Politics - your views

[Greengoop]

Yeah I hate the censorship laws as much as the next person and everyone else here. The explicit song restriction thing will completely fuck my playlist haha.

[Rsandee]

Right now they're even planning to ban VPNs If I'm correct.

[Greengoop]

Really? I’ve not heard that one actually! Funny how they’re trying to get rid of the only way we can have any internet freedom at all, seems like they’re actively promoting illegal activity.

[PluMGMK]

I don't think they're planning to ban VPNs, since they're universal among remote workers. What I heard was that platforms encouraging their users to use VPNs to get around the protection laws could get in trouble. But I'm not sure if that's official or just what someone said "should" be done

[dr_st]

I hope a UK citizen can pitch in and give their 2 cents.

Why don't you ask UK citizen Pat Condell on his website or Youtube channel?

[Master]

Flags not banned, but a council took down some flags (on lampposts stating safety - which tbf, if they were low hanging then potentially valid) and it was seen as double-standards given other flags. Consequently as a protest, a lot of flags are going up all over.

I'm not too sure what the minutae is as there's a lot noise, will say I'm definitely nervous though about the state of things.

[EdgyRabbid]

Yo PSA for the new Rayman GBC port the guy who runs the website isn’t really a great person. Here’s some screenshots, you make your own opinion but I won’t say more or else my mom will ban me from using the internet

[Hunchman801]

Yo PSA for the new Rayman GBC port the guy who runs the website isn’t really a great person. Here’s some screenshots, you make your own opinion but I won’t say more or else my mom will ban me from using the internet

I'm not sure what we're supposed to make of this motley collection of information, but since it is cited as a reason to boycott one of the companies Luckey founded, let's address each point separately.

Do I really need to say much about the "VR headset that kills its user" art piece? The device is described by its creator as "just a piece of office art, a thought-provoking reminder of unexplored avenues in game design". It is a piece of art, if you'll call it that, that is inspired by the numerous science fiction works in which dying in the game kills the player. Call it stupid if you like, although I'm curious to hear how you think it compares to Merde d'artiste in that regard, but how exactly is this harmful to society? Is there anyone out there that really believes that Palmer Luckey somehow intends to distribute this and use it on people, like some kind of undercover James Bond villain? How confused does one have to be to see any actual danger in this? Or maybe it's all a huge conspiracy and he's also the one behind chemtrails and chips in Covid vaccines? Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim after all.

Next is Anduril Industries, the military technology he founded. I'm not sure if people take issue with the fact that he's an arms dealer, that those weapons use AI, that he sells them to the US army, or all of the former, but let's start with weapons themselves. Has it escaped anyone that among the countries with the most powerful armies in the world, several are authoritarian regimes that consistently violate human rights and the right of peoples to self-determination, that engage in the intimidation and destabilization of their neighbours and sometimes even go so far as to launch full-scale invasions against them? What do you think would happen if the democracies of the world had sticks and stones to defend themselves? It is important to consider the concept of deterrence in this context: si vis pacem, para bellum. Of course it's not a black and white question, and weapons can be and are used to do terrible things. But entirely dismissing the manufacturing of weapons as unethical is incredibly naive and simplistic and dreadfully dangerous. Pardon me for being reassured by the fact that my country has the means the defend itself should any of those bad actors think of destroying it.

The part about the US army now, I concede that I wouldn't feel very good about myself had I been behind the production of weapons used in the Iraq War in the name of weapons of mass destruction that never existed to begin with. I think there's much worse actors out there, but this highlights the complex ethical aspects of arms dealing.

As for the fact that the weapons use AI, well so does your phone, and soon pretty much every device you'll use, from your laptop to your car. AI is here is to stay, whether you like it or not. Now the use of AI in weapons is, once again, a complex subject, revolving mostly around the degree of autonomy to grant such automated systems, but once again, it is utterly naive to imagine that you'll be safe by refusing to implement technological advancements that your enemy will have no qualms about using. Sticks and stones won't do no good, but neither will spears and bows.

