204
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2025
204 points (99.5% liked)
news
24135 readers
918 users here now
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Did we just start wwiii
WW3 has been ongoing for a few years now
a now 30-year post-soviet sengoku jidai even
Sengoku like the one piece character?
Son goku like
kind of, but in the sense that oda is a goat and named the one piece character "Warring States" (literally). the warring states period or sengoku jidai was the period of japanese history prior to the edo era, and was ended by Oda Nobunaga's overthrow of the Ashikaga Shogunate
Word ty for the background, had no idea!
it's pretty interesting history! reading about that period and the meiji restoration is also pretty interesting in the context of one piece. i would actually argue that the wano arc is essentially oda asking "what if the meiji restoration wasn't reactionary?"
New Cold War
depends who wins whether this started it or if the reaction to it starts it.
No, it's Switch 2 that's out now
I've been coming around to the historical framework that views World War 1 as the end of the world and we're living in what amounts to the apocalypse
Any interesting reading on that you can share?
No idea sorry, it's just a vibe I ascribe to
There's a difference between killing a general and bombing 3 nuclear reactors
I will beat you the fuck up
Is that where you want to split hairs on this issue? You don't get anything for being technically correct.
Again, why are you splitting hairs in this situation? The main issue with this is that the US bombed another country, escalating an already tense international conflict.
Will the damage to infrastructure be different? Yes.
Will the act be seen as a lesser act of war? I don't think so.
Yes, it's good to be precise with statements.
It's also good to deliver precise information in a way that does not imply further misinformation. Take this statement:
If you reply with "It's not X", you inadvertently imply that nothing has happened. "It's Y, not X" does not have the same implication.
It's shifting focus away from the main issue at hand. Yes, in the future, I'll speak accurately about the attacks, but your point is purely academic when we're talking about the material conditions around a bombing.
The problem is that bad faith actors often attempt to discredit one's argument overall when they are not 100% accurate about the facts.
If I were making a formal statement in a professional setting, I'd want to be as accurate as possible, but on a forum post where the issue is one country bombing another, correcting someone on the nature of the bombings' targets isn't adding to the discussion in the same way.
I don't mean to attack you, but read the room.
I'm not offended - I just wonder where your priorities are.
You asked a question and I tried to explain why focusing on correcting details can derail a conversation when the consequences and response would likely be materially similar.
I mean I don't see an Iranian politician looking at the bombing of an enrichment site by the US and finding it much better than bombing a reactor. Do you?
And then you asked what is wrong with telling the truth on an issue, which I answered. I don't think you the person are dismissing the situation, but it's a common media tactic to use any inaccuracy as an excuse to dismiss an otherwise cogent point.
For example when describing war crimes as genocidal in another country, the media might refer to them as not technically being genocide according to international law. They are still war crimes, but if the writer of such an article made a retraction based on such a technicality, readers may doubt there were war crimes at all.
This is a consistent tactic used to pull attention away from important details.
If you're interested in learning more about this, so you can spot in the wild, I can link you to relevant articles and podcasts.
This is such a weird thread and your tidbit of correction was totally inoffensive and benign
Fordow and Natanz are enrichment sites, and Isfahan is a research reactor, the impact of bombing these sites is not the same as it would be if an operational power reactor was bombed. This is not a minor correction, and significantly impacts how the events should be interpreted. Everyone who responded negatively to this needs to self-crit, the response here is embarrassing.
bombing either reactor or enrichment site is equally reckless af
fair that assassination seemed like it would've back then but it did not
They attacked Iranian forces outside of Iran, that's a little different.