I find some irony in corporate Reddit unilaterally bullying mods when the reason that I'm here on Lemmy is because so many mods acted like petty tyrants to me and other users. Reddit is full of institutionalized bullying and sorting users into echo chambers of whatever brand of hate and slurs the sub mods are into. It pains me to see so many users still on that site and I hope most of them are bots because Reddit was not good for my mental health at least.

That sounds like the perfect beverage to keep my reactions razor sharp while I enjoy the split-second thrills of playing League of Legends with my attractive, ethnically diverse friends.

I have no idea how/why some people decided that she's the exemplar that should be representing them.

Just to get it out of the way at the start - Hamas is terrible. They are violent fundamentalists and do not deserve support. Neither Israel nor Hamas are "good" and the only side that deserves support and recognition are the civilians, Israeli or Palestinian, suffering because of/under their evil regimes. Now on to the rebuttal.

Israel needs no "baiting" to kill or otherwise abuse Palestinians - it's their policy and has been for a long time. From the Nakba until today, the history of Israeli human rights violations, violence, lies, etc. is well-established. "Look at what you made me do" is such a typical excuse used by abusers that it's almost a trope. Moreover, Netanyahu's government deliberately kept Hamas in power as a useful bogeyman and an way to divide/foil Palestinian statehood. There is ample evidence that Israel has directly supported Hamas and other extremists for decades.

"Hamas, for its part, is alleged to have emerged out of the Israeli-financed Islamist movement in Gaza, Israel’s then-military governor in that territory, Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev, disclosing in 1981 that he had been given a budget for funding Palestinian Islamists to counter the rising power of Palestinian secularists."

"In a 1994 book, “The Other Side of Deception,” Mossad whistleblower Victor Ostrovsky contended that aiding Hamas meshed with “Mossad’s general plan” for an Arab world “run by fundamentalists” that would reject “any negotiations with the West,” thereby leaving Israel as “the only democratic, rational country in the region.” Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official involved in Gaza for over two decades, told a newspaper interviewer in 2009 that, “Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation.”

As far as the nature of the demands: "one-sided deals" is a matter of opinion, but "we need guarantees you'll actually leave, stop killing/injuring many tens of thousands of civilians, destroying hospitals/schools/aid, etc." seems like a pretty standard request at peace negotiations. Especially since Israel has repeatedly promised to continue to prosecute the war and establish long-term armed forces in Gaza.

If he can follow up on even a portion of what he promises, a 2nd Trump presidency will bring the USA to a halt at multiple levels like a car hitting a reinforced wall. The best version of a Trump presidency is him raging daily as he's blocked constantly by legal challenges and bureaucratic measures thus getting nothing done. The worst version is that he succeeds in his goals, reforms the USA into a right-wing autocracy and destroys things like checks/balances and separation of church and state.

Israel has repeatedly stated their intent to continue the war in Gaza regardless of international approval. Netanyahu, among others, has stated intent to establish a long-term/permanent security presence in Gaza.

Since Oct. 7th the Israeli military has either directly killed or provided protection to lethal settler attacks in the West Bank, resulting in over 500 deaths in a section of Occupied Palestinian Territory that theoretically isn't at war. So there's Israeli military presence, violence, and oppression of Palestinians even where Hamas isn't in control.

Hamas are not good guys by any stretch, but unfortunately they are the folks bargaining for Gazans. In the face of continued Israeli aggression, disregard for international approval/law, and stated plans it's no wonder they're demanding that any deals have rock-solid guarantees on an enforceable timetable.

No. You said "Biden is great". I said, "I acknowledge he's done some good, I still disagree, and here's a concise list of reasons why. In spite of that, I'm willing to get on board to fight Trump". You replied (and this is an exact quote): "I talk about how Biden’s done great, and you talk about how he’s not Trump", completely disregarding that I directly addressed why I don't think Biden is great. I did NOT just talk about how he's not Trump.

