Where differences occurred, they were especially large on three broad types of questions: Items that asked the respondent to assess the quality of their family and social life produced differences of 18 and 14 percentage points, respectively, with those interviewed on the phone reporting higher levels of satisfaction than those who completed the survey on the Web.
Questions about societal discrimination against several different groups also produced large differences, with telephone respondents more apt than Web respondents to say that gays and lesbians, Hispanics and blacks face a lot of discrimination. However, there was no significant mode difference in responses to the question of whether women face a lot of discrimination.
Web respondents were far more likely than those interviewed on the phone to give various political figures a “very unfavorable” rating, a tendency that was concentrated among members of the opposite party of each figure rated.
Statistically significant mode effects also were observed on several other questions. Telephone respondents were more likely than those interviewed on the Web to say they often talked with their neighbors, to rate their communities as an “excellent” place to live and to rate their own health as “excellent.” Web respondents were more likely than phone respondents to report being unable to afford food or needed medical care at some point in the past twelve months.
ultimately, the legitimacy of the poll would depend on where they solicited their subjects in the poll. You're likely to get a far different answer with advertisements on Truth Social than you would with advertisements on, lets say, a palistinian-american subreddit. but that wasn't addressed in the report, so. we'll never really know.
Opt-in polling is so bad. It means you only get answers from people with strong opinions. They are polls where the results are shaped like a U instead of a bell curve so it rarely represents the actual 95 percentile.
I don't think it's opt-in in that way though. They have a pre-existing list of millions of pre-screened people and they're selecting a representative sample from that list. Fivethirtyeight ranks them fairly highly among other polls -- certainly high enough for this opinion poll to be considered accurate.
Fivethirtyeight only grades them on their ability to predict american election results. I don't think that's the same as advocating for their efficacy in producing leading public opinion polls.
You’re right, kinda. Issue polling is generally better than horse race polling and YouGov is no exception.
It's a serious issue when there's a clear political bias in the founders. They put more effort into steering the narrative than objectively reporting it.
Sure, and were there a clear bias your comment would have value.
If you haven't seen any clear bias then you probably have a close enough outlook to them to not notice. And that's fine, I don't require everyone to have the same opinion as me for their comments to have value.
My impression of bias is probably born out of the leading polls that rightwing media and thinktanks in the UK commission them to do. You can fairly argue that these polls are externally commissioned so their tenor is a product of their issuer not yougov. But the overall impression I got was that they could be readily depended on to produce misleading propaganda against labour when it wasn't being run by corporate technocrats.
It's still selecting from a list of people who have something to say, though.
As far as how accurately they represent broad swaths of america... well, that's a different matter. I would expect your average american to be far more luke warm to any given subject than respondents to a poll.
That's probably just a problem with polls though -- people who won't answer aren't included. But they're saying that 26-32% of Americans are "unsure," and that sounds pretty lukewarm. Their methodology does sound odd to me too but if it was flawed it would show in the election data, right? Elections are a brutal testing ground. Hundreds of surveys have been predictive and high quality on average.
Agreed on all of that.
I would have guessed 1/3 are “wtf! stop it”, a 1/3 are “bomb them harder!” And then there’s everyone else just doing their thing, going to work. Going to school.
Pretty easy now to see how Nazi Germany got away with it.
They didn't even have social media back then to help spread misinformation. People were so quick to believe anything they heard someone say loudly.
I know, right. These past 7 years have really made that clear.
My parents are in the other two thirds
By vote or volume?
no, most of us just know what a genocide actually is
The other ⅔ apparently have their head in the sand .
"It's just a sparkling massacre"
"It has to be in the correct region of Germany."
Is this a reference?
Yes, about how champagne must come from the Champagne region of France, otherwise it's just sparkling wine. I don't know where the exact quote comes from though
It also references Germany, since the word "genocide" was invented to describe the Nazi crimes against European Jews (the Holocaust).
Explaining things for the slow children takes away from the humour.
There are worse atrocities in life
Like relativistic equivocation?
champagne must come from the Champagne region of France
for something that's been so extensively memed I would have thought Knowyourmeme would have an entry for this. I'm not finding one, though. Even a "research paper" about the subject doesn't pin down the earliest time it was used in this way.
It's just a factoid. The quote itself in this form seems to be from Wayne's World.
Yes, to the anti-semite police who will tell you with a straight face that you're making the Holocaust seem better than it was by calling anything else a genocide.
So at least 1/3 are paying attention
So at least 1/3 have brain damage.
There's no justification for Hamas' terrorism, nor is their justification for Isreal's genocide.
They don't care how loudly you condemn Hamas. Scream it till you're blue in the face and they'll just call you a Hamas sympathizer anyway.
Among the standard litany of accusations, gaslighting, condescension, and abuse that people who support genocide use instead of defending their position. Because they know their pro-genocide position is indefensible.
1/3 think there isn't a genocide in Gaza so yes.
Israel is blocking aid organisations from buying food, water and medicine in israel and transporting it through the Ker Shalom crossing. Forcing everything through the extremely slow Egypt crossing which they are actively holding up. If they wanted to prevent weapon smuggle then they should love it going through Ker Shalom
I cannot think of a single possible explanation other than israel trying to starve Gazans and commit genocide. How are Americans this brainwashed?
How are Americans this brainwashed?
This isn't limited to the US. What are Israeli citizens doing? Personally i think the US should just stay the fuck out of it and take back whatever stuff we can that we gave them. Cut off support and actively denounce, but they won't.
