Can’t say they’re particularly wrong but I feel like this is going at it the wrong way. It’s not like TikTok is particularly problematic, it’s just that the platform is so massively popular the general problem with big tech social media has become so big it can’t be ignored anymore.
(for profit) Social media has an inherent interest in fostering an unhealthy environment because angry people tend to argue with the people they’re angry at more so than people agreeing or politely disagreeing with each other. It’s no wonder everyone is shouting at each other when the media everyone is doing the shouting on have a vested interest in making sure that the shouting be as loud as possible.
Non-profit social media isn't exactly healthy either.
I know beehaw is a relative safe haven, but venture to other instances in the fediverse and you'll find cesspits of toxicity that are as bad as it gets.
And given what my experiences with toxic positivity, cancelling and culture wars in minority run communities which should know better, I doubt beehaw doesn't have its fair share of toxicity too. Even if you manage to keep out the worst bigots, people who have been hurt or bullied, quite often end up hurting or bullying others.
I mean that’s fair enough, I’m not arguing Big Tech is solely to blame. Heck before big Social Media was a thing you still had your forum trolls trying to make everyone else’s life as miserable as possible, among other infamous archetypes of insufferabiltiy. But I think (I have no data on this) that the environments found in the Fediverse are, on average, healthier than what you find on Big Tech platforms.
Whether that’s down to fewer people using the Fediverse or the approach being better I cannot back with data. It’s just a gut feeling that the entire structure is more geared toward facilitating a healthy community (let’s ignore lemmy’s absolute lack of moderation tools here for a second)
Original: Netanyahu Calls Palestinians ‘Collateral Damage’ As Israel Destroys Gaza Post title: Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu says Palestinian civilians being killed en masse are simply “collateral damage”
The revised title reads as Netanyahu using the world simply, which doesn’t appear to be the case in the article.
Hey y’all! This thread has sparked a lot of discussion and it is obviously a very tense topic being discussed at a tense time in the world. With the way the thread has been going, the mod team doesn’t feel we can moderate this thread thoroughly enough to make it follow our rules, so I am going to lock it.
"This quantity is not enough to operate hospital generators for more than thirty minutes,” Hamas added
This sounded like an exaggeration to me but it checks out by my calculations (correct me if I am wrong).
This website calculates 300 litres would generate 2.85 MW hours. If what Hamas says is true then the hospital would have to be using 5.7 MW of power.
I compared this with the state of Victoria (pop. 6.7M) Australia where the hospitals in total use 147MW of power. In non-wartime that Gazan hospital probably serves about ten times fewer people, which would be 14.7MW. Admittedly an Australian hospital’s power use is probably more profligate.
I feel like there’s a lot of variables here. I am making some assumptions here, but as an example, I don’t think the hospitals in Gaza would have things like multiple MRI’s or CT Scanners that you would find in more developed areas. Those things require a pretty large amount of power. I know a lot of hospitals in undeveloped regions often only have one, sometimes none at all.
I think the only thing that can give some perspective is how big the diesel tanks are at the hospital. How much does 300L fill them? If that’s like a quarter or less of their total capacity, then yea, that’s not enough. But if that fills them by over half, then I kind of get it. You can only deliver so much at a time if you don’t want trucks of fuel parked outside the hospital, which just seems like a bad idea for many reasons.
At what point does the world look at this and say that enough is enough.
Do we ever, really? Over the sum of all war-related humanitarian disasters, the West responds to very few of them, and only when it's economically or geopolitically useful. The Palestinian crisis is no different; it's not exceptional in any way. There's an ongoing nightmare in DRC that's orders of magnitude worse than what's happening in Gaza and... no one cares. Europe and the U.S. are on the verge of disengaging from Ukraine.
The thing is, it doesn't even matter if we "condemn this behavior." We could do that all we want and it wouldn't make much difference. And no one wants to be interventionist - there's too much awful history around it, and it smacks of colonialism, and it means taking resources away from "domestic issues" that always seem to matter more.
We've got to move away from the notion that the situation in Gaza is somehow unique. It allows us to conveniently ignore the root causes of the problem, which is much more universal, and stems from the ongoing sense of cultural superiority on the part of Europe and the U.S.
The reason Afganistan has had so much trouble with superpowers during the last few centuries is that they are an extremely important geographic location which would provide great strategic advantage to the power controlling them. That’s why American media has been trying to push the public to be sympathetic to a re-invasion until recently. Fortunately for Afganistan, they are very difficult to conquer for very long.
At this point it feels like Netanyahu has a checklist with 6 million boxes, and is checking them off as fast as possible so they can finally get even with Germany or something.
Man, the 20s are a weird time. A century ago, it would have been the Germans asking the Jews if they were Jewish at gunpoint, not the other way around. It's almost funny how "never again" is now just "again" now that Israel is taking charge...
And according to the the Torah, Israel was originally founded in genocide. It’s seen as righteous and necessary, dashing the infants against the rocks, child brides, wiping out the tribes of Canaan and all that. Yahweh was all for it.
The main factor as to whether one Abrahamic group or another will commit to genocide is generally just whether they are in power or not. Whenever there is a Christian majority, or a Muslim majority or, as we’ve seen over the last fifty years, a Jewish religious majority, they set about oppressing whichever of the others are a minority.
It’s the Abrahamic philosophies themselves that are poisonous and sustain this spirit of neverending conquest. You’ll never have anything resembling peace in the middle east until the people there move past bronze age beliefs about how they are entitled by god to own some piece of land and everyone else is just collateral or second class citizens. Likewise with christianity in the west and everywhere else it’s been spread.
Atheists are far less likely to be committing genocide. Atheist tend to value skepticism and science highly as well as logic and reason. Combining these generally leads to people who are humanists at their core.
I’m not aware of a single war that was ever carried out under the banner of atheism.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.