TheDankHold

No one’s saying you can’t do anything. I’m simply explaining that your “protest” is ignorable at best and actively beneficial to the people you hate at worst.

Like I said, too stupid to hold a conversation with. I’ve been an atheist my whole life.

Yeah we know you’re too stupid and arrogant to have a conversation, you don’t need to remind me.

No they’d just be happy that there’s less people they have to convince to vote for them. Less people voting means it’s easier to pass policies that enrich them. You aren’t doing some meaningful protest, you’ve removed yourself from the conversation.

There’s tons of money in seeding voter apathy and people like you are why. They get you to remove your own voice and make you think you’re hurting them and not yourself.

If you think I wasn’t clear that’s on you. I stated my premise and gave examples as to why I think my premise is valid.

If you still don’t understand me I don’t think it’s worth it to keep trying.

Compelling argument. I really liked the part where you explained anything. Exactly what I expected from someone that needs things to be simple to make sense.

They only care about appealing to people who they know vote. Your silent protest is very easy to ignore.

I’d rather not latch onto mental shortcuts to understand the world. It’s naive, reductive, and doesn’t help you reach an actual solution. All it does is validate your previously conceived biases.

The civil war happened because rich landowners built their economy around slavery and didn’t want to get rid of it. Many bought into racist justifications as to why the system should continue. Slavery still exists in this country and the civil war has been over for over a century, read the 13th amendment carefully.

People support MAGA because there’s been a decades long movement to create a media sphere that insulates viewers from inconvenient information and to reinforce party created narratives. Thus primed to be taken advantage of by conmen like Trump. Any behavior from this group spawned from the preceding movements such as the Tea Party.

The nightclub was attacked because of anti LGBTQ ideology that isn’t specific to one religion making him feel like they are a threat to society. It’s like saying the person that assassinated the planned parenthood doctor or the one who bombed a clinic did it because they thought god would reward them in heaven.

Stop trying to dumb shit down to make yourself feel smarter. Contextualizing is never a bad thing unless you want to avoid unhelpful facts. As I’ve already stated and you haven’t refuted, barbaric violence has been committed in the name of all ideologies, and every time they cite portions of their dogma to justify their barbarism.

What’s simpler? Newtons theory of gravity or Einstein theory of relativity? The four humors or germ theory? Which one is more accurate? The simple answer is not always the correct one.

Do think there’s something inherent to this abrahamic religion absent from any other? Or could there be an alternative explanation? Maybe that fundamentalism and extremism thrive in unstable societies and can turn any ideology into a fanatical and violent version of itself?

After all, ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empire these countries have been set up for failure and are consistently destabilized by foreign backed coups.

It’s like using South America as an example of a political ideology in action, it ignores the multitude of interventions done by outside groups designed to undercut local power and destabilize the region for better looting.

Not voting signals to politicians that they don’t need to care about your vote or you in general.

It’s not an argument for religion. It’s an argument to not unfairly single out a religion for something they’re all universally susceptible towards.

It’s very popular to use your talking points just for Islam. It doesn’t sounds like you’re talking about religion generally as a result.

There are Buddhist sects that commit terrorism. It’s not specific to religion. Stick humans in there and even a religion that talks of pacifism will gain violent extremists.

When the Scotsman was born in Austria and lived their whole life in Russia I don’t care how much they insist they’re a Scotsman. Definitions matter.

I doubt you’ll insist that NK is a democratic republic.

When your objective is obstruction then that’s all you need.

Since you want to be obtuse I’ll specify that I’m referring to state affiliated media. You also skipped right past the fact that the Israeli government has self admitted that they have a whole department dedicated to controlling the narrative internationally. Following this with saying how credible you think those government reports are says a lot about your credulity.

Israeli state media and state associated media has been caught lying and framing information in manipulative ways. You’re trusting Israeli reports after they lied about targeting journalists and to this day still can’t show a Hamas base under Al-Shifa? Sounds like you’re unaware of your own bias in that regard.

Furthermore, the idea that they face consequences for their lies is laughable. They lied about the USS Liberty and paid a fraction of the money the US supplies them with every year. They lied about sniping journalists and faced no consequences. They can’t prove that Hamas was under Al-Shifa after leveling the place.

And thanks for bringing up the Israeli news organizations that are intellectually honest. They’ve done great reporting on the lies used by Netanyahu’s coalition to push their official narrative.

By my logic one should be skeptical, read multiple sources, and discard sources that act in constant bad faith, not distrust all news.

You can’t say that honestly after disparaging Al Jazeera and praising “Israeli reports to be far more credible” when it’s common knowledge that the Israeli government lies constantly about this issue.

Despite your admission on how universal bias can be you don’t seem that interested in challenging your own.

Certainly not by body count, or the amount of territory seized from civilians. Or the number of dead journalists specifically.

Just because they’re sanctioned by an internationally recognized government doesn’t change what they’ve done. Including smuggling money and resources to these terrible people. The government that ensured the success of terrorists to further political narratives are in fact more terrible than the terrorists they enable.

You’re on Lemmy obfuscating the fact that Israel has a PR department that puts editorial pressure on most news organizations. Much like Russia they also have groups like Hasbara astroturfing online discussions, this is all self admitted by the government.

So by your logic we shouldn’t trust any news.

Every news source has bias and it’s a sign of a critical thinker to avoid ad hominem and look at the substance of what’s being reported. Especially when there’s already proof out there that the Israeli government has lied in the past to justify actions taken against Palestinians at large.

The prisoners that mostly don’t even have charges levied against them? I wonder why people would compare an act of illegal imprisonment with another instance of illegal imprisonment?

Your mind doesn’t sound as critical as you seem to think.

Removed by mod

So optics mean that much to you. No wonder your perspective is so warped.

When an IDF agent snipes a journalist and his buddies assault people at their funeral you’re a fucking terrorist. A government sanctioned terrorist to be specific. The kind that murder people in their homes.