Propaganda. An abysmal education system. Failing social structures. Corrupt media. Networks of the wealthy using their influence to push society in the direction they desire.
Succinct and profound. You just summed up 5 books in 1 sentence.
Imagine you, your friends and your family get killed and washed away from your land, and 2/3 of US people don't believe it's genocide.
Actually 1/3 said it is genocide, 1/3 said it isn't, and 1/3 said they didn't know. Also, only1/3 of Americans saying this is a genocide isn't great, but it does represent a huge shift in opinion in a short time. Both our political parties support Israel, our news media doesn't cover Palestinians very sympathetically, and our education system tells a very favorable version of Israel's founding (most Americans don't even learn about the Nakba). I don't think criticism of Israel has ever been this mainstream (at least in my lifetime).
Actually 1/3 said it is genocide, 1/3 said it isn’t, and 1/3 said they didn’t know
That means
1/3 believe it's genocide
1/3 believe it's not
2/3 do not believe it's genocide
I see what you're trying to say, but that's not really true. You could say, "2/3 of people would not say they thought it was a genocide," but that's not the same as saying, "2/3 do not believe it's genocide."
It's a small but important distinction. It's the equivalent of saying, "1/3 of people are religious, 1/3 of people are atheist, and 1/3 of people are agnostic," and then trying to say that means, "2/3 of people don't believe in God," instead of, "2/3 of people aren't religious."
Average Us public have no clue what is going on in their own country, it is actually amazing there 1/3 know at least there is a genocide taking place.
Murdering people at a music festival and taking hostages might have an effect on public perception.
The problem is, before they wemt on that murdering spree, the western world pretty much ignored their plight, or maybe tutted when they chucked a rocket or two over the border. But any kind of "proper" political solution was flatly ignored. It's not a justification, but I have to say that I umderstand why that situation led to a "fuck it, let's just rampage" attitude. And look, they actually have a tonne of eyeballs and attention on their shitty situation (and shitty leaders), so maybe something will come of this. Palestinians are paying an exorbitantly heavy price for it, though.
It’s not a justification, but I have to say that I understand why that situation led to a “fuck it, let’s just rampage” attitude.
Sure, but again - if you murder people at a music festival and take hostages, even if you might have reasons to do so - you can expect quite a lot of people to not be on your side. The only thing for sure is that terrorists won that one.
Sure, but again, if you indiscriminately kill innocent people in Gaza and destroy the very last university, even if you might have reasons to do so - you can expect quite a lot of people to not be on your side. The only thing for sure is that Israel won that one.
Absolutely. Not sure why you would think I don't understand the hatred Israel is getting.
The only thing for sure is that Israel won that one.
Not sure what Israel won, despite making sure there will be another generation of Palestinian freedom fighters with rather questionable methods.
I wasn't making a statement about you, I just wanted to demonstrate the statement can be made in any way.
I agree, Israel bred the Hamas of tomorrow for sure. But they did win in terms of getting closer to turning Gaza into a settlement.
I wasn’t making a statement about you, I just wanted to demonstrate the statement can be made in any way.
But you were responding to a actual person, me. So it would have helped if you clarified it wasn't about me - don't you think?
Israel bred the Hamas of tomorrow for sure. But they did win in terms of getting closer to turning Gaza into a settlement.
Even that sounds to me like a win for the terrorists - but I can see, people have different view.
It's directed to you. It just makes no statements about you personally, just responding to your opinion. Hope that clarifies it.
The terrorists won that one? Not sure they'd agree. I guess they thought they were going to retreat into the tunnels and nobody was going to blow the tunnels up on top of them.
The concept of terrorism in general. Once again it was able to achieve an escalation of violence and therefore create more terrorism.
So in your view there is no such thing as just war? Any war is terrorism?
How on earth did you arrive at this conclusion?
You said escalations of violence cause terrorism.
Any just war is an escalation of violence if nothing else.
Therefore by your logic, a just war causes terrorism.
The implication by your logic is that no war should be had so as not to cause terrorism.
I would agree if you said all war causes vengeful losers to resort to desperate acts of violence against innocent people. I do not agree that a just war should be called off because the enemy on the receiving end of that justice will probably lash out in its death throes. That would be called negotiating with terrorists.
If you are worried about more terrorists, I agree bombing terrorists causes more terrorists, but negotiating with them opens the floodgates. And it's not like we don't have enough bombs.
You said escalations of violence cause terrorism.
No, I said quite the opposite - that escalation of violence is the goal of terrorism. But I would agree that escalation of violence tends to create more terrorism, with the caveat: if the original conflict is not resolved in some manner.
Any just war is an escalation of violence if nothing else.
I have no idea what you mean by just war. But I would disagree that any war is just escalation of violence. Wars mostly have rather clear objectives.
The implication by your logic is that no war should be had so as not to cause terrorism.
Nope. That's not implication of my logic. But yes, in most cases wars will produce terrorism if the underlying conflict is not resolved. The underlying conflict might get resolved by war or intelligent occupation strategy (interesting to take a look at west and east Germany in that regard, especially in the context of the rise of the AfD, new german nazi party).
You don't understand the concept of just war?
I don't know what you specifically mean by it. People tend to have wildly different definitions. I for my part would struggle to call any war just, but for sure there is a spectrum of more and less justifiable reasons for and methods to conduct a war.
Two wrongs don't make a right. A county based on abrahamic religion should know that. It just proves that they don't actually believe in their own religion and only hide behind it whenever it's convenient for them, like saying anybody who disagrees with them supports Hamas.
