, and he doesn't want to be, so he just bites the bullet on animals being objects and nothing else. That's a sociopath move.

Destiny might be right on this to be fair. He is certainly not wrong on any of the factual or moral analysis, although the no sympathy stuff is a little spicy. The problem is, Destiny actually behaves how any sane person would behave. If you were time-teleported from 2010 into 2024 you'd think you live a simulated clown world. Half your country are actual lunatics. This is beyond an existential threat, no matter who becomes president. It's worse than climate change, far worse. This can lead to the end the US as we know it, the complete epistemic breakdown fueled by conflict-maximizing algorhyms could cause the death of hundreds of millions of people. Destiny is kind of like a vegan realizing how utterly insane everyone is, lol. And he is right that there is this insanity and it is being masked by civility politics (not it's not even really true considering the republicans are absolutely insane fucking neanderthals who literally justified the murder of most of the government multiple times over considering their pedophile, genocide, world-control conspiracies), and I can see how maybe we need an actual wake up call in the form of someone going unhinged so the other side finally can see what it's like. But who are we kidding this is just gonna get worse and worse.

Yep.

It's not a fake voice, apparently the guy just sounds like Elon, it's a freak coincidence lol. No clue, it's random conservative influencers I think?

It's a guy who sounds exactly like Elon, not sure what his relevancy is outside of that.

Destiny making a case for why he is engaging in the type of rhetoric he is engaging in:

The problem with misinformation is that it takes longer to debunk than to generate it.

The video is retarded and it takes 5 seconds of thinking to understand why. White nationalists want to preserve the character of the nation because they are delusional racists, while Israeli jewish nationalists seek to preserve the character of the nation because there is a genuine threat that once arabs gain democratic power they would instantly be removed from their nation. And those are clips that are like years apart. Positions change, even though there is nothing inconsistent about holding these positions.

It's called Nabraska Steve, he comes out every now and then.

Well you'd have it running the whole time, that's what they use in Ukraine. They are heavy to carry and can compromise your location though, and you have to jam all the signal frequencies.