teuniac_

Next time reddit screws up in a high profile way, and they will screw up, the fediverse will be ready.

And it doesn't seem entirely impossible that our Elon Musk fanboy Steve will screw up again.

I won't be surprised to read in the future:

• Reddit Introduces Its Own Version of X's (Formerly Known as Twitter's) Blue Checkmark
• Backlash After Reddit Strikes Exclusive Deal to Provide Trainingsdata to OpenAI
• Reddit Introduces Paid Membership Options for Communities
• Something Money Grabbing Reddit Related

I am sorry you lost several loved ones. I can't imagine what that must be like.

Hopefully, while grieving, you won't be stuck in anger for much longer. The people that you have lost wouldn't want children to pay the price for your country's revenge.

Of course you want Hamas to be brought to justice, but there are many people like you and I in Gaza that are just trying to live a life free of violence. Hamas might kill indiscriminately, but they are a terrorist/radical group. A country must not sink to their level, especially a democratic one.

Nothing will make it easier for Hamas to find new recruits than large numbers of people in Gaza who are grieving their lost ones: and so the cycle of violence continues.

What do you think raping and massacring people at a music festival is going to do?

Nothing, just cause more suffering. But this isn't a bad guy vs good guy argument. The point that's being made is that extremism tends to be a product of its environment.

Please note that this is not an anti-Israel line of arguing.

Conditions in Gaza are terrible and many people have lost loved ones during their lives there. It creates an environment where extremism can flourish. It's not a certainty, but the probability is just much higher in environments that are severely deprived.

The actions of Hamas are inexcusable, and Israel will surely want to bring them to justice. But after that it's time to acknowledge that if conditions in Gaza are kept as poor as they are, the chances of this type of violence happening again are almost guaranteed. It's also in the interest of Israel to allow and facilitate improved conditions in Gaza.

Such an enlightening argument.

I guess then it was an excellent idea to shoot up a music festival.

/s

Agreed, equating them is just penalty inflation.

A more productive focus would be:

1. that those who have been shown to accept bribes are actually removed from their position prosecuted successfully.
2. Transparent governance with independent watchdogs so that corruption is harder to hide.

It's okay not to know. English is spoken in a lot of different places in different ways. I doubt that in your 40 years you've explored this.

Google Trends shows that it's most popular in Malaysia and the Philippines, relative to its use in other countries.

This is the point of the fediverse.

But users expressing their opinion about the policies of the Lemmy servers they use is part of that

To be fair, extremism flourishes when conditions are bad. Hamas is potentially a product of these conditions, or at least partially. If both peoples would be afforded better conditions, they might seem less incompatible than the two groups seem at the moment.

About time the Palestian issue is put back on the agenda. Strangely enough, Israel is doing everything they can it seems to make that happen.

Let's be clear that this is Hamas though, it's not correct to say that it's Palestine, regardless if the actions of Hamas are supported more broadly.

I just can't fathom how it wouldn't also have helped Hamas' cause by forbidding any form of sexual violence.

It would have helped their cause if it had been possible to draw comparisons between them and Israel: both kill lots of civilians. But the reports of rape and other sexual violence just makes it impossible to feel anything but disgust.

I think there are few things on the other side of the spectrum that you might have missed.

*Mumbles sometimes about books in the US*

The Gaza civilians voted Hamas into power.

Still civilians though. And, not all of them did. All in all it's madness to equate the entire Gaza population with the perpetrators the way that Israel is currently doing.

I feel the same way. She is also way too well known for any expert to be fooled into thinking it's going to be a serious interview

Happens when roaming abroad with some UK simcards too

It's not that far fetched. It works the other way around as well.

Israel has much more freedom to do what it pleases in terms of its illegal settlements if the other side appears violent and unreasonable. Occupying Gaza creates a breeding ground for extremists, but could be considered an acceptable status quo for Israel as it's impossible to find broad support for Palestine if it's associated with extremists.

I wrote this on Reddit to argue against someone who suggested that Israel's response is justified, given that Hamas won an election. Here's what I responded:

There are several significant issues with your reasoning:

1. Voting has never implied being responsible for the crimes of your government.
2. There have not been elections since 2006. The Gaza Strip does not have a democratic system. This further challenges the argument that the population should pay some kind of price.
3. Hamas won the elections by taking 74 of the 132 seats in parliament. This means that 60 seats were for non-hamas participants of these elections. Consequently, many people who are trapped in Gaza and want nothing to do with Hamas are being punished/killed.
4. About 50% of the Gaza population is under 15 years of age. Attacking Gaza in this way should never have been on the table given these demographics.

In other words, the average voting age isn't too relevant.

Sorry maybe I sounded a bit harsh. I think we're on line here, but to be sure. I mean that the average voting age in 2006 could be an interesting detail when doing an analysis of the origins the current situation. So would other themes that played a role in the campaign before the election. I remember reading about this that the corruption of the alternative parties was an issue for voters too.

But when it comes to justifying huge numbers of civilian casualties, it's a pretty well established principle that civilians can never directly be held accountable with violence for the actions of their government. So that means that we don't need to engage with arguments about whether voters knew what they were getting into or any specifics about the election. Because doing so would be giving in to your opponent (in a hypothetical debate) and you'd be undermining your own position.

Maybe my points have the same problem. But since people who support the bombings don't seem to care about international law, I felt like these were a good second line of defence.

Taiwan is a full democracy, not a flawed one. At least according to the widely respected Economist Democracy Index.

Taiwan is more democratic than Canada and Germany. And a lot more than the US, but that's not surprising.

You say that probably because many components in it look like common sense.

"Duh, of course the response to a problem should be to rectify it" (simplifying slightly)

Lots of companies don't though. Or they jump to a conclusion about the best solution. Or some middle manager decides he knows what's best and then proceeds to break things.

It's quite useful to have a philosophy that gives authority to non-traditional but logical steps.

I mean, that's what people do with models and methodologies right? In my language English terms are used when using an English methodology.

Kaizen comes from Japan, was developed in Japan, and it was quite successful there. It's not that strange to copy it word for word.

The idea behind it is quite different from what tends to happen in traditional Western companies. Since companies want to be better than their competitors and organizational change is hard, it makes sense to look for ready-made tools, rather than try to reinvent the wheel.

Of course, since (organizational) change makes many employees nervous, depending on how the organization goes about it Kaizen could get a bad name.

How can you say Six Sigma is bullshit?

It's literally just a method of identifying a problem, measuring and analyzing its impact, and implementing a lasting solution.

The difference between the six sigma method and traditional organizations is that:

• Six sigma gives power to experts (instead of middle managers), * It involves staff who are actually doing the work
• It tests solutions before they're implemented
• It acknowledges that many things can't be forced top-down by the boss