Most people's "truth" nowadays is what they've heard enough people say is true. Not objective data/measures. What people believe is true, and say is true, IS truth, to them.
Lifting the sanctions doesn't suddenly make their government, regulation or economy stable. Their biggest companies are all government-owned and famously corrupt and mismanaged.
This is criticism given from most of the region when the topic of lifting sanctions comes up. Nothing I said is novel or extreme.
In fact, we have direct evidence of what happens when those sanctions are lifted from when it was done under the Biden administration. They expanded their nuclear program and expanded funding to their regional proxies to carry out terror campaigns. The Houthis attacked global shipping lines and October 7th happened. That's not theoretical.
This is a weird thing to say to me. You're saying that keeping sanctions on Iran is important to prevent another October 7 because Iran was funding Hamas? Okay, but then wouldn't it be better to put sanctions on Israel, since they're the aggressive, colonizing, occupying force?
1. Not just funding, but arming and training.
2. On the edge of whataboutism, but definitely victim-blaming regardless of your position on Israel.
3. Sanctions on Israel won't stop Iran from attempting to wipe Israel off the map. It'll only help.
4. Looking at global politics through the lens of black/white, either/or is fucking crazy and stupid.
2. Its not whataboutism, it's addressing the issue (The motivations and ability of Hamas to attack Israel) from a different angle (maybe instead of stopping attacks on Israel in a very roundabout way by sanctioning Iran so they have less ability to arm and train any Palestinian resistance, we reduce the motivation for Hamas/Palestinians to fight Israel by putting pressure on Israel to stop their occupation/apartheid of Palestine? Bonus, it's the right thing to do)
3. Consider that Israel is also interested in wiping most of its neighbors off the map (and has, in the past 2 years, already attacked 5 of its neighbors, often with disproportionate force and brutality), and unlike Iran has far more military might and international support to do so? If we want to reduce violence in the middle east, let's look at the nation most prone to dishing it out, and most able to defend itself from it.
4. When did I look at anything through a black and white lens? I didn't say one or the other, I said my method would be more fruitful (and just)
I used to think like you. There is some deeply human in seeking basic justice that even small children have strong reactions even for the minor perceived injustices, let alone for serious stuff.
However when your survival is at stake (and the survival of your own kind and culture) people often stop giving a damn about who was right and who was wrong and they just try to defend themselves.
Many people understand this when the people defending themselves are Palestinians, and somehow are able to forgive senseless violence that they do, all because "they are in the right".
But somehow they cannot imagine that Israeli Jews are living for a long time in a genuine existential threat. Many people just think that all those Jews who live in Israel should just go back where they came from. That's obviously impossible since many fled countries where they didn't feel safe.
It's hard to understand the determination to fight for having just a normal life. We can't understand this because most people in the world have a "nation" a "fatherland" a place where they don't get butchered just because they belong to a given race or speak with an accent or have a long nose.
The situation is not symmetrical at all. Arabs can live in Israel. Arab citizens are not discriminated, there are Arab doctors, Arab justices, Arab members of the parlament. 20% of the Israeli citizens are Arab Muslims.
Israel is the multicultural democratic state that everybody claims to want Palestine to be. Jews need Israel to exist because they need a state that will protect them and not be at the whims of whatever populist government will turn their neighbors against (as it happened many times in many places, not only in Germany)
And yes, Israel did do many crimes directly and indirectly and has mistreated Palestinians in many cases.
But you have to put things in context. Arabs never accepted the Palestinian state and fought with several wars. Which they lost.
These kind of stuff happened many times in history, even recent history. Many borders were redrawen even in Europe and people were displaced. None of that is a good thing for people who suffered it
But Arabs did something that nobody else did for quite a long time: they engaged in a holy war, using suicide bombings and having an utter disregard for their own lives and the lives of their own children, all in the name of martyrdom. This ideology is very hard to fight. Japanese lost and surrendered, Germans lost and surrendered. Palestinian lost and kept blowing up people and making their own women and children dangerous. This increased the tension and created the condition for security checks and a kind of apartheid.
But this can be solved, if only Arabs stopped demanding the destruction of Israel. Of course, Israel cannot accept laying down their arms and letting them be butchered.
There is truth in the quote: if Palestinians laid down their arms there will be peace, if Israelis laid down their arms there would be genocide.
This seems like a crazy statement but this happens every single time Israel lowers their guard.
The only reason Israeli Jews are not dead is because they are efficient at defending themselves.
They are constantly bombed but they blow the rockets out of the air. They have shelters.
That's why there are so few dead Jews. Not for lack of trying on the Arab side.
---
So what is the right thing to do in this case?
Saying "Israel shouldn't have been created in 48 so they are and they always been colonizers so now they just have to go away"?
How can this be reasonable solution? We're talking about millions of people who are born there for a few generations now.
> Lifting the sanctions doesn't suddenly make their government, regulation or economy stable
True we only sanction them because it's funny.
