On Sunday, the Washington Post published a 38-page plan for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, drawn up with the collusion of the Boston Consulting Group and the staff of former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and discussed at the White House.

On Sunday, the Washington Post published a 38-page plan for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, drawn up with the collusion of the Boston Consulting Group and the staff of former UK prime minister Tony Blair, and actively discussed at the White House.

  • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
    5·
    5 days ago

    That shows no real increase in the pace of dying, so according to that, I am wrong. I don’t believe it.

    Ok, fuck off then, conversations over. You’re just declaring yourself right based on the fact that you think you’re right. Pure religious doctrine at this point.

    I was also even more horrified by the idea of what Trump would do to accelerate it.

    Which you haven’t actually been able to find any examples of. That’s why you get called a denialist: because you’re having to pretend that Biden wasn’t already at maximal support for the genocide in order to justify saying “Trump is worse!”

    a way of presenting a reality that is totally bonkers when aligned with the facts, but aligns very smoothly with the stuff in their head they’re trying to back up or justify

    You mean like you rejecting all evidence and just going on pure faith that Biden wasn’t as bad for Gaza as Trump?

    instead of just coming to grips with the idea that Trump is bad for Palestinians and admitting that it’s accurate.

    Oh fuck off; you know damn well that the claim in contention wasn’t “Trump is bad for Palestinians”. Don’t do this dishonest bullshit.

      • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
        4·
        5 days ago

        “If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

        • PhilipTheBucket@piefed.socialEnglish
          36·
          5 days ago

          fuck off then, conversations over

          This you?

          (I got the feeling it wouldn’t be productive a few messages ago, you didn’t like that and got amped up, so fair enough, I went back in and engaged with you factually a little and went point-by-point with some citations, even openly indicating where I couldn’t really find evidence of one of my points. You didn’t like those responses, and declared yourself the arbiter of whether they were valid and announced that you had won the discussion. Alrighty then. Sounds like our business is concluded. Call me Mr. Anti Semite I guess.)

          • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
            61·
            5 days ago

            You didn’t like those responses, and declared yourself the arbiter of whether they were valid and announced that you had won the discussion.

            What a dishonest little worm you are.

            • PhilipTheBucket@piefed.socialEnglish
              13·
              4 days ago

              Always a fascinating little window into how the lemmy.ml community operates.

              I think there are two things at work here:

              1. One key thing is ignoring what the other person is saying, and instead explaining what the other person’s argument / belief is, to them. In this case, I can tell you that I wasn’t fine with Biden’s support for genocide, and you’ll tell me “You were just a denialist when Biden was in.”, basically justify to yourself why I think something stupid, and then argue against that imaginary thing. It’s honestly one of the most unproductive ways of engaging online.
              2. Another key thing is the speaking from authority. You’re constantly telling me whether what I am saying is valid, whether or not I’ve “proven” something. Of course, it never goes both ways. I could never tell you “you haven’t actually been able to find any examples” right after you sent me a bunch of examples, or anything like that, because you disagreed with my examples declared that my examples were all invalid. The whole concept of it being two people with different points of view, who probably aren’t going to walk away from the exchange with one person “proven right” and them both agreeing on that, is foreign here. I can see why you gravitate so thoroughly to governmental systems that kill their opponents and illegalize dissent.

              I think #2 is why the lemmy.ml people tend to self-select themselves into such a tiny community. This place should be the flagship community of the software, but instead it is a kind of pariah community that most of the community actively avoids. Most people like being convinced of something a lot better than they like being ordered what they’re allowed to believe and whether or not their current opinions are valid or not (and also assigned some new opinions if they ever disagree with the hivemind), and so they tend to exclude lemmy.ml.

              IDK, man. Good luck to you guys figuring it out, I think you will have more ability to influence and communicate if you can get out of these habits.