How am I arguing in bad faith? That is the sequence of events, and it's easily confirmed. I'm also not calling you out just because you didn't watch the video. I'm saying you didn't watch AND disregarded that I explicitly gave you the video as a source for my disagreement with you to instead say I focus on "not Trump". Now you've doubled down with a response that paints me as arguing in bad faith and linking that to insults/abuse. I never insulted you. Disagreeing is not inherently a slur or abusive, nor is pointing out the holes in an rebuttal. If you don't have time to watch the vid that's understandable but wait to respond until you do or at least don't say I only focused on "not Trump" when that's provably not the case.

So you won't spend 90 seconds to watch the criticisms laid out, but you'll take the time to tell me they are all either nonexistent or invalid?

Biden has done some good things. I disagree that he's great. If you want specifics, the first 90 seconds of that Sanders video is him detailing several grievances I agree with in a clear, concise and fairly complete list. However, to quote Sanders: "But while we may have our disagreements with Biden, it's important to take a minute to think about what a Trump presidency would mean to our country, and in fact the world."

I know what needs to be done which is why I stopped encouraging/supporting 3rd party or undecided voting months ago. I could go on a lot longer, but that's the bottom line. I'll join the effort to stop Trump - just don't ask me to agree that my concerns are invalid or have been adequately addressed.

Historical misinformation spreads most readily simply by being repeated and undisputed.

This is admittedly a bit nitpickey, but I specifically said you address misinformation with facts and sources to back up those facts. That's the opposite of repeating and/or letting it go undisputed.

Disagreeing with someone civilly acknowledges the validity of their point or position.

No. You can say, emphatically, "you're wrong" without also calling someone idiotic, etc.

is “Every political position, even the one I’m part of, has flaws” really that bad in your eyes?

I've said right from the start that I agree with some points you make, and I stand by that. Being aware that everyone is wrong sometimes is undeniably a virtue.

That’s the right approach, honestly.

Thank you :) I appreciate that, and respect that you're willing to give me that even if we have had our disagreements today.

how am I supposed to respond to a blatant bad faith effort to spread historical misinformation?

With facts and sources to back up those facts. You can disagree with someone in a civil manner. If you actually care about my point about delivery, please watch that Bernie video.

Your meme does indeed make fun of all quadrants, but I used it because it's an example of the type of the insults. And let's be honest, there's evidence in those other posts that some of those opinions are not JUST satire for you. I mean, you called me out for being naively kind and employing "flower power", aka chances are you think I'm one of the useful idiots.

Aside from that, like I said - I can't stop you from insulting people. Your arguments seem to point to a belief in your right to do so. I don't think I would force you even if I could since I usually try to convince people instead. If I didn't change your mind, maybe I will change the minds of some others who may read this.

Just today?

What did I say about being able to read your post history?

• "But hey, since when are fascists internally consistent?"
• "Democracy is. I didn’t realize that this metaphor was getting too complex for you."
• Here's your post from today where you call LibLefts "useful idiots who serve above (authoritarians) only to be purged when the revolution is complete". You also say they support terrorism, and their only solution to community violence is lynch mobs.
• "It doesn’t matter. They don’t believe in democracy, much less convincing people. They’re vanguardist fascists, after all."
• "Wow. Literally saying the quiet part out loud - “As long as the Democrats are not 100% in line with my views, it’s okay to endorse inaction and the takeover of a fascist regime on the pretext that the Democrats Aren’t Good Enough™”"
• "I’m used to tankie whinging about how they can’t support fascist regimes without being called out."
• "The literal opposite of the truth. But I guess the guilt of having MLs backstab the leftist opposition so Fascist Spain could win hurts your point, huh?"
• "Oh, they see the connection. They just want Republicans in office. They don’t give a fuck about the suffering of minorities, they just want the worst possible option in power so they can feel smug about “not supporting the system”."