Two wrongs don’t make a right
Absolutely agree.
A county based on abrahamic religion should know that
Dude, have you seen all the shit countries based on abrahamic religions have done through out the history?
ike saying anybody who disagrees with them supports Hamas.
And the other side says that anyone disagreeing with them is a genocidal nazi. I would say the whole discussion at this point is rather heated and fucked up.
I mean, Israel is committing genocide, that's not up for debate here.
And people who disagree with you?
They're either ingnorant or shills.
Do you think this about all people who disagree with you - or just on this particular topic?
I forgot the third one, trolls.
Must be great to live a simple in a simple world where you are always right.
Don't cut yourself in that edge kid 😂
I'm not your kid, pal.
Which Abrahamic religion are you referring to?
If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. (Leviticus 24:19-21)
What happens if you take both eyes? And the eyes of their family and their neighbors and the people didn't the street? Is that allowed or?
What happens if every single firstborn Egyptian son is killed overnight? Is that evil?
Religions don't always give the answers you might expect.
Well, did my family join Hamas and then force me to stay to die as a martyr inside a building that Israel just told us they were going to bomb?
I think I'd be fine with the US not calling that genocide. If they did I hope they'd at least blame the actually responsible party.
Hahaha. Nice fiction story.
Try doing some research. Pick one of your Isreali genocide crimes and research it top to bottom. See where you got it wrong. Maybe after you do you won't just repeat what you heard from on online news website.
Oh sure do you want the map of 2,000 pound bombs craters in residential areas? The statements of the Israeli government? Or maybe the evidence the IDF tends to shoot anyone not wearing an IDF uniform?
I've done the research.
Oh I've seen that map. Now do the one with the overlay of Hamas's tunnels system.
Or are you one of these people who, every time something blows up, you believe it when Hamas comes out and says 450 civilians were killed and zero members of Hamas were present and western ragebait media airs the story of "reports of 450 dead civilians killed in indiscriminate IDF airstrike."
Meanwhile the medical community says there are 50 dead and IDF says half of them were Hamas and IDF publishes the recordings of the cell phone call warnings it placed to every active phone in a three block radius.
Some of the time, some of the dead must be members of Hamas. And it's for this reason that Hamas has no credibility on reporting these things, and why Israel is more credible.
That's what the IDF claim are military tunnels. Hardly reliable when they decided any tunnel entrance in an urban area was a target.
The hospital was built by Qatar and then Qatari state media ran a story "disproving" that it was a tunnel. Stop posting bullshit from Al Jazeera. It's not a source of valid information.
Even if Hamas was lying about there being some of their number present at a given airstrike, how many Palestinian lives are worth sacrificing to hit one Hamas?
Every time a terrorist or nut job takes a building full of innocents hostage in nearly any other society, people who are trained to minimize casualties are brought in. With the way the IDF is handling their invasion, they would more likely bomb a building because there might be a terrorist, and that's giving them a significant benefit of the doubt that they aren't just explicitly killing innocent Gazans.
The IDF trains to minimize casualties and their tactics for doing so are taught all over the free world. There is no army more experienced in fighting an enemy that uses civilians as human shields in order to get international aid and sympathy. It's called lawfare.
Then where is the negotiation? The surgical strikes done only when they know exactly where the terrorist is? Where is the care for the former hostages that survive the encounter? The days-long standoff, where no action is taken for fear of killing Innocents? If the IDF were so good at it, why are they doing nothing we've come to expect of a professional anti-terror team? What of the harassment of even the people fleeing Gaza? How is that not anything less than genocide? They should be better than this, and you should too.
Good questions. I think your first impressions were not accurate and now you're dug in. You keep seeing half stories and "reports" that sound significantly worse than they actually are, especially with regard to "bombing safe zones" and "indiscriminate bombing," and that further entrenches your initial, malformed opinion. It happens.
And in fact this is Hamas's exact plan. Here are the actual facts and history on this tactic:
Whether there should ever be negotiations with terrorists, even to exchange hostages, is a matter of debate and many countries including my own, have a longstanding policy of not doing so. I think the reasoning is obvious but if you need me to explain say so.
You mean paid by Israel to pretend to be a terrorist so they would have an excuse to wipe away the final remnants of the war they have been fighting for about 80 years?
I'm not going to comment on whether or not Hamas' attack was genocidal, because even if they meant it to be, I just don't they have the capability. but like... Israel is bombing fucking hospitals and refugee camps inside the strip. That's not how you go about "avoiding civilian casualties".
the only side worth supporting here are the civilians caught in the middle.
Right. I'm with the civilians on both sides.
Excuse my ignorance but has Israel actually bombed a hospital?
Thanks. I assumed hospitals would get damaged in the fighting but I did not know some of them were literally flattened
There was a 12 year old girl that had her leg blown off at home by an IDF airstrike and her family killed.
When she was lying amputated in the hospital bed, an israeli tank shell blew her head off.
For real? They bomb a different one like every other fucking day.
Literally all of them. There's only the Nasser hospital in Khan Younis left but it's barely functioning as it's completely overwhelmed, and Khan Younis has been besieged for days. There were 36 in total
I think that shows that this is not the issue that is going to really hurt Biden. What will hurt him is if the economy for the average person hasn't improved by election day. And I doubt it will. So I sure as fuck hope he doesn't lose to Trump.
