• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 2nd, 2023

help-circle
  • 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?”


  • silicon_reverie@lemmy.worldtoMildly Infuriating@lemmy.worldFacepalm
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.




  • 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

    1. Are we trying to make an argument against the outrageous price of pre-packaged food (which we all agree have gotten out of hand)? If so, we should be comparing frozen veggie patties against their non-pre-packaged counterparts, not against beef or sandwich bread or whatever else people keep bringing up in the comments.
    2. Are we trying to argue that OP is dumb for picking the most expensive options on the shelf if they’re going to complain about price? Because yeah, everyone already knows that a 70% lean turkey burger on Wonder Bread is going to be cheaper than Kobe beef on an artisanal brioche bun with truffle butter. Veggie burgers have always been expensive because they required years of R&D to make them palatable since they have to survive the freeze & thaw, sit on the shelf for months, and be viable as a boxed product (unlike our home-made versions). What’s worse, they’re still niche enough that they don’t benefit from economies of scale. It’s old news.
    3. Are we trying to argue that inflation is going nuts right now (which we also already agree on)? Because if so, OP picked a dumb collection of ingredients to make that point since I doubt many people have an instinctive feel for how much Gardein used to charge. Show us the price for beef & bargain buns today, then compare that to what a burger used to cost and then we’ll talk.

    My point was just that if you’re arguing the first one, then actually pick comparable ingredients for your comparison instead of beef.