Then, there's the question of his political views. So he expressed support for libertarian figures, and later for the Republication party and Donald Trump. So what? Obviously some people feel very strongly about the views of some of those politicans. But while there's no shortage of things to say about Trump, the guy was elected president by a majority of voters. How radicalized do you have to be to go so far as to boycott anyone supporting a candidate other than yours? We're not talking fringe opinions here, but views shared by more than half of the people who cared enough to express them during the election. Disagree with them all you want, but dialogue is the foundation of any functional democracy. As society gets more and more polarized, how can you expect any progress to be made when dialogue steadily gives ground to intolerance and radicalization? Or do you genuinely believe that roughly half of the population in the country holds views so despicable that they should not be allowed to express them at all? Long gone are the days of Voltaire's (apocryphal?) "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

And finally, it appears that what drew the ire of many is his calling himself a "radical Zionist", in light of the Gaza war and the dreadful loss of life there. I do not know what it means to be a "radical Zionist", and I did not listen to the podcast where he said that, but according to this article that summarizes it, he seems to simply have defended Israel's right to existence. Being anti-Zionist and disagreeing with that is one thing, but equating Zionism with the intent of perpetrating genocide is a gross oversimplification of an extremely complex situation that it would be vain to even attempt to summarize in this post. Read about it and you'll realize that it exists in many forms that hold different views, use different justifications and advocate for different methods of achieving their goals. I'm at a loss as to how to solve this terrible conflict, but conflation and oversimplification will certainly not help.

Other considerations come to mind, such as the debatable futility of boycotting a small retro console maker when our gas (in Europe) and most of our manufactured goods come from countries guilty of ethnic cleansing and other violations of human rights. I think it's also important to keep in mind that, while a company cannot be entirely dissociated from its founder and CEO, they are different entities, and that most employees have no personal connection to the latter. I don't know about you, but I don't necessarily subscribe to my CEO's views.

I don't pretend to have a definitive answer to any of this, and if someone does, then they must be really really smart and should apply for president of the world without further delay. But I just want to invite everyone to always question what they read, to do their own research, to strive for rigor in their reasoning and to leave bias and intolerance behind. The world is complicated. Let's make sure our thinking is equally robust.

[EdgyRabbid]

Idk man. Hes having a breakdown on Twitter because people disagree with him. If that’s his reaction for people having different opinions than him then why should we buy it?

And on the subject of politics, he’s using his funds to fund weapons that can be used to kill innocents. My main problem is that Trump right now is causing massive damage with his major deportation and using it against immigrants. The concept of having to pay for immigration is actually bullshit, especially when you’re escaping a dangerous situation. So I and many other people are uncomfortable with supporting someone whose company is funding weapons that will be used against innocents.

Now for Zionism. I think the definition has changed drastically from its original meaning. Words can change meaning overtime, and now it’s being associated with the genocide happening in Gaia. Israel has been committing violent on different countries for years, especially gaza. So IMO I think saying it has a “right to defend its existence” is a bit tone deaf when the country in question has been killing people for years. I’m not saying it doesn’t have a right to exist, but the fact it’s been killing peoples fo years with no consequences is a bit concerning. People need to start holding it accountable for its actions, just like the US. Just like the uk and just like every other country that has committed such atrocities. It “defending its right” by killing people is extremely bad.

Idk. Im probably gonna get dog piled but its just my thoughts.

Edit:

I’m also gonna add a few more screenshots


Now I’m not trying to get you to agree with my point, but I am making it.

[Hugo]

You know there's that pro-gun argument "guns don't kill people - people kill people." They defend their right to gun ownership by framing it as "we gotta defend ourselves from the bad guys."

History has shown that the self-proclaimed good guys are not uncommonly fools, or not quite the good guys they would like to believe. So I actually think this slogan is in the interest of gun legislation, because you should probably make it very hard indeed for person to own a gun. That isn't good for business, and so the cycle continues.

I bring this up because it is no different when we speak of the weapons used by the military to defend a country. No matter how much I detest the idea of increasingly advanced weapons being developed, the knowledge that the Trident etc. are there to protect British waters is reassuring, especially now that the world is starting to looking like it might just turn into a Mexican standoff.

On that basis, I would say that if the government is truly working to protect the people, I would not judge the weapon seller so harshly. He is not using the weapons to harm others and may even have the aim of peace. But it does take a certain kind of person to be comfortable selling weapons at all.

[EdgyRabbid]

Yeah but my problem is that he literally cannot take criticism. Everytime someone comes at him he is so focused on defending himself that he ends up looking like a dumb ass. Last year he literally called someone the r slur. In 2024. He is worth millions!

[dr_st]

Now for Zionism. I think the definition has changed drastically from its original meaning. Words can change meaning overtime, and now it’s being associated with the genocide happening in Gaia. Israel has been committing violent on different countries for years, especially gaza. So IMO I think saying it has a “right to defend its existence” is a bit tone deaf when the country in question has been killing people for years. I’m not saying it doesn’t have a right to exist, but the fact it’s been killing peoples fo years with no consequences is a bit concerning. People need to start holding it accountable for its actions, just like the US. Just like the uk and just like every other country that has committed such atrocities. It “defending its right” by killing people is extremely bad.