But the news keeps telling me life is improving for the average American. The News.
this is not the issue that is going to really hurt Biden
That's not my reading of the poll:
35% say it is, 36% say it isn’t, with 29% undecided.
Almost half of those surveyed aged 18-29, 49%, say Israel is committing genocide, with 24% disagreeing and 27% uncertain.
The figures are broadly similar for registered Democrats, who believe 49%-21% in the genocide characterization, while 30% are undecided.
Half of all young people and half of all Democrats believe it's a genocide, with more undecided than disbelieving. Those numbers are not likely to get better as the IDF kills more Palestinians.
Biden's not likely to pick up republican votes based on this issue, but he is quite likely to drive down youth and democrat turn out by being out of touch with his base.
I think that shows that this is not the issue that is going to really hurt Biden.
How so?
Because it's not the issue people are caring the most about by any means.
No? Half of Democrats believe it's a genocide, while only 21% believe it's not. The rest are undecided. This is a big deal, because even if a tenth of the people who believe it's a genocide decide to stay home that's enough to lose Biden the election.
No, unfortunately, this issue is now actually going to hurt Biden. Opinions are shifting much more rapidly than expected, but unless it's overwhelming, he's in a no-win scenario. The best hope at this point is that opinion continues to change rapidly, and Biden follows suit. But even that's only damage control. Too many are against Israel's genocide to ignore, and too many are pro-Israel's genocide to ignore. Either way he's going to lose votes.
He could have threaded the needle by still supporting Israel , but stopping arms shipments and funds. But here we are. I still think he can steer the ship, but, yeah, he’s gonna lose votes. On the bright side, Trump’s numbers among Republicans are depressed too.
If that headline said one third of Americans don't believe Israel is commiting genocide which is also an accurate from the results it would set a very different tone.
It’s basically a three way split. 1/3rd yes, 1/3rd no, 1/3rd undecided.
"less than half"
"more than epsilon"
That still seems low.
Consider how out-of-touch vast swathes of Americans are on foreign affairs, or even on domestic affairs, and it's pretty reasonable IMO. I suspect a major chunk of the people answering this don't even know that anything significant has changed in the past few months and this "genocide/not-genocide" answer is just based on their vague general knowledge of the usual Israel/Palestine interaction.
Frankly, I think 1/3 answering "genocide" sounds positive to me. That's enough to perhaps make some politicians think "maybe I can't wholeheartedly throw complete support behind Israel and not have to worry about it having an electoral impact this time."
I'm guessing there are people who know it's a genocide, support it because it's a genocide, but won't call it a genocide for various reasons.
Some of them may even be Republicans. The ones I've seen mostly scream accusations and abuse if you say that Democrats shouldn't be supporting genocide.
You gotta pump those numbers up. Those are rookie numbers.
"believe"... Even 'positive' articles sneaks in some doubt in the headline. At least dobt your lyin' eyes, you pleb.
Then opinions are shifting. Good.
Another garbage YouGov propaganda piece. All my homies see right through YouGov's bullshit.
Or in other words, two thirds believe they don't, which is way more drastic.
35% say it is, 36% say it isn’t, with 29% undecided.
Seems the headline makes it seem that way, but in reality we seem to be having a close race
Imagine actually reading the article
/s
It seems some people don’t care. And I don’t blame them.
How do you not care about an ongoing genocide? Godamn people are so heartless. I thought we all said never again after the holocaust.
EDIT: Admittedly, if you're not from the US or a country heavily supporting Israel, then there isn't a lot you can do about that, and I get tuning out a little.
I don't think it's that they don't care. More likely it's that they can't make up their minds. This whole conflict is kind of like Iran attacking Russia and then people coming to me asking which one I'm rooting for.
Yes. It’s an overly complicated issue with no real good practical and moral answers.
TBF that includes republicans.
In other news: 2/3rds of Americans are retarded.
As I understand the term genocide, that seems not to exactly be what is happening here. Although one could say it certainly rhymes with it.
2/3rds of Americans aren't fucking morons based on this reporting. Still a scary number of idiots.
Then it was a poor sample.
What makes you think that? Just because you believe it is genocide (and I believe it is genocide) doesn't mean the majority of Americans do.
Like it or not, a lot of Americans, especially a lot of the devoutly Christian ones, are big supporters of Israel.
Why do you think pro-Israel politicians keep getting elected? They don't make a secret about their stance on Israel. Some of them even brag about it.
1,659 is a fine sample size?
1500-2000 is fine. They use random sampling and weighting. A larger sample size would decrease the margin of error but wouldn't significantly alter the results. A margin of error of +/-3.1% is fine for this kind of snapshot of public opinion.
Considering we have a population of 331,464,948, I would say it’s not lol
I personally think we’re committing genocide, but I would imagine a sample size that is under 1% of the US population is small
A sample size of 1,659 out of a population size of 334,914,895, with a population proportion of 50% and confidence level of 95% gives an error margin of 2.41%.
1,659 is a fine sample size.
Humans are very bad at intuitively visualizing statistics.
If there's anything I would not fault somebody about, it's misunderstanding sampling in a statistical sense. Just about the biggest case of "plug into formula and pray" of all of my classes I took. I'm looking back and it's just Greek letters to me now...
Oh yes, it's not meant as a slight. It's just something that humans need to be aware of. Just like how we need a forklift to move a one-ton object, we need to run calculations and trust the math when doing statistics.
That's not how sample sizes work.
They are certainly celebrating this mass delusion in Iran. I guess they figure Russia managed to fool the US into authoritarianism, why shouldn't Iran take a turn?
