• 0 Posts
  • 40 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 19th, 2023

help-circle

  • Your own link states that “in part” definitions may lead to highly subjective conclusions.

    By this measure, the death penalty in the US would be considered genocide “in part” (especially if the judge, jurors, or clerks are mostly white and the executed person is of color, so as to establish that a “group” is targeting another group). A person acting in self-defense with a resulting death to the aggressor may also fall into the genocide criteria.

    If Israel is only intent on destroying the Hamas terrorist organization (it is technically a political party, but they broadened their horizons on October 7th, I guess…), and not the whole Gazan/Palestinian population, could it really still be labeled as genocide? As I said, some people will even say a single death may be genocide “in part,” so this widening of the definition just weakens the term, unfortunately.











  • Monomate@lemm.eetoTechnology@lemmy.worldX is about to start hiding all likes
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’m not saying it’s a literal witch hunt. Never heard of metaphors and figures of speech?

    And just shouting “your opinions suck!” and running away is hardly productive to a healthy discussion. If you have any counter-arguments to the topic at hand (the individual “likes” being hidden on Twitter/X), feel free to present them.


  • Monomate@lemm.eetoTechnology@lemmy.worldX is about to start hiding all likes
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think people with ridiculous views should not have an issue with being ridiculed for those views.

    You’re under no obligation to agree with another person point of view. But, if you’re presenting your arguments in good faith, you should be prepared to listen to the person you disagree with in good faith also. If you immediately disregard what others have to say just because you think it’s “too ridiculous to consider”, or throw the ad hominem starter pack: bigot, nazi, far-right, trumper, etc, then you’re just insulating yourself in a bubble in the best case scenario, or showing you don’t have the capability to articulate your argument effectively in the worst case scenario.

    It really feels like you’re the immature bunch, trying to hide who you are because you’re too fragile to own up to it if it’s being scrutinized.

    It’s not a matter of trying to hide anything for the sake of it. It’s just that some people use the free availability of a user’s previous posts/likes as a shortcut for “whataboutisms”. You may disagree with other posts I made, but what is being discussed here is the reasonableness of individual “likes” being public or not.

    I think the crude scrutiny of a persons past posts to be, in many cases, dishonored. The person being scrutinized may have changed their views since then, specially when the post is years-old.





  • Monomate@lemm.eetoTechnology@lemmy.worldX is about to start hiding all likes
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    52
    ·
    5 months ago

    When cancel culture was not on full throttle, maybe likes being public made more sense. If only the global like count is the more widely known metric, hiding who liked what is not too significant of a change. It’s not something totally out of the ordinary either, considering most contries’ electoral systems guarantee the individual votes are kept secret.