I will try to stay true to my declared principles - and avoid getting into lengthy political discussions. Even though I do have a lot to say on these matters, I hardly think that even the 'Politics' thread on this forum is the best place for it. This awesome community will be better if the level of activity in this thread will stay low.

So I will make only one point - you just don't know as much about this topic (Zionism, Israel) as you think you do. Not blaming you - it is almost impossible to form a picture of the situation that's even remotely close to reality without either living in the region, or spending tons of time purposely researching it. No, just reading the encyclopedia definition will not suffice.

[Steo]

I'm not one to want to get involved in things I haven't really looked into much, but apparently there have been protests in Dublin, regarding Gaza, which lead to rioting and people having to be pepper sprayed for breaking through police barricades etc. They were all blocking the port, meaning it caused disruptions for anyone wanting to travel via Dublin Airport. What I want to know, is how the hell does protesting in Ireland, preventing people from travelling, and starting riots over it, actively do anything to solve what's going on regarding Gaza? How exactly does causing more problems, which are completely unrelated to the cause itself, in a completely different country, solve anything? I'm amazed at how dumb people can be...

[Pirez]

You call this dumb when you could call these people invested.

The protests regarding Gaza are about visibility. The genocide will be happening for exactly two years tomorrow and :

- Most occidental countries continue to send weapons to Israël with some of the budget coming from taxpayer money since defense budgets usually comes from taxes, and therefore some people feel blood on their hands by association.
- Most occidental countries sanewash what is happening in Israël when we live in a social media era where everyone can see the horrors happening in real time.
- Most occidental countries are embracing a rhetoric of hate against muslims, who are very likely to identify to the Palestinian suffering.
- Most occidental countries are embracing policies that are getting more and more pro-business by the day, which has had a result of widening inequalities in the common masses for nearly fifty years now. As a cry for social justice, these people started to identify to the Palestinian plight as well.

What's notable from the second point is that most occidental media turned a blind eye at first on the atrocities in Gaza, now they sanewash it, but they still show very little of the support that occidental countries have for them. I can only speak for France, but a few months ago the mere act of saying you felt for Palestinian gave you the label of an antisemitic bigot. They want to be seen. And the best way to be seen is to take action that bother people. E.g. blocking airports, highways, massive protests, etc. You should look at the highlights of this year's Vuelta if you want to know where things are headed.

The common man will see a hinderance to his little comfort, but it also has the effect of sending the signal for those who think alike but felt they were alone in this ambiance of sanewashing, that they're not alone. As they say : social progress was never acquired by gently asking for it.

Besides, airports in germany and Poland are blocked because russian drones fly over them, but nobody seem to give a shit about that.

[dr_st]

I don't quite view the situation the same way you do, Pirez, for obvious reasons. To pick just a couple of points.

The genocide will be happening for exactly two years tomorrow

You are off by a day, but yes, the day after tomorrow will mark the two-year anniversary of the attempted genocide of October 7th 2023, where for almost 48 hours, various perpetrators (a few thousands by most accounts), which came, mind you, from Gaza, performed unspeakable acts of violence (rape, murder, torture, abduction - you name it), on various people who lived, mind you, in southern regions of Israel, bordering Gaza.

This attempted genocide did not succeed, and it did cause a very severe retaliatory response by Israel, which to this day has cost and continues to cost many lives, but is by no means anything close to a genocide, not by intent, not by result (given the capabilities).

- Most occidental countries continue to send weapons to Israël with some of the budget coming from taxpayer money since defense budgets usually comes from taxes, and therefore some people feel blood on their hands by association.

As far as I know, all of these weapons being 'sent' are either purchased by Israel (for money), or procured in some kind of an exchange deal (Israel also produces and exports various military technologies). They are not, as far as I understand, given at the expense of the tax payers of the 'occidental countries', but are paid for by the Israeli defense budget (i.e., by Israeli tax payers).

On the other hand, you know what is given "for free"? Humanitarian aid into Gaza, which, AFAIK, is sent by various countries, both oriental and occidental, at the expense of either taxpayers or generous donors. According to various sources, throughout the war, a good chunk (>50%?) of said aid was being seized by the local authorities in Gaza (I believe they are called 'Hamas'?), then sold (for money) to residents of Gaza, who were supposed to have been receiving it for free.

- Most occidental countries sanewash what is happening in Israël when we live in a social media era where everyone can see the horrors happening in real time.

Social media era is great and important in wrestling the monopoly for information dissemination away from mainstream media. However, social media is not flawless, as it also has a strong tendency to form echo chambers, where most of the time one is exposed only to information that validates their pre-existing preferences and opinions. Its limitations should be acknowledged.

