Streaming on:
https://t.co/YZVuBV0o7M
https://t.co/rKRELZXWPW
Jun 23, 2024 • 9 tweets • 12 min read
Bored and on a plane, so here we go:
I opt for voice over text conversations because my preferred medium is live video; I appreciate when someone is able to demonstrate their comprehension of a topic during a conversation. There is something to be said for being able to understand a challenge posed to you and for you to be able to dynamically generate a response that incorporates your knowledge while adequately satisfying the question. I dislike text debates because it makes it easier for both sides to dodge questions (by simply not responding, or disappearing), selectively respond to only certain points (such as by only quoting or responding to a certain thing while ignoring the rest), waste time by responding to points that weren’t made made (no ability to clarify while you’re writing your response), and to draw in other sources for argumentation that weren’t available to one when they were making their original statements (meaning they are now essentially making new arguments since they are justifying old ones with material previously unknown to them).
I’ll respond to these arguments since I think it would be sad to leave them unchallenged, but I have neither the desire nor the inclination to carry on for weeks like this as it’s simply not worth my time to participate in what I consider a sub-standard format for these types of conversations, at least not on Twitter.
The comparison that is given at the beginning of this clip is that of a single person breaking into a home, and then a person exacting a disproportionate revenge on the perpetrator. This is obviously wrong on a moral level, most people would agree. The comparison, however, is not apt for this conflict because it is not just a single person who happens to have committed a wrong, but rather it is a combination of actors representing a governing authority that has the support of other governing authorities behind it while committing the wrong.
The action taken, then, in response to the “immoral actor,” is not simply an act of “revenge,” it is an act to remove the ability for the immoral actor to “act again” against you in an immoral way. In this way, the analogy very clearly and obviously breaks down: if it were simply a single bad actor, then the single bad actor can be removed and the problem is solved. If it is a person (or people) acting on behalf of larger organizations that support it, then the conflict grows and the other supporting organizations must be considered when taking action against those who perpetrated the crime.
In the modern example that we’re discussing, members of multiple armed groups (Hamas, PIJ, and others) crossed the border into Israel to commit crimes against Israel. These were not simply individuals, these were individuals that were acting on behalf of larger organizations, organizations whose funding is also international. This means that the response to ensure that these individuals can’t act against has to happen with the understanding that these larger organizations are all involved in the conflict. It’s not enough to simply capture or apprehend the individuals responsible, rather the entire structure must be fought against.
None of this is to say that is justifies a certain number of civilian casualties, or ever justifies the explicit targeting of civilians, just that a person receiving direction and support from a larger entity obviously means that entity will be considered in victim’s response to the belligerents action.
May 8, 2023 • 5 tweets • 1 min read
When my son was 4 years old I took away his mattress and forced him to sleep on the floor every night.
If he did his chores, I closed his window.
If he got straight A's, I gave him a blanket.
If he got in a fight at school and won, I wouldn't force him to take his shower cold.
One day, he asked me, "dad, why is that no matter how hard I work, I can't seem to earn a bed?"
I slapped him, first - every question carries a price - then responded, "son, you can work as hard as you can in this world, it doesn't always mean you're going to get what you want."
Mar 16, 2023 • 11 tweets • 3 min read
Your criticism lacks substance, it starts and stops with "this makes me feel bad and uncomfortable and I'm going to dogmatically virtue signal so people know I'M ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS ^_____^."
The point of the original take wasn't to say raping someone is as bad as friend-zoning
someone, the point of the take was to show that in almost ALL toxic interactions it seems as though men are expected to be the arbiters of both their and the woman's feelings.
If a situation exists where a guy is getting "friend-zoned" or lead on by a girl, people will make fun
Mar 6, 2023 • 4 tweets • 4 min read
Mate, everyone knows Muslims are the most fragile community online lol.
