Does one side disregarding the Geneva convention mean the other is free to do so?
I mean yeah if both conventions revolve around the same thing, like for instance if the same hospital is both a sanctuary for civilians but also being used by soldiers. A more general whataboutism is another thing.
Some kind of a supporter here, I guess. Or let's say that I'm so much anti-Hamas that it's logical to be a bit anti-Palestine and pro-Israel.
Legality of Israeli settlements
Some of those settlements are not legal and israelis should leave those areas.
Article 51 of the Geneva convention prohibits indiscriminate attacks on civilian population yet Israel attacked hospitals with children inside.
It's questionable if this applies when the other side violates other Geneva conventions by using the hospitals for military activity.
I thought the level of discourse has increased sharply since lemmy.world got along, and the effect of lemmy.ml's somewhat extremist stance has lessened. It's now possible to mostly actually talk here without blocking half of the whole network.
So I would be perfectly ok with dropping lemmy.ml from the rest of the network. But I'm guessing that goes somewhat against the overall philosophy of the whole thing? I don't suppose the idea of federation was to create even stronger bubbles.
Just like the far right, everything's just reflection for you guys? The horseshoe is real.
Twitter isn't capitalism, nor is Elon Musk. He says "I love capitalism" in the same way as Emperor Palpatine says "I love democracy!"
Well yes. There's a smart kind of leftism too. The kind they had in the 70s and 80s. But it's not very mainstream right now.
Ok, so how would you reconcile these two things into one better theory:
Do you throw it all away because of that 1%?
Literally all the insurances are like this. If yours isn't, why are you paying for it?