Fuck, that's so low.
Propaganda is a powerful tool.
way down at the bottom here::
opt in polling from web based "interview". So, probably. nobody even remotely tech savy (aka has an ad blocker) ever participated. but anyhow... here's what pew research has to say about the effects of interview mode:
ultimately, the legitimacy of the poll would depend on where they solicited their subjects in the poll. You're likely to get a far different answer with advertisements on Truth Social than you would with advertisements on, lets say, a palistinian-american subreddit. but that wasn't addressed in the report, so. we'll never really know.
Opt-in polling is so bad. It means you only get answers from people with strong opinions. They are polls where the results are shaped like a U instead of a bell curve so it rarely represents the actual 95 percentile.
I don't think it's opt-in in that way though. They have a pre-existing list of millions of pre-screened people and they're selecting a representative sample from that list. Fivethirtyeight ranks them fairly highly among other polls -- certainly high enough for this opinion poll to be considered accurate.
Fivethirtyeight only grades them on their ability to predict american election results. I don't think that's the same as advocating for their efficacy in producing leading public opinion polls.
You’re right, kinda. Issue polling is generally better than horse race polling and YouGov is no exception.
It's a serious issue when there's a clear political bias in the founders. They put more effort into steering the narrative than objectively reporting it.
Sure, and were there a clear bias your comment would have value.
If you haven't seen any clear bias then you probably have a close enough outlook to them to not notice. And that's fine, I don't require everyone to have the same opinion as me for their comments to have value.
My impression of bias is probably born out of the leading polls that rightwing media and thinktanks in the UK commission them to do. You can fairly argue that these polls are externally commissioned so their tenor is a product of their issuer not yougov. But the overall impression I got was that they could be readily depended on to produce misleading propaganda against labour when it wasn't being run by corporate technocrats.
It's still selecting from a list of people who have something to say, though.
As far as how accurately they represent broad swaths of america... well, that's a different matter. I would expect your average american to be far more luke warm to any given subject than respondents to a poll.
That's probably just a problem with polls though -- people who won't answer aren't included. But they're saying that 26-32% of Americans are "unsure," and that sounds pretty lukewarm. Their methodology does sound odd to me too but if it was flawed it would show in the election data, right? Elections are a brutal testing ground. Hundreds of surveys have been predictive and high quality on average.
Agreed on all of that.
I would have guessed 1/3 are “wtf! stop it”, a 1/3 are “bomb them harder!” And then there’s everyone else just doing their thing, going to work. Going to school.
Pretty easy now to see how Nazi Germany got away with it.
They didn't even have social media back then to help spread misinformation. People were so quick to believe anything they heard someone say loudly.
I know, right. These past 7 years have really made that clear.
My parents are in the other two thirds
By vote or volume?
no, most of us just know what a genocide actually is
The other ⅔ apparently have their head in the sand .
"It's just a sparkling massacre"
"It has to be in the correct region of Germany."
Is this a reference?
Yes, about how champagne must come from the Champagne region of France, otherwise it's just sparkling wine. I don't know where the exact quote comes from though
It also references Germany, since the word "genocide" was invented to describe the Nazi crimes against European Jews (the Holocaust).
Explaining things for the slow children takes away from the humour.
There are worse atrocities in life
Like relativistic equivocation?
for something that's been so extensively memed I would have thought Knowyourmeme would have an entry for this. I'm not finding one, though. Even a "research paper" about the subject doesn't pin down the earliest time it was used in this way.
It's just a factoid. The quote itself in this form seems to be from Wayne's World.
Yes, to the anti-semite police who will tell you with a straight face that you're making the Holocaust seem better than it was by calling anything else a genocide.
So at least 1/3 are paying attention
So at least 1/3 have brain damage.
There's no justification for Hamas' terrorism, nor is their justification for Isreal's genocide.
They don't care how loudly you condemn Hamas. Scream it till you're blue in the face and they'll just call you a Hamas sympathizer anyway.
Among the standard litany of accusations, gaslighting, condescension, and abuse that people who support genocide use instead of defending their position. Because they know their pro-genocide position is indefensible.
1/3 think there isn't a genocide in Gaza so yes.
Israel is blocking aid organisations from buying food, water and medicine in israel and transporting it through the Ker Shalom crossing. Forcing everything through the extremely slow Egypt crossing which they are actively holding up. If they wanted to prevent weapon smuggle then they should love it going through Ker Shalom
I cannot think of a single possible explanation other than israel trying to starve Gazans and commit genocide. How are Americans this brainwashed?
This isn't limited to the US. What are Israeli citizens doing? Personally i think the US should just stay the fuck out of it and take back whatever stuff we can that we gave them. Cut off support and actively denounce, but they won't.
Propaganda. An abysmal education system. Failing social structures. Corrupt media. Networks of the wealthy using their influence to push society in the direction they desire.
Succinct and profound. You just summed up 5 books in 1 sentence.
Imagine you, your friends and your family get killed and washed away from your land, and 2/3 of US people don't believe it's genocide.
Actually 1/3 said it is genocide, 1/3 said it isn't, and 1/3 said they didn't know. Also, only1/3 of Americans saying this is a genocide isn't great, but it does represent a huge shift in opinion in a short time. Both our political parties support Israel, our news media doesn't cover Palestinians very sympathetically, and our education system tells a very favorable version of Israel's founding (most Americans don't even learn about the Nakba). I don't think criticism of Israel has ever been this mainstream (at least in my lifetime).
