36
The silence on Gaza from countries with feminist foreign policies ‘is deafening and deeply troubling’
(www.middleeastmonitor.com)
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 13 Aug 2024
36 points (70.9% liked)
News
37266 readers
1061 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You lying in the mod logs about things that never happened does not make it true.
I edited my previous comment with a link for you about Luxembourg have fun reading.
It absolutely happened. This is such a silly lie. You were also warned multiple times that you would be banned if you didn't stop defending the Houthis from recruiting child soldiers.
And now you're lying that you never defended them? You can't even be consistent in your political beliefs?
Can you quote the part where I defended the Houthis using child soldiers? Oh wait you can't because that never happened you just make things up.
According to this logic if someone says they like Joe Biden forgiving student loans that means they are supporting the Genocide in Gaza.
But of course it doesn't, because you only separate the action from the actor when the actor is a white liberal. Suddenly you discover nuance and all colors of gray.
Tell you what, you agree with this factual statement and I'll unban you:
The Houthis are child-killing war criminals.
That comment is factually correct.
But I still support the Houthi's blockading the Red Sea.
If you had only said that before, you would not have been banned in the first place. You were given multiple chances to say that. I will, however, unban you.
I expect your next thing will be to insult me for doing that too, so go for it.
I literally said they were using drone boats not suicide bombers for their attacks in the red sea. Your imagination must have taken a wild turn.
Let me help you clarify how the hard to accept reality works.
The Houthis are child-killing war criminals.
Iran are child-killing war criminals.
Joe Biden is a child-killing war criminal.
Donald Trump is a child-killing war criminal.
Saudi Arabia are child-killing war criminals.
Luxembourg are child-killing war criminals.
Russia are child-killing war criminals.
China are child-killing war criminals.
Hamas are child-killing war criminals.
America are child-killing war criminals.
Hezbollah are child-killing war criminals.
And we can keep going. Judging any group for their past actions is a fools errand.
Insults. As I predicted.
You could have at least acknowledged that I unbanned you.
If you provide me with the comment where I defended the Houthi's using child soldiers I'll acknowledge you unbanning me.
If you're going to pretend you weren't unbanned, I can go ahead and ban you again... No point unbanning someone who won't acknowledge that they are no longer banned.
Up to you.
Edit: I'll give you an hour. If you don't want to admit you're unbanned by then, I guess you didn't want to be in the first place.
So just to be clear you admit that there was no evidence for banning me and you lied about the reason?
The hour is running out. All you have to do is acknowledge you are no longer banned.
I can only acknowledge being unbanned if I can acknowledge being justly banned in the first place.
Surely you can prove your claims.
40 minutes until you’re re-banned unless you admit you were unbanned. This is not negotiable.
I see no reason to appease someone who tacks on conditions to his previous comment.
23 minutes.
Well... you made your choice. You could have literally said something like, "It's about time you fucking unbanned me you complete and utter asshole," but you clearly would prefer to complain about being banned than being unbanned. No point unbanning someone who doesn't want to be unbanned.
Hah, I kinda can't believe I read through this drama, but I did.
Squid, as an outside observer, I saw this:
You are both offended. Considering that aspect alone, this is a hard position to find a resolution from.
This ban seems to have been the result of a single comment thread where you assert that he was lying about facts. He asserts that he was not. I'm sure there's more nuance, but there was a disagreement, I think that's the gist of it.
You made a peace offering of sorts, offering to unban him if he jumped through a hoop and admitted a fact you thought he was denying. He had no problem jumping through that hoop and he clarified his position. Though he also claimed there was no wrongdoing in the first place and challenged you to specify the wrongdoing that occurred. That's him going on the offense, implying that you did something wrong. In response you ignored his question and moved the goal post. And then the combination of his stubbornness and your defensiveness resulted in him being banned again.
So, I get that he's being stubborn, but he is also being honest. You are not really being honest. Continuing to argue your point while holding the ban over him and requiring him to make more concessions or else... That's not really fair.
He decided to pretend he was still banned. I decided to make that fantasy a reality.
We could have talked about his problems with me after he abandoned that fantasy. He decided not to.
Well I guess to spell it out more bluntly, I think you're being unreasonable.
I also think it's obvious that he wasn't pretending he was still banned, he simply wasn't moving on because he didn't feel he should have had to essentially apologize for something he didn't do. What he wanted was recognition that the claimed reasoning for the ban was wrong.
Unbanning him at that point was great, but he still wanted more. Perhaps expecting more was unrealistic for him, but he wanted more, that's why he was still arguing.
So I don't know, probably just dropping it at that point may have been the right thing, but banning him again was petty.
And, again, I would have talked to him about his recognition the moment he acknowledged he was unbanned.
And if you want to talk about pettiness- https://lemmy.world/post/18628323
(The idea that I'm a Zionist is hilarious though.)
Well, I've said what I thought I should say. So I'm happy to butt out of your conversation now.
Also, that link didn't work for me, not sure why.
That would be because it was so petty and stupidly vindictive that not only did it get deleted, the whole community got deleted for lack of moderation.
So he reposted it here and started attacking other mods too: https://lemmy.world/post/18634532
I think you should join them, so you can block the red sea together. I am pretty sure you would enjoy life in Yemen.