I don't really care what descent you are, anyone can have a bad opinion of American foreign policy. There are tons of people right now in America who are Iranian that are screaming for a crazy monarch to take power.
It's fun to be reminded boards like this can have extremists that think they're in the majority.
Sanctions against Iran are imposed by the United Nations (also the US, UK and EU). That means that UN member states think that sanctions against Iran are politically palatable. It's definitionally mainstream opinion that Iran should be sanctioned.
And? Realizing that you can't convince me that punishing the population is correct, you fall back to "Well a bunch of nation states are kowtowing to American hegemony" which is frankly pathetic.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You argued that my position was so absurd that no reasonable person would express it. I'm just pointing out that that's the position of the majority of the world's governments and quite mainstream.
Your statement was just blatantly false and slightly defamatory.
This kind of legislation is frankly just bad. Any TV station in america could have broadcasted the worst things in the world to thousands of people affecting their lives together. You know how we handled that? Legislation on the broadcasters. We didn't stop kids from watching TV.
I'm not a fan of the law, but your argument is pretty weak. The dose makes the poison and all that. It seems rationale to believe that humans can construct an entertainment mechanism so addictive as to warrant safeguards. The debate is mostly around whether this is that point and whether the trade-offs are worth it.
...yes? Humans love their poisons even if it's not in their best interest to love them. It's all about giving people a fighting chance to make conscious decisions about how they want to live their life. If we crush a fledgling brain with social media before it's learned to fend for itself then we're removing true freedom of choice.
To me, it seems pretty analogous to alcohol, etc. You don't prohibit alcohol. You define an age in which you're willing to declare people mature enough to tolerate letting them make their own decisions.
Actually, we don't stop kids from buying cigarettes, we punish stores that sell cigarettes to kids and are caught! That's my entire point! You just made my argument for me!
And the store does not use facial recognition and/or checking id to know if the potential buyer is a kid ?
The only (huge) difference for me is the scale of the verification and how data are stored.
> And the store does not use facial recognition and/or checking id to know if the potential buyer is a kid?
They can just not serve cigarettes. In addition I think it's also insane to compare cigarettes, which are purely negative, to free internet usage which is massively net positive.
Despite the headline, does this law actually punish the children if they are caught with social media accounts? Or is the burden on the social media providers?
I have to assume this is a joke because that's absolutely ludicrous to claim and (if true) would mean the valuation of every social media company is so inflated as to constitute fraud.
TV the broadcast station was held responsible for the content they distributed and if they failed too much they would loose their access to the radio spectrum and unambiguous stop to exist.
The rules online is different. Not only are they not responsible for the content they distribute, but when they do break the law anyway the only punishment that they get is a small fine.
Around 30% of facebook advertisements are scams. That would not had worked with TV stations of old.
How do you compare a system where the communication channel goes only one way in a single country to a system where everyone potentially contributes to the content and is distributed over the world?
How does one country legislate the content of a company based in another country?
Do you think that censorship is a better solution?
Oh how's moderating and legislating social media behemots going so far?
Exactly..
They will use any trick or loophole available to keep the reach and to exploit attention spans.
Kids brains aren't correct really made for social media whatsoever. Ban is justified and the bar should be even higher than 15 years old, but it's a start.
I have a young baby and no way it touches anything smartphone related for many many years, same goes with TV to a certain extent (these things are like smartphones nowadays with all the apps and programme fighting for your attention and to enrage you). I am doing my part, I for sure expect the government does their thing as well.
Exploitators should stay in check and at bay with any means necessary
> Oh how's moderating and legislating social media behemots going so far?
This feels like you intended to make it a gotcha question, but the answer is: America isn't really trying to do that at all. So we should just give up?
"Damn, handling biowaste is hard and dangerous, what we'll do is just prevent people from leaving their house."
I'm not in America nor would I rely on their legislators doing anything about it, especially with current admin.
France, Australia and the likes (who are in process of implementing banning social media for kids) is the only way behemots will understand. Otherwise you're risking loopholes beig exploited, bureaucracy being slow while behemots move fast, etc.
Ban is pretty much self explanatory and leaves little room for interpretation, at least not in a way where 100s of pages of moderation guidelines and potential ambiguity such docs create
It's an education problem on two fronts. People inside the ecosystem need to know about it. And also people too deep in the elixir ecosystem who don't know how ad-hoc polymorphism is supposed to be used in a statically typed language.
Both overcome it by admitting they don't know and need to learn.
This attitude really tires open source maintainers enormously. They are not allowed to earn money connected to the thing they are giving away for free?
I know there may have been some weird stuff going on lately (nginx, redis, etc.) but this is not one of them.
It's okay to be confused, but please do not continue this.
This breaks down because Tailwind is not monetized, is completely free, and hasn't indicated it won't be.
There is a corporate side with other features that has never been free. I pay for it because it's great.
I'm not sure if you're purposefully misstating it at this point or not. Several people have corrected you and you seem to double down incorrectly each time.
Have they so clearly? What's the evidence?
reply