you can't genocide if you got genocided, that's the rule, if you disagree you're an antisemite, now please send rockets to children hospital thank you

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

1 like = 1 missile

[–] FUCKRedditMods@lemm.ee 70 points 11 months ago (3 children)

All western news is doing some strong work completely ignoring coverage of this narrative. Absolute fucking disgrace and travesty.

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 63 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

You're commenting on a newsweek article, a western news media with a readership of 100 million.

[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There are not 100 million dentists offices. No way that is their readership.

[–] zero_gravitas@aussie.zone 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

They're referring to monthly unique visitors on the Newsweek website. Print circulation was around 100k in 2015. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek)

For comparison (I make no claims it's a good one), the New York Times web site has around 240 million monthly unique visitors. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times)

[–] UnknownQuantity@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Does that include all the visitors blocked by their paywall?

Edit: I'm referring to NYT.

[–] zero_gravitas@aussie.zone 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I only know what I gleaned from quick glance at their Wikipedia page, which says they have 8.6 million digital subscribers. So the 240 million figure includes non-subscribers who can run into paywalls, but I'm guessing the NYT might have some content that isn't paywalled, which complicates getting a sense of their 'reach'. Which is why I said I make no claims that it's a good comparison.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

and how many of those are bots?

[–] library_napper@monyet.cc 36 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Everything I'm reading is covering the Israeli war crimes and their condemnation from western countries. And it's mostly reporting from the west.

Maybe don't read for-profit journalism?

[–] masquenox@lemmy.ml 9 points 11 months ago

Everything I’m reading is covering the Israeli war crimes and their condemnation

Oh, you mean the slap-on-the-wrist heckling some liberals in the west are emanating? The Israelis must be shaking in their boots.

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 8 points 11 months ago

It's not a condemnation at all. Look at the wording, it's phrased like whatever happens to the Palestinians is a natural disaster. A flooding or an earthquake.

[–] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 29 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Yes but have you considered that Arabs aren't white?

[–] masquenox@lemmy.ml 9 points 11 months ago

Depends on which arbitrary definition of "white" you are using. I see a lot of white supremacists pretending that Israel can't be white supremacist because either Jewish people "aren't white" and/or Arab people suddenly "are white" - whatever their pretzel-logic demands in the moment, I guess.

[–] UnknownQuantity@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

What? Semites aren't white like Semites?

[–] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 7 points 11 months ago

Honourary white

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 4 points 11 months ago

"White" is more of an arbitrary label for "guys like us". Italians and Irish were not considered white not so long ago.

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 8 points 11 months ago

Wow what an antisemite /s