This article is so fucking funny. "Yes, Ansar Allah said they're responsible for this attack, yes, all the evidence points towards them being responsible for this attack, but are we really sure it was them, really?" It really feels like whoever wrote this piece is really trying to minimize how capable Ansar Allah are, especially since they blame "human error" (by the Israelis) for the lack of warning about the attack when Ansar Allah has said this is a new type of drone that is undetectable by radar.

I guess I'm just more willing to take Ansar Allah at their word than whoever wrote this article, and I find it deeply amusing how much hedging you have to do if you refuse to believe that Ansar Allah is capable of doing the things they say they're doing.

(Civility is a long-standing bit account here at hexbear. The whole shtick is replying with happy emojis when people are being civil but awful and angry emojis when people are being morally principled but uncivil. Check out Civility's post history to see what I mean)

Hahahaha, this is what made me quit twitch, for good. I'll do the same with YouTube. It'll suck, yes, but it'll ultimately be good for me and my mental health. 3 years from now I won't miss YouTube.

Huh, Jonathan Chait likes charter schools. He says so in this terrible article. Well, he doesn't seem to want to use the phrase "charter schools", instead just talking repeatedly about "school reform". Which is indeed a euphemism for wanting charter schools, as I had to click a link to learn.

Why use a euphemism here? Why not just say you're in favor of charter schools? Is he embarrassed about it? But then why say anything at all? I'm puzzled

That article came out February of last year? How am I only seeing it now?!

The Onion is top notch

So, uh, OP, did you just post a link to your own subscription required blog?

You wrote a shitty post starting from one tiny bit of incredibly poorly sourced data and then making sweeping essentialist claims about gender. Then you posted your shitty piece here, behind a paywall!

Are you hoping that people from here will subscribe to your medium on the basis of the three paragraphs of dogshit we can read before the paywall cuts off the rest?

Have I mischaracterized your post in some way? Please tell me if so.

Ah. My bad, I shouldn't have mentioned "two-party" at all. The issue with our electoral system is that it's a bourgeois electoral system, not that it happens to have two parties.

I'm going to push back on just one thing you've said, which is that you don't think anyone could change any minds here. That's blatantly false. I have my mind changed all the time, and I've seen it happen with other people on here too. We're willing to have our minds changed and we understand that we're fallible and other people know more than we do about various things.

I think maybe what you meant to say is that you understand that hexbears can't be convinced to go back to being libs. And that's true. I'll never again think that the Democrats are anything other than my enemies. I used to think they were my allies, but I've changed my mind and I see now that they never were and never will be. So in that sense I guess you're right, but politics is so much bigger and more complicated than just red vs blue, elephant vs donkey.

Free yourself from the two-party bourgeois democracy you were born into. You're young, you have so much learning to do and so much time in which to do it! Lurk here and actually read the things people post. I've learned so much from my fellow hexbears and I hope you will too.

I get my dissenting opinions simply by existing in the society in which I exist. The hexbear "echo chamber" as you put it is small and powerless. This place is a tiny refuge, a brief respite from all the shitiness I see in my day to day life.

Hexbear isn't an "echo chamber" in the same way the republican media circuit is, because we have to leave it. Republicans never do. They can read articles and watch talking heads and never once be challenged on their beliefs. As a communist, I'm challenged on my beliefs every single day. Most articles I read and most talking heads I watch disagree with me.

We respond to lost libs like you for a few reasons. One is maybe we'll change a mind, not necessarily yours but perhaps a lurker reading the conversation. Another is entertainment. It's really funny when someone wanders in here and is the living embodiment of the memeing we do. Sometimes we want an argument, usually because we're having a shitty day and just want to be an asshole on the Internet. This isn't a good motivation and I wish it didn't happen, but it does. None of us is immune.

You're getting responses not because we're unused to being challenged, but because we want to respond to you for whatever reason. My response here is explaining our inner workings so hopefully you can come away from this thread seeing us as people with ideas that we believe. We haven't been tricked into thinking as we do, most of us go against the grain of our societies to come to our beliefs. I want to change a mind today, ideally yours, and I've chosen a gentle tone full of candor to try to do so. Will it be effective? I have no way of knowing, but I hope so. Please realize we're not bots or russian agents or trapped in a cult or whatever, we're humans with thoughts and experiences that have led us to our beliefs.

But "Zionist" doesn't mean the same thing anymore, and I bet he doesn't fully grasp what he's identifying with in a modern sense.

So we're in the position where a sitting US president is making speeches using words he doesn't understand? Wow, that does not seem great. Maybe we should have a president who knows what words mean, you know?

Also, I have to admit, I don't care if someone has genocide as a goal or not. I care a bit more about their actions. Will a person's actions lead to more genocide? If so, then I think that person should be removed from power, immediately, regardless of what they think about genocide.

zifnab's comment has links to:

• The Washington Post
• A paper from Duke University
• The Guardian

These seem to me like sources that wouldn't usually be prominent in facebook conspiracy theory groups.

Can you please tell me what the issue is with zifnab's comment? Why do you feel like the comment would be more at home in a facebook conspiracy theory group?

The source for this? Radio Free Asia interviewed one (1) anonymous person.