That means
I see what you're trying to say, but that's not really true. You could say, "2/3 of people would not say they thought it was a genocide," but that's not the same as saying, "2/3 do not believe it's genocide."
It's a small but important distinction. It's the equivalent of saying, "1/3 of people are religious, 1/3 of people are atheist, and 1/3 of people are agnostic," and then trying to say that means, "2/3 of people don't believe in God," instead of, "2/3 of people aren't religious."
Average Us public have no clue what is going on in their own country, it is actually amazing there 1/3 know at least there is a genocide taking place.
Murdering people at a music festival and taking hostages might have an effect on public perception.
The problem is, before they wemt on that murdering spree, the western world pretty much ignored their plight, or maybe tutted when they chucked a rocket or two over the border. But any kind of "proper" political solution was flatly ignored. It's not a justification, but I have to say that I umderstand why that situation led to a "fuck it, let's just rampage" attitude. And look, they actually have a tonne of eyeballs and attention on their shitty situation (and shitty leaders), so maybe something will come of this. Palestinians are paying an exorbitantly heavy price for it, though.
Reminds me of this.
She's got the energy we all need if we're ever going to eat the rich.
Thanks. I’ve never seen the embodiment of my anger like this. Well done.
Sure, but again - if you murder people at a music festival and take hostages, even if you might have reasons to do so - you can expect quite a lot of people to not be on your side. The only thing for sure is that terrorists won that one.
Sure, but again, if you indiscriminately kill innocent people in Gaza and destroy the very last university, even if you might have reasons to do so - you can expect quite a lot of people to not be on your side. The only thing for sure is that Israel won that one.
Absolutely. Not sure why you would think I don't understand the hatred Israel is getting.
Not sure what Israel won, despite making sure there will be another generation of Palestinian freedom fighters with rather questionable methods.
I wasn't making a statement about you, I just wanted to demonstrate the statement can be made in any way.
I agree, Israel bred the Hamas of tomorrow for sure. But they did win in terms of getting closer to turning Gaza into a settlement.
But you were responding to a actual person, me. So it would have helped if you clarified it wasn't about me - don't you think?
Even that sounds to me like a win for the terrorists - but I can see, people have different view.
It's directed to you. It just makes no statements about you personally, just responding to your opinion. Hope that clarifies it.
The terrorists won that one? Not sure they'd agree. I guess they thought they were going to retreat into the tunnels and nobody was going to blow the tunnels up on top of them.
The concept of terrorism in general. Once again it was able to achieve an escalation of violence and therefore create more terrorism.
So in your view there is no such thing as just war? Any war is terrorism?
How on earth did you arrive at this conclusion?
You said escalations of violence cause terrorism.
Any just war is an escalation of violence if nothing else.
Therefore by your logic, a just war causes terrorism.
The implication by your logic is that no war should be had so as not to cause terrorism.
I would agree if you said all war causes vengeful losers to resort to desperate acts of violence against innocent people. I do not agree that a just war should be called off because the enemy on the receiving end of that justice will probably lash out in its death throes. That would be called negotiating with terrorists.
If you are worried about more terrorists, I agree bombing terrorists causes more terrorists, but negotiating with them opens the floodgates. And it's not like we don't have enough bombs.
No, I said quite the opposite - that escalation of violence is the goal of terrorism. But I would agree that escalation of violence tends to create more terrorism, with the caveat: if the original conflict is not resolved in some manner.
I have no idea what you mean by just war. But I would disagree that any war is just escalation of violence. Wars mostly have rather clear objectives.
Nope. That's not implication of my logic. But yes, in most cases wars will produce terrorism if the underlying conflict is not resolved. The underlying conflict might get resolved by war or intelligent occupation strategy (interesting to take a look at west and east Germany in that regard, especially in the context of the rise of the AfD, new german nazi party).
You don't understand the concept of just war?
I don't know what you specifically mean by it. People tend to have wildly different definitions. I for my part would struggle to call any war just, but for sure there is a spectrum of more and less justifiable reasons for and methods to conduct a war.
Before that murdering spree it was just other murdering sprees all the way back. Suicide bombings, bombing medical convoys. Hamas are terrorists.
Nobody is denying Hamas are terrorists.
But I doubt many people would act differently given the same circumstances.
This person... It never sticks with them. They think we are opposed to the IDF committing genocide because we like Hamas lol
Seems like people are denying that though. Got people all over Lemmy sucking Hamas off and copy and pasting Iranian disinformation.
Boooooo. This existed before Hamas.
Booooooo
Two wrongs don't make a right. A county based on abrahamic religion should know that. It just proves that they don't actually believe in their own religion and only hide behind it whenever it's convenient for them, like saying anybody who disagrees with them supports Hamas.
Absolutely agree.
Dude, have you seen all the shit countries based on abrahamic religions have done through out the history?
And the other side says that anyone disagreeing with them is a genocidal nazi. I would say the whole discussion at this point is rather heated and fucked up.
I mean, Israel is committing genocide, that's not up for debate here.
And people who disagree with you?
They're either ingnorant or shills.
Do you think this about all people who disagree with you - or just on this particular topic?
I forgot the third one, trolls.
Must be great to live a simple in a simple world where you are always right.
Don't cut yourself in that edge kid 😂
I'm not your kid, pal.
Which Abrahamic religion are you referring to?
What happens if you take both eyes? And the eyes of their family and their neighbors and the people didn't the street? Is that allowed or?