[Pirez]

This attempted genocide did not succeed, and it did cause a very severe retaliatory response by Israel, which to this day has cost and continues to cost many lives, but is by no means anything close to a genocide, not by intent, not by result (given the capabilities).

United Nations call what Israël is currently perpetrating a genocide : https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/fil ... -crp-3.pdf

We are talking about 7000+ killed, 160000+ injured by Israeli strikes since Oct 7 2023 : https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties

This is not a matter of debate.

As far as I know, all of these weapons being 'sent' are either purchased by Israel (for money), or procured in some kind of an exchange deal (Israel also produces and exports various military technologies). They are not, as far as I understand, given at the expense of the tax payers of the 'occidental countries', but are paid for by the Israeli defense budget (i.e., by Israeli tax payers).

I never said they were sent for free.

- They are still sent to a country perpetrating a genocide.
- They are still manufactured on defense budgets funded by taxpayer money in the first place.

Either the weapons could be sold to someone else, or the budget could be alloted to other services of the countries involved. Providing tools of death to a country commit genocide is passively participating in it.

On the other hand, you know what is given "for free"? Humanitarian aid into Gaza, which, AFAIK, is sent by various countries, both oriental and occidental, at the expense of either taxpayers or generous donors. According to various sources, throughout the war, a good chunk (>50%?) of said aid was being seized by the local authorities in Gaza (I believe they are called 'Hamas'?), then sold (for money) to residents of Gaza, who were supposed to have been receiving it for free.

Nice story you've got there. Meanwhile, over here in reality, the biggest block to Gazawi receiving humanitarian aid is Israël. Even countries that on Israël side, like France, were forced to acknolewdge it : https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/count ... he-foreign

By the way, not allowing the passage of humanitarian aid is a marker of genocide.

Social media era is great and important in wrestling the monopoly for information dissemination away from mainstream media. However, social media is not flawless, as it also has a strong tendency to form echo chambers, where most of the time one is exposed only to information that validates their pre-existing preferences and opinions. Its limitations should be acknowledged.

That one is true, and by the looks of it you've fallen right into Israeli propaganda.

[dr_st]

Pirez, we do not need to debate who fell into whose propaganda.

Your choice to sidestep the attempted genocide, by the Gazans, against the Israeli, on Oct 7th 2023 (which started this whole chain of events) is understandable to me, but I do not intend to play along.

The definitions that the UN uses are of no interest to me. I do not see the UN as a fair an impartial organization.

The casualties in Gaza due to the Israeli strikes are not higher than in other wars of similar scale, neither are the civilian casualties.
Given the total flattening of Gaza and systematic destruction of infrastructure that Israeli has carried out in the past 2 years (just look at the photos), the death toll could and would have been much higher if Israel had had the intent to commit genocide against the population, which it does not have.

Israel also, except for a limited period earlier this year (the one you referred to), has allowed tons and tons of unobstructed aid to come into Gaza. But Israel didn't like that the UN-controlled aid is being largely raided by Hamas, creating the problem I mentioned earlier (my "nice story"). Now Israel still allows some UN-controlled aid, while trying to do it more via the GHF (funded and distributed by the United States), because it gives them more control of the distribution. Hamas doesn't like it, for obvious reasons, and attempts to fight it.

Again, if one side wishes to inflict genocide, it simply does not allow humanitarian aid to pass at all. This has not been happening here.

We can continue this discussion a bit further, but at some point we'll just have to come to accept that neither of us is going to change the other's mind here, and that this heated topic should probably be sidestepped, if only to keep the forum (mostly) peaceful.

[Pirez]

Your choice to sidestep the attempted genocide, by the Gazans, against the Israeli, on Oct 7th 2023 (which started this whole chain of events) is understandable to me, but I do not intend to play along.

I ain't sidestepping nothing. I chose to not respond to this because they're no need for debate on this either : this is also genocide. The two groups of people denying this are 1) saying that because Hamas is technically an army it's not a genocide but a war crime (ignoring that it can be both) or 2) Islamist-complacent sickos.

So if don't want to play along something I do not disagree with the intent of making me look bad, please do. Just don't pretend to be my friend in PMs.

Besides, the claim that the whole chain of events started on oct 7th 2023 is very highly debatable considering I've lived most of my life with headlines like "Hamas kills 3, Israël replicates and kills 50". Many experts claim the whole thing started in 1948 when Europe put the surviving Israeli on a populated land knowing that it would end like this.

