SalaTris

Yeah, I heard it happened 30 minutes after some activity got dissolved. (I don’t have a source offhand for that.)

I deliberately chose to quote the words of the perpetrator, and the UN as a recognized observer, because the perpetrator incriminates themselves

“The Israeli forces are saying that they might have hit Aysenur unintentionally - that she was not a target” … “but aimed at the key instigator of the riot”. The UN says Aysenur was “shot in the head” because the perpetrators said protestors “burned tyres and hurled rocks towards security forces”

https://aje.io/yjbpo7

Can you elaborate on what specifically the “lie” is? The logical side of me takes the words “truth”, “fact”, and “lie” very seriously, and I worry that we too often use them to express a point of view including pragmatism. I’m genuinely curious!

I don’t know: Does that framing take away from the international law argument? How long has that argument been in play and how has that worked so far? It’s a powerful framing in that it illustrates the power that money being used to fuel hate could instead have for some semblance of good. Even if it’s impractical among today’s US elected officials. Also, arguments like this are how to get negotiation leverage. In general in this political climate, while we might want to be prepared to compromise I challenge the wisdom of leading with a compromise. I say different strategies need to be tried until something sticks.

Ok, so typically when you do an appeal you don’t use the same lawyer. So while I get that this is “news”… maybe we can focus our attention somewhere else?

It’s disheartening to hear. Typically the Anti Defamation League draws attention to rising antisemitic behavior whenever there is a tension abroad but often does so to divert attention from the issue abroad.

To be clear, any kind of hostility/prejudice/discrimination to any group is wrong. Supporting one group shouldn’t negate from the other. As someone who identifies with neither group I can see why one or another would resort to name calling — it gets us nowhere. But to shut down discussions because people are frustrated is also wrong.

And then there are people to use these events as an excuse to get away with bad behavior.

I am also pretty upset about geopolitics. It feels like the majority have been conditioned to have such a strong bias and are incapable of any kind of introspection. If we all approached such topics with the willingness to learn from each other and hear different perspectives maybe things would be different. Unfortunately I can't solve the world's problems this week. Maybe next week?

Otherwise, I am dating, but meeting new people and assessing fit is a challenge.

You reacted to me but you didn't listen to me.

Both "sides" have employed justice by "slaughtering innocents" in response to the other side. Both sides think what the other side did was reprehensible and deserving of retaliation. This pattern has been going on for 75 years. It clearly hasn't worked, so maybe we should try something different?

Let’s study the conflict before making such comments.

I am not aware of any conflict in US history where the US did not defend an American journalist dying performing their duty abroad. This is a war crime, and it sets precedent for Americans when they travel or work abroad anywhere in the world.

Hamas is not representative of all Palestinians. Hamas’ attack is a reaction to a 75 year history of tit-for-tat where “Israel” continuously breaks international law including murdering of civilians, the international community condemns them, and the big world powers like the US give them indemnity. Like Russia to Ukraine, Israel is an occupying force of the Palestinians — the longest in modern history.

Comparison to Bid Laden is a false equivalence.

I’m still waiting for justice for Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh — the investigation of which currently rests in the hands of her perpetrators. It seems to me that recognizing American deaths only matters when it benefits US foreign policy.

Engagement is what matters, and that’s driven by habits. The protests were disruptive. The switching of apps is disruptive. I see this more as a way to distract and bring up engagement again.

Is it a good idea? Honestly, if they want to succeed I think they should focus on what has become broken with reddit first

Also the Internet Archive? I always wish they crawled more of the web than they did in years past.

Salaries for key people aren’t out of this world given their scale and highest paid person taking a pay cut is a good sign: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943242767