this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
66 points (72.3% liked)

World News

38979 readers
3232 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Did the convoy involve a genocide?

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

No, but I'm also not sure where you are going with that question. I suppose hezbollah flags directly have something to do with the Palestine protests, whereas nazi flags didn't really have anything to do with the convoy, so maybe it's more understandable to have hezbollah/hamas flags there. But they are still terrorists, right? Or are we OK with them now? I'm just not sure what you mean.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't agree with them but this:

But they are still terrorists, right?

That's a loaded question.

Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

The first part that needs to be dealt with is "unlawful." Who's laws? The issue is states get to arbitrarily define terrorism. If a state does terrorism, they get to say it's something else.

Second: "violence and intimidation... in the pursuit of political aims." OK, so all militaries do this part. That's the point of a military. If this part is wrong then all states are wrong.

OK, so essentially the issue is defining "terrorism" as a bad thing. It isn't necessarily. It's using the means of the state against a state. That is all. It can be bad, but so can the actions of a state. It can also be good. If only states are allowed to use violence then they will use violence to suppress voices they disagree with, and there's nothing that can be done about it.

We've got to stop using the term terrorism. It's a term of the media. It isn't useful in a real discussion. It is a term used to drive hatred and fear even if the ones using it are the ones on the receiving end of most of the violence. The media will never use the word to refer to state actions that they agree with. Stop using their language.

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I guess it comes down to whether the laws are just or unjust, if the state that makes the laws is good or bad. When you have a clash of cultures that are not compatible with each other, or different states with incompatible ideas, there will be a winner and a loser, where the winner makes the laws and therefore determines what constitutes "terrorism". But just because one culture won, doesn't mean that it is just or good. It could be the good guys in charge, or just as easily the bad guys. It depends not so much on good or bad, but on military power. So how do you know when it's the good guys in charge? If the "bad guys" of today, the "terrorists", were in charge instead and you and I were on the other end of the power dynamic, would it be a better world? Would we be resorting to violence against citizens and against the state in order to further our political cause? Hard to say. Most of us would probably assimilate into their culture, but certainly some of us would be the new resistance, the new terrorists, killing innocents because we believed that strongly in our cause.

But this is all based on the assumption that laws and power dynamics will always exist, that they are in fact necessary. Someone will always be in charge, and others will wish they were, and will be willing to resort to violence to get the power or to break the laws. Do you envision a world where power dynamics and laws don't exist? I can't see it.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

See, the difference is that the people at the convoy were given a chance to disavow the Nazis as the media talks to the organizers. The people at these protests are called Hamas sympathizers and the organizers are not even contacted by the media.

But the organizers at these anti-genocide protests seem never to be interviewed by the media. Do you think it's because they're hiding?

[–] OccamsRazer@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Yeah maybe they were contacted, I don't recall. And yes the organizers should be available for interviews, and should also be given a chance to clarify what they stand for, what their message is and who the big backers are. That way you can get an idea of what they ACTUALLY stand for and not just what the leader says.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Some of the people in that movement thought so. From things they read on the internet, they were led to believe that covid was part of a plan to kill millions of people.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet, kids. It may lead you to get so emotional over genocide claims that you end up being associated with some actual genocidal groups.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

Thinking there is a genocide because of stupidity is not the same as an actual genocide. Which is what is going on.

People claim abortion is genocide too. It is also not genocide. Just because you claim something is genocide, it doesn't mean it is. Experts tend to have to weigh in. And they have in the case of Gaza and have determined it is a genocide.

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/anatomy-of-a-genocide-report-of-the-special-rapporteur-on-the-situation-of-human-rights-in-the-palestinian-territory-occupied-since-1967-to-human-rights-council-advance-unedited-version-a-hrc-55/

So maybe don't conflate the two, unless you are one of those kooks who believe COVID was a genocide, something not a single expert believes.

So... was COVID a genocide? Do you think those stupid unJesusy scientifimagicians are wrong and the Queen of Canada is right or is this a totally different situation?