The rest of your claim is you saying "nuh-uh" and me saying "yeah-ah", so yeah, let's leave it at that.

[dr_st]

Besides, the claim that the whole chain of events started on oct 7th 2023 is very highly debatable considering I've lived most of my life with headlines like "Hamas kills 3, Israël replicates and kills 50". Many experts claim the whole thing started in 1948 when Europe put the surviving Israeli on a populated land knowing that it would end like this.

The current cycle started on 7.10.2023, no doubt about that. As for the whole chain... well, Zionism and the return of Jews to modern day Israel began at least half a century prior to 1948, and the view that "Europe put the surviving Israeli on a populated land" in 1948 is a rather narrow account of things, and not very accurate for someone who had studied the history of that region. Those experts you refer to should know better.

[Hunchman801]

I'm not one to want to get involved in things I haven't really looked into much, but apparently there have been protests in Dublin, regarding Gaza, which lead to rioting and people having to be pepper sprayed for breaking through police barricades etc. They were all blocking the port, meaning it caused disruptions for anyone wanting to travel via Dublin Airport. What I want to know, is how the hell does protesting in Ireland, preventing people from travelling, and starting riots over it, actively do anything to solve what's going on regarding Gaza? How exactly does causing more problems, which are completely unrelated to the cause itself, in a completely different country, solve anything? I'm amazed at how dumb people can be...

I believe there's a special place in hell for those who, in order to get their point across, purposely target people who have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at stake. This is not only incredibly dumb and unethical, but also completely inefficient, as those who have a say in the matter will likely not be affected by blocked highways when traveling in their private jets. If anything, this will only turn popular opinion against them, and the only people who will support such actions are those who already agreed with them to begin with.

And yet, those types of actions are becoming more and more frequent. Perpetrators often grow convinced of their higher moral ground and therefore feel entitled to resort to any means necessary for their cause. Furthermore, even pure vandalism and gratuitous violence are now commonly justified and lauded by the far-left, on the grounds that, for example, some of the infrastructure they are destroying belongs to companies they associate with capitalism.

Most occidental countries are embracing a rhetoric of hate against muslims, who are very likely to identify to the Palestinian suffering.

If anything, and I'll take France as an example, it is not a rhetoric of hate but rather a climate of boundless complacency that characterizes the attitude of most western European countries towards Islam.

Yes, there are and always will be dumb racists (although far fewer than in other parts of the world), and the fight against their ideology must not cease, but their actions seldom go beyond graffiti or idiotic posts on social media. Earlier this year, the first fatality of this kind occurred when one person was killed by a basement dweller of Bosnian origin who reportedly underwent a psychotic episode. Meanwhile, over 200 people were slaughtered in Islamist terror attacks in France in the last ten years alone. In the face of rampant terrorism, constant requests for special treatment (religious symbols, food in public institutions, etc.), unstoppable illegal immigration (the vast majority of whom are economic migrants) and a staggering overrepresentation of the Muslim population among crime perpetrators (estimated at 50-70% for 8 to 13% of the population), it shouldn't come as a big surprise that this is a hotly debated topic. One must not generalize the problem to the entirety of the Muslim population, a substantial proportion of which simply wants to practice their religion peacefully while respecting the law. But ignoring the issue or dismissing any such concerns as hateful is equally nonsensical.

On the subject of antisemitism, it is interesting to note that Jews were the explicit targets of several of the aforementioned terror attacks, as well as other incidents not classified as terrorism but in which they were nonetheless murdered for their religion or ethnicity.

The main far-left party in France, for example, has an MEP who called Hamas's actions legitimate, an MP that called it a "resistance movement", and its president refused to call it a terrorist organization. Unsurprisingly, this party does everything to cater to the Muslim population, 69% of whom voted for it in 2022. 83% of them cited the Israel-Palestine conflict as a determining factor in their vote. This does not justify the dismissal of any criticism against Israel as antisemitism, but the truth is that it antisemitism is pervasive in those spheres.

-

On an unrelated note, but I imagine this is also very political, looks like Elon Musk just launched Grokipedia. It seems to be entirely AI-generated, and I don't think you can edit it directly, which obviously raises a lot of questions.

For now, the Rayman article lists the Goth Teensy as a main protagonist, and Betilla, Ly, Murfy and Polokus as supporting characters. But then again, for many years the Wikipedia page contained a character called Tomato Taco.

The liberal bias of Wikipedia has been extensively documented, but until now the only alternative I knew of was Conservapedia, which promotes... Young-Earth creationism and climate change denial. Yeah, I'll stick to Wikipedia.

Now it's interesting to see a new player in town, whatever its current (and future?) shortcomings.