The ICC recognizes Netanyahu as a war criminal. The UN recognizes and denounces the genocide taking place in Gaza.
Just because you want to be ignorant to reality doesn't make you correct or worth listening to. There is nothing to allege. The genocide is happening, it's well-documented, no matter what you choose to believe. Take your bootlicking drivel somewhere else.
And no, you're missing the point. Thanks to our Bill of Rights, we currently are able to publicly denounce the genocide. That doesn't mean I'm free to disentangle myself from the economic pipeline fueling it.
Just because you can point to some amount of freedom doesn't invalid the fact that going against the status quo opens you up to state and social violence. Reread my post.
> “less taxes, no wars!” party just won the US election
Surely you have an ounce of intelligence to recognize that it is purely lip service, and both parties are considered far right by any progressive standards.
Trump, like those before him, works for the elite, and gives them tax breaks, while letting the middle class take on the brunt of the taxes. He is also pro-war, just like his opposing candidate Kamala Harris was.
I think your comment would be much more effective if it didn’t attack another person. It’s an emotional topic but we should assume the best in people we talk to. Maybe they just aren’t aware of everything you are, in which case showing them can be very effective.
You're correct, and usually I try to be extremely measured in how I interact here, avoiding appeals, fallacies and insults.
However, I have an understandably short fuse for anyone with the audacity to not just claim ignorance, but actively put forth a narrative that no genocide is taking place. I've spent too long being nice and understanding to these people.
There is little hope in connecting with them via fair argument, because they only understand appeals to authority (thus my invocation of the ICC and UN), but selectively reject them as well. They reject sound arguments in favor of feelgood statements. It takes that caliber of person to arrogantly proclaim in December, 2024 that there is no genocide.
The most effective option for dealing with this kind of person would actually be to disengage and not respond. However, that opens up the possibility that someone else reads their comment, and when not presented with a counterargument, takes their argument in good faith.
I mean, look at his yet unanswered reply to my statement. How do you even begin to engage fruitfully with something like that? They set up a system of biases and then try to frontrun you by invoking the words "bias" and "projection" before you can use them, engaging in a preemptive tu quoque [0].
You don't even get a chance to attack their core arguments, because they're shielded by a continuously growing pile of weaker arguments, and you'll get lost in a meta-argument about semantics or some other trapdoor.
Sometimes ignorant people are just ignorant, and they need to hear it. But I do generally agree with you, and thanks for the criticism!
The best thing to do is absolutely to disengage from your extremely toxic and ignorant style of communication. You have no intention of having a fair discussion or establishing any common ground. You came into my thread looking to start shit, not to consider and share new ideas.
Your arguments are steeped in bias, conservative talking points, and after reviewing your comment history, I just see a cesspool of ignorant, bigoted takes and projection.
I've already argued against your talking points a thousand times with others who share your exact same spoonfed worldview. There is no need to do it again.
Hacker News is not the place for this kind of behavior, and I hope one day you lose some ego and grow up.
The burden of evidence is not on me, at some point there is enough overwhelming public evidence for something that the burden of evidence shifts to you to disprove general consensus.
I think it's better to leave the exercise of Googling "evidence of genocide in Gaza" and "history of Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to you, the reader. It will teach you some basic research and inference skills.
Certainly, if I try to link to government and NGO press releases, Wikipedia articles, social media accounts of field press and Palestinians, or news articles, I run a very high risk of you conveniently denouncing my sources as biased before you even try to critically engage with them. It's better that you encounter sources on your own, corroborate them and follow hyperlinks, taking time to really understand the heart of this conflict. There is a lot of geopolitical and economic history coming into play here.
> You’re literally going against the status quo right now — you just aren’t allowed to arbitrarily not pay your taxes
You have a narrow definition of "going against the status quo" which conveniently suits your argument. However, that is clearly not the definition which I used when laying out my argument. It is disingenuous to purport a straw man argument derived from manufactured ambiguity. You know what I mean, do not deflect and devolve into a meta-argument about the meaning of my words.
Just because you want to be ignorant to reality doesn't make you correct or worth listening to. There is nothing to allege. The genocide is happening, it's well-documented, no matter what you choose to believe. Take your bootlicking drivel somewhere else.
And no, you're missing the point. Thanks to our Bill of Rights, we currently are able to publicly denounce the genocide. That doesn't mean I'm free to disentangle myself from the economic pipeline fueling it.
Just because you can point to some amount of freedom doesn't invalid the fact that going against the status quo opens you up to state and social violence. Reread my post.
> “less taxes, no wars!” party just won the US election
Surely you have an ounce of intelligence to recognize that it is purely lip service, and both parties are considered far right by any progressive standards.
Trump, like those before him, works for the elite, and gives them tax breaks, while letting the middle class take on the brunt of the taxes. He is also pro-war, just like his opposing candidate Kamala Harris was.