Propaganda isn’t just about true vs. false - it’s about framing. And the pattern across your posts is consistent: Israel has “legitimate security interests,” yet Palestinians “fucked up” and are an “uppity group” that by “being uncompromising has cost them dearly” - as if the occupied are responsible for calibrating how much dispossession to accept. Your whole argument boils down to - they were invaded by Zionists and they lost so they should just stop fighting and accept whatever scraps Israel gives them

You’ll hide behind “Palestinians deserve a better life” but that’s how atrocity apologia always works: you don’t have to deny it, you just have to make it sound reasonable.

Sure you can dismiss this video as a propaganda piece featuring a traitor to the Palestinian cause. However I find this a fascinating peek into a reality, that’s rarely seen.

This is an actual propaganda piece by an explicitly zionist organization made up from current and former IDF personnel.

https://idsf.org.il/en/about-us/

OUR MISSION We are a Zionist, security-based movement, whose aim is to position Israel’s security as the top national priority, in a manner which ensures the sovereignty of the Jewish people in their homeland for generations to come.

Our understanding of Israel’s security inherently includes actively countering antisemitism and anti-Israel propaganda, recognizing these as direct threats to the legitimacy and security of the State of Israel.

To achieve this mission, we have established a diverse movement led by women and men, senior officers from all branches of the defense forces, researchers, academics, as well as civilians from throughout Israeli society. We are focused on spreading the message that Israel’s security, including the fight against antisemitism and anti-Israel bias in all their forms, must be a determining factor in State policy.

Building power in our proto-branches hasn’t been without its challenges. Hundreds of members in Bristol and Islington alone have signed up, but we can’t connect with them because HQ won’t give us their data. Around 60,000 people – more than have been members of a UK socialist party since the second world war – have been paying dues for months, and proto-branches have no access to that money nor clarity on where it’s going. We’ve tried to make contact with HQ to advertise meetings, grow the branch and support members, but received no response. The Grassroots Left slate we’re standing on will change that on day one, delivering members’ data and money back to them, rather than hoarding it at the top

Two competing slates have emerged: The Many, backed by Jeremy Corbyn; and The Grassroots Left, backed by Zarah Sultana, on which both of us are standing.

The Grassroots Left has endorsed both Corbyn and Sultana as co-founders, because this is not a clash of personalities between the two, as some believed it was last summer. This is about resolving a political and ideological difference about what the party should be. Do we want Your Party to be a top-down imposition of Labour 2.0? Or do we want it to be a democratic, member-led, socialist party capable of bringing about the systemic change we so desperately need?

hmm sounds rather divided but would be interesting to see

you self host your own claude llm? damn and here i thought a 14B deepseek ollama instance was good shit - how did you get access to their proprietary weights?

tldr;

Set that minimum TTL to something between 40 minutes (2400 seconds) and 1 hour; this is a perfectly reasonable range.

I like that this meme implies women and enbies write immaculate code and never regret what they’ve written before 😎

actually I do think aggregated sublemmies would be a good thing for engagement and content discovery - it seems silly that there are 4 different communities all about the same thing (eg buyfromeu)

a very respected Arab leader

you mean the guy who was caught taking £1bn in bribes from BAE for the Al-Yamamah arms deal? the guy who reportedly funded Fatah al-Islam terrorists in Lebanon? the saudi intelligence chief nicknamed “Bandar Bush” because he was so deep in the pockets of the American war machine? that’s your credible source on Palestinian leadership failures?

sorry I don’t have time to go point by point why you’ve presented a very one sided story that conveniently omits the main reason why Arab states feel reluctant to support the Palestinians - the fact they’ll have to go against the US empire and its buddies which economically and militarily outcompete them - your posturing around how its the Palestinian authorities fault they can’t have allies under an active occupation turned genocide just shrugs away responsibility from the ones that have real power onto those that have extremely limited options of resistance.

that’s a whole load of words to victim blame and say the Palestinians brought this upon themselves and that they deserve everything they’ve gotten and that it could be worse since their main “allies” are doing “worse” genocides in other countries so they should feel lucky…

huh? that’s literally not the point of apologies? they’re explicitly about taking responsibility, acknowledging harm done, expressing genuine remorse and committing to real actionable change.

the issue in the OP is when people say “I’m sorry about the orange cheeto - I didn’t vote for this you don’t deserve to be treated this way” - this is useless and performative and serves to mostly make the person apologising feel better.

instead a real apology would take ownership and commit to action: “I’m sorry I didn’t do more, and here’s what I’ll do going forward (mobilise, organize, agitate, etc)”

and even then it might still not make a difference and people might still hate you but we don’t fight fascists to win or to feel better about ourselves but because they are fascists…

which is also bing…

lol at this being “nonpolitical”

wow bald youtube man is clapping back

What is VanillaOS again?

