Maybe we should talk about how many people Israel pays to constantly skew reality in their favor on websites like that.

https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-social-media-opinion-hamas-war/

https://theintercept.com/2024/02/07/gaza-israel-netanyahu-propaganda-lies-palestinians/

https://electronicintifada.net/content/inside-israels-million-dollar-troll-army/27566

historic grievances again

Oh the irony.

and I myself am not attempting to broaden context in order to force an angle the article isn’t making.

Why are people who defend Israel always such insufferable weasels?

You’re hiding behind an article that already takes things out of context and then you act as though it is the right thing to do to not provide any.

Of course you can’t “broaden the context”, or your entire point would fall apart. This is what Israel and its supporters do, they pick an arbitrary point in time, pretend that the conflict started then, and use that as an excuse to escalate.

I find it extremely insulting to mine and our collective intelligence when someone tries to argue otherwise. Nobody buys your victim complex anymore, have some decency and self respect and stop peddling it.

I don’t know if it is that off-base to be honest, restraint does not mean that they practiced pacifism, just that the response was disproportionately small.

In what world would a country in a similar situation not support groups that try to counter an invading force? What about the assassinations inside Iran? The terrorist attacks orchestrated by the west? The sabotage of their nuclear facilities? How is it that those things can go on for decades, and then when Iran finally reacts, people go “oh look what these maniacs did, how dare they!”

Do you not care that Iran was on the receiving end of these things, or were you simply not aware?

Iran has been notoriously docile because it knows the US had been looking for an excuse to attack it. Just like Wesley Clarke stated.

That’s like poking a bear and then halfway through your shenanigans claim you’ll have to put it down because you’re in danger. What a bunch of hollow rhetoric. There’s 3 sentences in your paragraph and each one is just a slogan. Each one vague enough that it means both nothing and anything you can think of.

Diverting from the usual warmongering is not isolationism, in fact, the problem you allude to is the result of the former, not the other way around.

I know it’s a crazy idea but perhaps we should look at our failed approaches from recent history and try to learn from it. But judging from your edit, you have an extremely short attention span mixed with tunnel vision. Where were you when the US and its allies assassinated people inside Iran? Funded terrorist groups to carry out attacks in Iran? Sabotaged their nuclear facilities? Or, you know, when the idea of another pre-emptive attack on that nation was so imminent that one presidential candidate figured it’d be funny to fuel that by singing “bomb bomb Iran”, based on nothing but the lie that they were close to getting a nuclear bomb?

Was all that a festering problem that Iran should’ve responded to, or is it different when you’re on the receiving end?

I’ll take “how to repeat bad mistakes from recent history” for 500 Jim.

Did you sleep through the past 20 years or are you just not that observant?

So he was a fascist/racist who spent his entire life in politics without ever showing a sign of that ideology, was he waiting to spring his trap?

I’m not here to vouch for the guy, I’m just on the outside looking in, but this seems like a bunch of conjecture in its purest form.

Also, am I reading you correctly that you think racism is a great vehicle to sell the idea of libertarianism?

Your entire theory hinges on a racist remark that he didn’t even write and was possibly unaware of. Unless I’m missing something groundbreaking on page 2 and 3 of that article which I can’t read because it’s paywalled.

Is there anything Ron Paul did politically that would suggest fascist ideologies? The word is thrown around a lot these days.

Bit easy to dismiss millions of people because they aren’t cynical or bitter and then equating that to basically being young and dumb. Perhaps reality is what it is because it’s always the Bush’ and Clinton’s, who only marginally affect the status quo, and never the Ron Paul’s, who see inherent issues with the system, or ‘reality’, and at least have somewhat of an inclination to improve it.

To me, a European, he was one of the very few, if any, candidates that made sense and seemed consistent in how he voted and spoke. And I consider myself to be quite libertarian.

I don’t really understand your remark to be honest, other than shoehorning the “he made a racist remark” thing into the conversation. Perhaps you could elaborate.

I’m sure someone already made a graph plotting the hours wasted learning vs the seconds gained not moving your mouse.

“Your honor the suspect had blood on his hands when we found him. Well you’re 10% blood so what’s your point?”

It’s just a tighter grouping of (biased) data that can be searched and retrieved a bit quicker.

How is your intelligence different from being “biased data that can be accessed”?

The fact that something can reason about what it presents to you as information is a form of intelligence. And while this discussion is impossible without defining “reason”, I think we should at least agree that when a machine can explain to you what and why it did what it did, it is a form of reason.

Should we also not define what it means when a person answers a question through reasoning? It’s easy to overestimate the complexity of it because of our personal bias and our ability to fantasize about endless possibilities, but if you break our abilities down, they might be the result of nothing but a large dataset combined with a simple algorithm.

It’s easy to handwave the intelligence of an AI, not because it isn’t intelligent, but because it has no desires, and therefore doesn’t act unless acted upon. It is not easy to jive that concept with the idea that something is alive, which is what we generally require before calling it intelligent.

You’re missing the point. The issue with Fahrenheit is not about the conversion from Celsius, most Europeans don’t need to do that anyway. The problem is Fahrenheit in itself, it’s just not elegant or scientific and therefore comes off as arbitrary and only makes sense when you grow up with it.

I know a 5 year old who shoved a crayon up his nose.

Haha, I get it, it’s totally fine!

Hey everyone get a glimpse of this loser!

I don’t think it’s funny, because the joke is illogical. If he is a teacher in a University, and it looks like it, that it is his job to mansplain.

So close. You seem to have Sheldon levels of understanding sarcasm.

It’s just a simple joke about the term being misapplied to an everyday setting.

It’s a bit late to worry about internal mics when everyone has their phone on them at all times.

Probably stuck on an older os which doesn’t support the newest browser updates.