Those are all examples from just the last 2 hours, across multiple threads. The tragic thing is, I probably agree with a lot of your points. You really do appear to want to deliver those points with as much dehumanization and dismissal as possible however.

I can read your post history. I'm getting tired making the same point but insults are, as near as I can tell, your go-to and I don't even know if you try anything else. You've insulted people disagreeing with you several times just today. I mean, look at how dismissive you are (kindness doesn't work, flower power) of me and Senator Sander's approach of using calmly delivered facts to win over those who will likely decide the upcoming election. It's an attempt to make sure people are convinced you are a true defender of democracy and that your modus operandi of attacks are the only reasonable way to do it properly.

But whatever. I've made my point, given a solid example of what I think is a far more attractive approach that has worked for me and others, and that's all I wanted to add to the conversation. Feel free to reiterate that I'm a idiotic hippy who will usher in unending fascism.

"I'm allowed to call people idiots, fascists, etc. basically daily because I can justify it." Everyone willing to dehumanize and denigrate others has what they believe to be validating reasons. I can't stop you from trying to win people over by insulting everyone who disagrees, but I wanted to be a voice asking for kinder, calmer discourse a la the Bernie video I posted.

Given the attitudes on this platform I'm bracing for the downvotes, but I genuinely wish you and others like you would stop trying to (nearly daily) insult/shame others into voting the way you want. You should watch this video by Bernie Sanders about winning votes for Biden on merit and logic. Note that he never uses insults, and the reasoned arguments Sanders has been making for months convinced me to stop telling people to vote 3rd party months ago. I'm now willing to ask people to vote Biden in spite of my reservations - not because Biden is great but because Trump absolutely cannot be allowed to win.

You and others with the same views could try that approach as opposed to reflexively calling everyone who brings up concerns or expresses reservations fascists, complete idiots, bots, and so on. I have no clue why so many people on Lemmy believe that incessantly attacking everyone who disagrees with them with the most extreme accusations they can muster makes their position welcoming or attractive. I won't speak for others but I was won over by calm reason, not being called slurs every time I opened Lemmy.

I almost never buy multiplayer-focused games anymore. Of course not all gamers are shitty, but enough are to matter. Having left those games behind I can see how they were taking more joy from my life than they added. If friends want to do private co-op that's cool, but it's also rarer now that we're all older.

As far as sales go, I love playing a year or two behind new releases. Patched games at a discount ftw and timing doesn't matter in single-player games.

At first I was like

But within an hour I was all

Got to respect the decision to just step away instead of settling for mediocrity.

Serious answer: I remind myself it's normal to be shocked by some stuff people do/create. I check the content against my ethics, and try to decide if I'm being uptight or if it really is messed up. If it's something that isn't unethical/harmful but I just don't like, then I remind myself that not everyone needs to share my tastes.

If it's genuinely terrible I allow myself to feel the anger/sorrow for a bit, try not to let it become excessive, and congratulate myself on having limits that fit my ethics. I remind myself that good people exist and they are the ones I want to support, emulate, and engage with. As others have mentioned, distraction can also help. Video games, music, socializing - whatever will move your train of thought along.

Upvoted because it's a story worth knowing, but as far as I can tell this is just further harassment/condemnation of anything pro-Palestinian. As of the end of April, independent review "finds no evidence for Israel's claims about UNRWA and Hamas".

Israel has declared organizations as terrorists on bad premises before. E.g. - in 2021 Defence for Children International was formally labelled a terrorist organization after they reported the rape of a 13-year-old Palestinian to the US State Department. Josh Paul, a director involved with the investigation, gives details in an interview about why he resigned from the State Dept. post-Oct. 7th. The short version is: the allegations of rape were credible, Israel was confronted, the next day Israeli forces seized all the local assets of Defence for Children International and declared them terrorists.

EU nations have formally rejected "terrorist organization" labels being applied to humanitarian/watchdog agencies in Israel/OPT before.