Holy whataboutism, Batman, no one is arguing that Hamas is in the right here. What are you even trying to say with this? “Hamas ‘fucks civilians’ which makes them evil… so Israel might as well join in and ‘fuck civilians’ too”?
Can’t we all just agree that no one should be “fucking civilians” for any reason, because you know, they’re civilians?
They’ll still be fucked but they’ll at least stop worrying about this particular enemy.
The difference is that “in for a penny, in for a pound” implies all options are equal as long as the objective is achieved. “Surgical strike that kills 24 civilians? Nuclear strike that kills 2,400,000? Something in between? Why bother weighing the pros and cons because we’re fucked on the world stage either way. Might as well go big.” It’s an argument designed to sidestep the very real debate over “acceptable loss” calculations and the duty to safeguard human life. No one is saying that Israel shouldn’t retaliate. No one is saying that Hamas is playing fair. What they are saying is that 10,000 dead refugees might look like Israel doesn’t care that they’re dead. Especially when Israel says they targeted refugee camps and ambulances on purpose. And when you chime in saying “fuck it, just kill 'em” to a simple plea of “maybe count the kids before killing 'em all.”
The IDF is in an impossible situation, but the answer isn’t to shut down debate, it’s to actually talk about where the line should be drawn and try to minimize civilian harm. Allow foreign aid to reach the starving children. Allow civilians to leave the city. Listen to why there’s an outcry against indiscriminate bombings. Palestinians aren’t “meat shields.” Hamas might be hiding behind them, but that doesn’t mean you have to aim straight at the “shields” and pull the trigger. They’re people, and deserve more consideration than a simple “fuck it, what’s a little genocide if the bad guy’s dead?”
I completely understand, hence making a joke about Google’s pedantic argument by referencing a satirical cartoon bureaucrat who cares more about technicalities than lived experiences.
Google argues that functionally, “blocking ads” means no ads are displayed, and functionally, paying Google’s ransom also means no ads are displayed, therefore the two are interchangeable. Whereas the rest of us can plainly see this is a debate over principles rather than outcomes, and the way something is accomplished does matter. Especially when the article we’re talking about is intentionally designed as click-bait and doesn’t list the one thing they imply will be in it: ad-subverting plugins that don’t pay Google.
Did they mean “without further ado”?
They’re technically correct. The best kind of correct. /s
edit: wow, y’all hate Futurama memes almost as much as ads 😂
I agree that intent is an important consideration. In war, combatants are obligated to be intentional with who they target. That intentionality is even codified into international law. It’s why we say that civilian casualties must be minimized whenever possible. By law, commanders must attempt to discriminate between military and civilian targets, applying force appropriately to target only those who are part of the conflict. By law, retaliation is governed by the principal of minimum force, meaning only so much force as is required to remove the threat, and no more.
When those of us outside the conflict zone are confronted with dead children on the front page, that’s the standard of “intent” we’re weighing our reactions against. For many, it’s hard to see how attacks on refugee camps were intended to spare refugees. How attacks on aid convoys and ambulances intended to spare the sick and wounded. How refusing to allow food, water, and the gasoline that hospitals need in order to operate is intended to safeguard the welfare of civilians who have been forced to drink sea water just to stay alive. Even if Hamas is using the population as human shields, it doesn’t change that the intent should be to spare those civilians in spite of Hamas’ actions. They’re fellow human beings. They deserve that bare minimum of thought. Sure, dropping an atomic bomb on Gaza City would wipe out the terrorists, but I think we’d all agree that’d be a war crime since it would also murder millions. The same logic applies here on the smaller scale (though 10,000 residents - half of them children - isn’t exactly “small scale”). That’s why it’s hard to see intention in those headlines. At least aside from the intention to do exactly what you’d expect bombing a refugee camp to do - murder refugees. The indiscriminate leveling of a region isn’t targeted, but it sure as hell looks intentional.
I desperately want to be wrong here, and like I said, I’m an outside observer from America just like you. But that’s the train of logic that I see dominating calls for a humanitarian pause over here, and it’s rather compelling.
It’s a good way to frame things. As an outsider, the subjectivity of the IDF’s target is why I wonder if people are choosing one term for the war over another. Some see the intentional bombing of refugee camps, ambulances, and aid convoys as targeting the civilians of Gaza in what amounts to a systematic extermination of Palestinians. The casualty numbers seem to heavily favor that interpretation. So could this be one reason for some news outlets to frame the conflict as Israel vs Gaza itself? Or is the word choice more nuanced than that, given how it seems as though the two names are being used interchangeably on both sides of the line?
I’m just not sure what we’re all arguing about any more. We all largely agree with one another, but the comments in this thread are all over the place
My point was just that if you’re arguing the first one, then actually pick comparable ingredients for your comparison instead of beef.
Yeah, sounds like they’re just garden-variety vegetarians so it wouldn’t matter what they’re picking up as long as it’s not meat. Although to your point about meatless burgers, home-made versions often do contain egg as the binding protein.
Yes, but also this isn’t strictly a case of “convenience food makes price go up.” OP is making veggie burgers, not beef burgers, so you really should be comparing “Gardein pre-packaged veggie patties” to “black beans + brown rice + bell pepper + onion + mushroom + eggs + chili powder + cumin + bread crumbs etc” that you’ll mash into your version of a DIY veggie patty. The pre-packaged ones will still probably be more expensive, but at least you’ll be comparing apples to apples.
… which is not to say that it’s free or even affordable (despite the name), or that residents in every state have equal access, or that the government is providing the plan. The ACA is a subsidy that slightly reduces the cost of private insurance, provided that you’re poor enough to qualify and that your state chooses to accept the federal government’s help beyond a certain threshold.
Anyone with insurance. If they’re charging your insurance provider $1,400, then you’ll either see that cost passed directly on to you when you get COVID, or see it as an increase in everyone’s monthly insurance cost as they spread out what they’re paying across their whole customer base. The money’s got to come from somewhere. Granted, insurance companies will likely negotiate on the price and not pay that full amount, but it’s not exactly a good-faith negotiation if their starting offer is a 10,000% markup.
Also, 2028 is less than 5 years away and COVID is set to be a persistent staple of society like the yearly flu indefinitely. They’re basically saying that anyone who gets it while committing the heinous crime of being poor is SOL, even though it costs them almost nothing to produce and was developed using our tax dollars to start with.
Or if you had clicked just one more blue link in that article and checked out the actual definition of “crud,” you’d see that VD is only the long-sense-deprecated seventh definition. Today, it’s mainly used as a synonym for dirt, muck, disease, or other unclean gunk you might encounter out in the wild.
Also remember that American homes are quite literally wired different, and kettles aren’t as efficient fast as they are on the UK’s electric grid. They’re still far better than the stovetop, but the combined one-two punch of less need and stoves being “good enough” for most people most of the time just kills the idea in its tracks.
Yes, which is why turning a hospital or refugee camp into a command post is a war crime. But it also means that attacking a hospital or refugee camp, whether they’re being used as shields for military targets or not, should also not be done lightly. Iron-clad case made beforehand that it is a military target, rigorous scrutiny of the claim evaluated by an independent body after the fact, and the military action against the target has to prioritize the civilians as much as possible. They’re people. Men, women, and children who have nothing to do with the conflict and are simply caught in the crossfire. One side showing a disregard for the life of innocents does not justify the other side doubling down on the same.