I guess my point is that from the perspective of the oppressed the distinction between “democracy” and “fascism” is functionally meaningless.

I feel your point is that in the abstract “law and order” isn’t inherently fascistic, but in practice what difference does it make? One group enacts centralized violence against another, fully in line with the laws that they themselves have set. To the in-group, this is legitimate law and order. To those targeted, it’s fascistic oppression.

So then are the people fascist, or does the system create fascistic outcomes even when people think they’re just supporting “law and order”?

https://files.catbox.moe/tgxqa7.mp4

i mean that was somewhat tongue in cheek but law enforcement is fundamentally the state’s way of enacting violence in line with whatever it’s leaders see fit - which imo at the very least has fascistic elements.

would you say that killing almost exclusively Arab and African people, tear gassing, shooting and brutalizing protestors because they disagree with governmental policies is not in any way fascistic?

what about the french national police massacring hundreds of peaceful Algerians explicitly due to racism, with full governmental support and subsequent censorship, led by Maurice Papon, an actual Nazi coraborator who deported thousands of Jewish people to concentration camps only to spend 4 years in jail 30 years later (while serving in government all that time) - would you call that a rule of law that applies equally to everyone?

at what point do we look at these “individual incidents” and start questioning the whole system of oppression?

so a fascist symbol…

but even then people who can’t produce either can’t be simply classified into what they were “supposed” to produce without involving karyotypes or other sex characteristics, which the paper you linked explicitly argues can’t be used for sex definition:

Here I synthesize evolutionary and developmental evidence to demonstrate that sex is binary (i.e., there are only two sexes) in all anisogamous species and that males and females are defined universally by the type of gamete they have the biological function to produce—not by karyotypes, secondary sexual characteristics, or other correlates

so for someone with complete gonadal dysgenesis:

• they produce no gametes
• their sex is defined by… which gamete they have the “function to produce”
• we determine this function by… looking at their chromosomes (XY = male function, XX = female function) or other correlates

but then this is circular:

• if sex is defined by gamete function
• and gamete function can only be identified via determination mechanisms in non-gamete-producing cases
• then determination mechanisms are also doing the definitional work

and I feel your lacking-an-arm comment doesn’t really apply here as humans aren’t solely defined by how many arms we have - the analogy would only work if:

• sex were defined like humanity - as a cluster of traits with gametes being just one feature
• but the paper explicitly rejects that (arguing the monothethic model is the only true one when the polythetic clearly covers more cases)

but I think the bigger question this whole biological definition/determinism sidesteps is the one that seems close to heart of the very-same intersex people linked in that Wikipedia page:

Paradigms for care are still based on socio-cultural factors including expectations of “normality” and evidence in support of surgeries remains lacking.

“Nearly every parent” in the study reported pressure for their children to undergo surgery, and many reported misinformation.

The report calls for a ban on “surgical procedures that seek to alter the gonads, genitals, or internal sex organs of children with atypical sex characteristics too young to participate in the decision when those procedures both carry a meaningful risk of harm and can be safely deferred.”

when these things affect human beings we can’t try to wash our hands by clinging to models that seem to give us simple answers - if we insist on monothethic definitions that don’t recognize the complexity of sexual development - we end up forcing ambiguous cases into boxes and providing intellectual cover to deny people agency over their own bodies.

but what about ovotesticular people? if they can produce both gametes what determines their sex? based on what gamete they were “supposed” to produce? but how do you determine what they’re “supposed” to produce? chromosomes? phenotypes? a combination of all of these? but then we’re back at square one where gametes may be binary but sex isn’t?