What happens if every single firstborn Egyptian son is killed overnight? Is that evil?
Religions don't always give the answers you might expect.
It's all made up and the points don't matter!
Well, did my family join Hamas and then force me to stay to die as a martyr inside a building that Israel just told us they were going to bomb?
I think I'd be fine with the US not calling that genocide. If they did I hope they'd at least blame the actually responsible party.
Hahaha. Nice fiction story.
Try doing some research. Pick one of your Isreali genocide crimes and research it top to bottom. See where you got it wrong. Maybe after you do you won't just repeat what you heard from on online news website.
Oh sure do you want the map of 2,000 pound bombs craters in residential areas? The statements of the Israeli government? Or maybe the evidence the IDF tends to shoot anyone not wearing an IDF uniform?
I've done the research.
Oh I've seen that map. Now do the one with the overlay of Hamas's tunnels system.
Or are you one of these people who, every time something blows up, you believe it when Hamas comes out and says 450 civilians were killed and zero members of Hamas were present and western ragebait media airs the story of "reports of 450 dead civilians killed in indiscriminate IDF airstrike."
Meanwhile the medical community says there are 50 dead and IDF says half of them were Hamas and IDF publishes the recordings of the cell phone call warnings it placed to every active phone in a three block radius.
Some of the time, some of the dead must be members of Hamas. And it's for this reason that Hamas has no credibility on reporting these things, and why Israel is more credible.
That's what the IDF claim are military tunnels. Hardly reliable when they decided any tunnel entrance in an urban area was a target.
Lol remember when there was a hospital hatch they showed and claimed was a tunnel opening and it turned out just to be a water tank
The hospital was built by Qatar and then Qatari state media ran a story "disproving" that it was a tunnel. Stop posting bullshit from Al Jazeera. It's not a source of valid information.
Even if Hamas was lying about there being some of their number present at a given airstrike, how many Palestinian lives are worth sacrificing to hit one Hamas?
Every time a terrorist or nut job takes a building full of innocents hostage in nearly any other society, people who are trained to minimize casualties are brought in. With the way the IDF is handling their invasion, they would more likely bomb a building because there might be a terrorist, and that's giving them a significant benefit of the doubt that they aren't just explicitly killing innocent Gazans.
The IDF trains to minimize casualties and their tactics for doing so are taught all over the free world. There is no army more experienced in fighting an enemy that uses civilians as human shields in order to get international aid and sympathy. It's called lawfare.
Then where is the negotiation? The surgical strikes done only when they know exactly where the terrorist is? Where is the care for the former hostages that survive the encounter? The days-long standoff, where no action is taken for fear of killing Innocents? If the IDF were so good at it, why are they doing nothing we've come to expect of a professional anti-terror team? What of the harassment of even the people fleeing Gaza? How is that not anything less than genocide? They should be better than this, and you should too.
No need to ponder about how the IDF would handle this, since we now know that some of those killed on October 7th were Israelis who fell victim to the IDF that sometimes shot at anything that moved
Wow friendly fire in the chaos of mass shootings? Have you ever heard of the felony murder rule?
Is it not the long standing official policy of Hamas not to wear military uniforms so as to confuse the enemy and increase their "martyrdom"?
Good questions. I think your first impressions were not accurate and now you're dug in. You keep seeing half stories and "reports" that sound significantly worse than they actually are, especially with regard to "bombing safe zones" and "indiscriminate bombing," and that further entrenches your initial, malformed opinion. It happens.
And in fact this is Hamas's exact plan. Here are the actual facts and history on this tactic:
https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf
Whether there should ever be negotiations with terrorists, even to exchange hostages, is a matter of debate and many countries including my own, have a longstanding policy of not doing so. I think the reasoning is obvious but if you need me to explain say so.
You mean paid by Israel to pretend to be a terrorist so they would have an excuse to wipe away the final remnants of the war they have been fighting for about 80 years?
See, I can make things up as well.
Probably because of all the genocide they're doing.
Holy shit brah are you a detective
67% said a ceasefire should only happen if the hostages are released and Hamas is removed from power
83% said October 7 was a terror attack, including 74% of those aged 18-24
80% said they support Israel over Hamas, including 57% of those aged 18-24
69% said Israel was trying to avoid civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip and 66% said Israel was just trying to defend itself
74% said Hamas’s attack was genocidal
https://harvardharrispoll.com/
this is depressing.
I'm not going to comment on whether or not Hamas' attack was genocidal, because even if they meant it to be, I just don't they have the capability. but like... Israel is bombing fucking hospitals and refugee camps inside the strip. That's not how you go about "avoiding civilian casualties".
the only side worth supporting here are the civilians caught in the middle.
Right. I'm with the civilians on both sides.
Excuse my ignorance but has Israel actually bombed a hospital?
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/01/middleeast/gaza-hospitals-destruction-investigation-intl-cmd/
Thanks. I assumed hospitals would get damaged in the fighting but I did not know some of them were literally flattened
There was a 12 year old girl that had her leg blown off at home by an IDF airstrike and her family killed.
When she was lying amputated in the hospital bed, an israeli tank shell blew her head off.
For real? They bomb a different one like every other fucking day.
Literally all of them. There's only the Nasser hospital in Khan Younis left but it's barely functioning as it's completely overwhelmed, and Khan Younis has been besieged for days. There were 36 in total
Depressing. Mainstream media is such a cancer.
