Exactly what I’m saying. And no, I don’t find it wrong at all to think this way. I’m sorry if you were angered or offended in some way by my previous comment.

I hate to have to say it, but you’ve labelled the a party that still commits atrocities as “right” simply because they’ve committed fewer atrocities. I believe this point requires no further discussion. Both can be wrong for committing atrocities. Again, the main argument you’ve got here is “Israel bad, Palestine good” and “The things Palestine does are fine because they had the moral justification to begin with.”

You are too ideological. I’m a political realist; you’re a political idealist. You looked at what “is right” and then decided that anything done in pursuit of that right must be good. You’ve allowed the ends to justify the means.

In political realism, you must sometimes force off the justice boner and realise that the best result realistically possible is not the one that is the fairest or rights the most historical wrongs. This is what I was trying to get at with my original comment. History is not fair and never will be, and blindly trying to change that is unconstructive. You have to play the cards you’re dealt. It was a historical wrong for Israeli settlers to colonise Palestinian land. At the same time, I am saying that in the near-future, it will be impossible to right this wrong. The Israelis will never be punished for what they did. Palestinians will never control land from the west bank of the River Jordan to the Mediterranean again. Believe me, they want that, and they’re maybe even justified in wanting that, but it doesn’t matter what is right. We need to think of what is the best way to resolve the situation right now. It is pointless to argue about who is right and who is wrong because that means nothing. That is the harsh reality of international geopolitics. That’s how it is now, how it’s been since the dawn of human civilisation, and as long as the idea of the sovereign state exists, that’s how it’s always going to be.

I will give one final parting analogy: Imagine you are tied up and being beaten on the ground by an assailant who is many times stronger than you. The beating has gone on for several minutes now until your assailant offers you a deal: “If you allow me to hit you ten more times and give me all the money in your wallet, I will let you go. Otherwise, I will shoot you dead and take your wallet anyway.” Is this a fair deal? Of course not. Are you “right” to refuse and your assailant “wrong” for even daring to offer such a thing (and putting you in the situation of having to consider it)? Without question. But at the same time, you’d be a fool not to say “yes” to that. You’d also have to be extremely stupid to say “fuck you” in response to that. Even if there’s only a slim chance that they’ll actually uphold their end of the bargain. Honour, after all, doesn’t actually have any value. Your life does.

That is all I have to say on the matter. I will read your reply if you devote the time to write one but I’ve said all that needs to be said.

You are correct. I would be easily radicalised, as would most people if I were placed into such a situation. I’m not immune from the same forces that radicalised everyone else there too.

I do not equate colonisers to the colonised, however, one must recognise that both have done things that they shouldn’t have done. At this point, “but he started it” is no longer an excuse for racial and religious hatred. It’s been 70 years already. People have been born into the conflict, grown up in the conflict, and died from the conflict.

The State of Israel has committed acts of genocide against the Palestinian people. I do not deny it. But at the same time, I cannot wholeheartedly support the other party in this conflict when their methods of resistance include terror attacks, hostage-taking, and indiscriminate bombings—the same things they decry Israel for doing. The Palestinians have rejected several offers of peace. The UN partition plan—rejected. Two state solution proposals—rejected. Peaceful coexistence—rejected. Instead, they counter with a Palestinian state stretching from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. Palestinian leaders want to wipe the State of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants off the face of the earth, and Israeli leaders want to wipe the State of Palestine and its Arab inhabitants off the face of the earth.

You can say that the Palestinians were right/to begin with—that they had no obligation to cede any territory at all to the Israelis. And you’d be right. But it’s important to recognise that being right to begin does not give anyone a mandate to do whatever they want. You can be right and move yourself into the wrong by how you act, and this is exactly what happened. Yes, I sympathise with Palestinians whose lands were taken from them by Israelis. At the same time, I condemn those who take matters into their own hands by bombing Israeli music festivals.

Instead, what is happening is that the situation may quickly be moving to a forcibly-imposed one-state solution with that state being the State of Israel. And that would be a tragedy.

This is what I mean by “history is nuanced”. There is no black and white here and to portray any situation as such would be naïve.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

“War criminal” is not a term applied liberally to describe people who presided over bad things. It is a term defined by treaty in international law.

Nope, just that Hitler is one notable counterexample. There are plenty more European war criminals.

Don’t forget Hideki Tojo too. Not white, but still a light-skinned war criminal.

Vladamir Putin is wanted for crimes against humanity right now. There is a warrant out for his arrest.

And are we just allowing the current situation in Israel to slip our minds voluntarily?

Removed by mod

Exactly my point!

Well, it is technically “piracy” but it’s amateur piracy. No need to get fancy with torrents and VPNs or whatnot. Just download the software and… not pay.

I’ll add your snap if you can recite the full rules of Magic the Gathering

That’s because even a grey market Windows key costs US$20 nowadays and that’s over ₹1,600. For comparison purposes, the largest Indian banknote is ₹500.

A reminder for context: it’s not summer yet in Antarctica. Summer doesn’t start until December. It’s still supposed to be cold.

Not just any high-profile funeral. San Francisco is Pelosi’s constituency. She represents San Francisco in the House of Representatives, so if any member of Congress has a good excuse to be absent, it’s her.

This is a tragedy of history. That is all I will say on the matter.

I hope you realise that countries recognise the People’s Republic of China because it’s politically expedient. It’s lip service since the PRC government is easily offended. So for many countries, it’s easier to just play along, shut up, and let’s get to negotiating some lucrative trade deals instead. Public support among Western nations and their allies for Taiwan’s continued autonomous existence remains high despite their governments recognising it as a province of China. You don’t seem to understand how useful doublespeak is in international geopolitics. To pretend countries say what they mean and mean what they say is incredibly naïve.

Your behaviour is exactly why I filtered out Hexbear in my feed. There don’t seem to be any actual socialists on Hexbear, just people knee-jerkingly defending any country that claims to be socialist without any regard to whether they practice what they preach. Social democracies like the Nordic countries are way closer to socialism than modern China is, but all you have to do is point your finger and say “liberal” and Hexbear users start foaming at the mouth. I say this as a citizen of the People’s Republic of China and a socialist.

This conversation has reached its productive end.

I will cut to the chase here and say that the only reason for calling it “Taiwan Province” is if you are (1) a Chinese nationalist, (2) a Chinese propagandist, or (3) a person who got absorbed by (2). Nobody else in ordinary English discourse will refer to it as such. The typical usage is to call the Republic of China “Taiwan”. Its government calls itself the “Republic of China (Taiwan)”. Normal people call it “Taiwan”. Taiwanese people call it “Taiwan”. Don’t forget; the “free area” of the Republic of China has two nominal provinces—Taiwan and Fuchien.

ISO standards are dry and mechanical, and most importantly, not designed to supplant everyday usage by humans. That is unless you also tend to write the date as 2023-10-03 and not the far more common “3 October 2023” or “October 3, 2023”. The ISO standard refers to Taiwan Province, which is a province of the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China, however, neither province has a government and neither makes decisions on its own.

The common name for the area controlled by the Republic of China is “Taiwan”. “Taiwan Province” is a Chinese nationalist dog whistle and there is nothing you can say to get around this fact.

I would like to remind you that there does not exist any political entity called “Taiwan Province”. The Republic of China abolished its provincial governments and the People’s Republic of China doesn’t even bother to maintain a shadow government.