36
submitted 3 months ago by Linkerbaan@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, says countries who advocate women’s rights must ‘walk the talk’, applying their principles consistently and without selective advocacy by avoiding arms transfers that facilitate the killing of Palestinian women by Israel.

Pregnant women, mothers and young girls are particularly vulnerable, she explains, as they face a sharp increase in miscarriages, malnutrition, and severe dehydration due to the dire circumstances.

“Mothers and would-be mothers have been targeted by the genocidal machine,” explains Alsalem. “They cannot even feed their newborn kids, not to mention the terror and desperation they feel because of the constant need to flee seeking safety in a place where there is no safety, the bombardments, the constant attack, the arbitrary executions, destruction of their families, family homes and with it the photos and items commemorating their family lives.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago

I can only acknowledge being unbanned if I can acknowledge being justly banned in the first place.

Surely you can prove your claims.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

40 minutes until you’re re-banned unless you admit you were unbanned. This is not negotiable.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago

I see no reason to appease someone who tacks on conditions to his previous comment.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.)

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Well, I've said what I thought I should say. So I'm happy to butt out of your conversation now.

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Also, that link didn't work for me, not sure why.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

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

this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
36 points (70.9% liked)

News

23274 readers
1235 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


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.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


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 1 year ago
MODERATORS