I think that shows that this is not the issue that is going to really hurt Biden. What will hurt him is if the economy for the average person hasn't improved by election day. And I doubt it will. So I sure as fuck hope he doesn't lose to Trump.
But the news keeps telling me life is improving for the average American. The News.
That's not my reading of the poll:
Half of all young people and half of all Democrats believe it's a genocide, with more undecided than disbelieving. Those numbers are not likely to get better as the IDF kills more Palestinians.
Biden's not likely to pick up republican votes based on this issue, but he is quite likely to drive down youth and democrat turn out by being out of touch with his base.
How so?
Because it's not the issue people are caring the most about by any means.
No? Half of Democrats believe it's a genocide, while only 21% believe it's not. The rest are undecided. This is a big deal, because even if a tenth of the people who believe it's a genocide decide to stay home that's enough to lose Biden the election.
No, unfortunately, this issue is now actually going to hurt Biden. Opinions are shifting much more rapidly than expected, but unless it's overwhelming, he's in a no-win scenario. The best hope at this point is that opinion continues to change rapidly, and Biden follows suit. But even that's only damage control. Too many are against Israel's genocide to ignore, and too many are pro-Israel's genocide to ignore. Either way he's going to lose votes.
He could have threaded the needle by still supporting Israel , but stopping arms shipments and funds. But here we are. I still think he can steer the ship, but, yeah, he’s gonna lose votes. On the bright side, Trump’s numbers among Republicans are depressed too.
If that headline said one third of Americans don't believe Israel is commiting genocide which is also an accurate from the results it would set a very different tone.
It’s basically a three way split. 1/3rd yes, 1/3rd no, 1/3rd undecided.
"less than half"
"more than epsilon"
That still seems low.
Consider how out-of-touch vast swathes of Americans are on foreign affairs, or even on domestic affairs, and it's pretty reasonable IMO. I suspect a major chunk of the people answering this don't even know that anything significant has changed in the past few months and this "genocide/not-genocide" answer is just based on their vague general knowledge of the usual Israel/Palestine interaction.
Frankly, I think 1/3 answering "genocide" sounds positive to me. That's enough to perhaps make some politicians think "maybe I can't wholeheartedly throw complete support behind Israel and not have to worry about it having an electoral impact this time."
I'm guessing there are people who know it's a genocide, support it because it's a genocide, but won't call it a genocide for various reasons.
Some of them may even be Republicans. The ones I've seen mostly scream accusations and abuse if you say that Democrats shouldn't be supporting genocide.
saw this one making the rounds the other day, I think it's quite fitting https://twitter.com/SaeedDiCaprio/status/1750152798623195473
I saw that Freudian slip, good job 👍
The realisation in that "Oh!" is just 👩🍳^👌❤️^
LMAO
You gotta pump those numbers up. Those are rookie numbers.
"believe"... Even 'positive' articles sneaks in some doubt in the headline. At least dobt your lyin' eyes, you pleb.
Then opinions are shifting. Good.
Another garbage YouGov propaganda piece. All my homies see right through YouGov's bullshit.
Or in other words, two thirds believe they don't, which is way more drastic.
Seems the headline makes it seem that way, but in reality we seem to be having a close race
Imagine actually reading the article /s
It seems some people don’t care. And I don’t blame them.
How do you not care about an ongoing genocide? Godamn people are so heartless. I thought we all said never again after the holocaust.
EDIT: Admittedly, if you're not from the US or a country heavily supporting Israel, then there isn't a lot you can do about that, and I get tuning out a little.
I don't think it's that they don't care. More likely it's that they can't make up their minds. This whole conflict is kind of like Iran attacking Russia and then people coming to me asking which one I'm rooting for.
Yes. It’s an overly complicated issue with no real good practical and moral answers.
TBF that includes republicans.
In other news: 2/3rds of Americans are retarded.
As I understand the term genocide, that seems not to exactly be what is happening here. Although one could say it certainly rhymes with it.
2/3rds of Americans aren't fucking morons based on this reporting. Still a scary number of idiots.
Then it was a poor sample.
What makes you think that? Just because you believe it is genocide (and I believe it is genocide) doesn't mean the majority of Americans do.
Like it or not, a lot of Americans, especially a lot of the devoutly Christian ones, are big supporters of Israel.
Why do you think pro-Israel politicians keep getting elected? They don't make a secret about their stance on Israel. Some of them even brag about it.
1,659 is a fine sample size?
1500-2000 is fine. They use random sampling and weighting. A larger sample size would decrease the margin of error but wouldn't significantly alter the results. A margin of error of +/-3.1% is fine for this kind of snapshot of public opinion.
Considering we have a population of 331,464,948, I would say it’s not lol
I personally think we’re committing genocide, but I would imagine a sample size that is under 1% of the US population is small
A sample size of 1,659 out of a population size of 334,914,895, with a population proportion of 50% and confidence level of 95% gives an error margin of 2.41%.
1,659 is a fine sample size.
Humans are very bad at intuitively visualizing statistics.
If there's anything I would not fault somebody about, it's misunderstanding sampling in a statistical sense. Just about the biggest case of "plug into formula and pray" of all of my classes I took. I'm looking back and it's just Greek letters to me now...
Oh yes, it's not meant as a slight. It's just something that humans need to be aware of. Just like how we need a forklift to move a one-ton object, we need to run calculations and trust the math when doing statistics.
That's not how sample sizes work.
They are certainly celebrating this mass delusion in Iran. I guess they figure Russia managed to fool the US into authoritarianism, why shouldn't Iran take a turn?