GrymEdm

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.

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.

All too true. It hurts to see. It's also worth mentioning the sabotage/blockade of aid by Israeli protesters and that the UN says it's out of stockpiled supplies.

As much as the "hurt with one hand, help with the other" approach bothers me, I really hope this enables sufficient aid to safely reach the civilians who so desperately need it.

I'd say it's sometimes ok, sometimes necessary for brevity, and sometimes accurate. Accurate = "All people need oxygen, water, and calories to survive." Brevity = "Generally speaking, people enjoy good food and good company so those situations work well for forming relationships."

Consequences of generalizations have a lot to do with how tolerable they are. If I say, "most people like pizza" there's not much harm if several million people don't. If I say, "all or most people of this gender/ethnicity/religion/whatever have X problem" that's a lot more problematic because it can easily lead to a consequence of harmful prejudice. When it comes to matters of ethics, beliefs, accusations etc. it becomes very important to handle cases individually as much as humanly possible.

Just waking up, and you made me smile :) Thanks for being friendly stranger.

For a moment I thought it was Columbia University and was a little shocked by the reversal. After correcting myself: it's good to hear another nation is drawing some lines in the sand regarding behavior. Rules of war should mean something.

I've talked once or twice about Reddit being negative and being happier here on Lemmy. Part of the reason I like Lemmy is it's a smaller userbase, which means fewer vocally negative people to drag things down. I also feel like the conversations are more "genuine" in that I feel like I'm talking to single people as opposed to crowds.

Speaking of crowds, I did very well on Reddit in terms of karma but to me it always felt like a dogpile - if my post/comment got those first 5 upvotes it would keep on doing well. If it dropped into negatives it was basically a lost attempt and the thread would fill with insults/criticism. Here there's seems to be less "inertia" and more chance to win people on merit. I've had people respond aggressively, but rarely and not actually cruel. I've only been here for about 2 months, but so far that's my take.

Deal. Hold me until dawn?

I'm really hoping that's an Office Space reference.

That's a solid criticism and I upvoted. I hadn't thought about YouTube. Anecdotally I've had factual comments about how many kids are killed, what Israeli politicians say, etc. auto-moderated into oblivion on YouTube. But at the same time I get a lot of the facts I use from YouTube (basically never been on TikTok) so it holds water. I also get a lot of info from other sources, but I can't think of something specific I'd get from them that I could never find on YouTube.

In my defense, I'm basing my opinion on why TikTok is particularly targeted on interviews like this one with Ted Cruz. He talks about how TikTok is specifically designed to push messages that are harmful to America, including what he calls pro-Hamas content but I suspect is actually anti-Israeli policy, pro-Palestine content. That is why I would argue there's some evidence of a campaign against TikTok in particular that might skip over YouTube or other major platforms. Perhaps the Western powers feel that YouTube is still acceptably moderated towards their interests whereas TikTok isn't. Perhaps Google is just too influential domestically.

Edit: I found a video I was looking for: Biden talking about passing the TikTok/Israel funding/Ukraine funding package. A bit of language he uses that I think is telling is "it continues America’s leadership in the world and everyone knows it" which could signal US dominance as a motivation and thus TikTok as a target and not US companies.

That doesn't mean your point isn't worth discussion, or that my points aren't opinion. I'm interested to see how it develops. I've based my opinion on the conversations I can find and language used, but I'm open to adjusting my view if evidence prompts that.

I 100% admit that my take on the TikTok ban is opinion based on the hearings and arguments + the scope of the bill, so you aren't being unfair. I have never heard that about the Twitter purchase - I had read it was a poor decision Musk made only half-seriously and then was basically forced to follow through with.