disagreement != conflict
It’s not semantics, I think the social and cultural elements of being an immigrant are interesting. And I found that by talking to people who disagree with me, it improves the chances of learning something new.
Didn’t know trying to analyze the things posted here or voicing a different opinion is frowned upon here. How about:
What a boomer, he’s so stupid! Fuck Dean Cain!
(If you think that’s unfair, these are all upvoted posts)
Err… Superman’s an immigrant because the parents of both his creators were immigrants? Is that actually what you’re saying?
His parents sent him to Earth to have a better life (any life at all really) - Right, that was my main dilemma. Not saying you’re flat out wrong, but I think ‘immigrant’ exists in a cultural and social context. Let’s go over some examples:
If he were human, the government would consider him an immigrant - Legal status is irrelevant.
Superman didn’t have to translate things to his parents because he knew English better than they did, his upbringing didn’t give him an outsider insight to the culture that surrounded him, he doesn’t have an accent or not can code switch from English to Kryptonian, he isn’t viewed as different by his peers. He was raised as a whatever-generation farm boy from Kansas.
He does have Kryptonian heritage, which would make him closer to second generation immigrant. Just like his creators.
Well, Ackchyually…
The “Superman isn’t an immigrant” is a bad faith argument… but I think it’s technically correct.
Being an immigrant implies intent of moving from one country to another, which Superman didn’t have. Especially since he came to earth as a baby and has no ties to krypton. I wouldn’t call someone who was born in another country and was adopted as a baby into another country and immigrant.
Superman does explore themes of immigration from its conception. Though it’s worth noting that if viewed from this perspective, it’s a very old fashion American model of immigration, that might be viewed negatively today - he adopts his American upbringing in every meaningful way, especially his values, while his own culture is abandoned (nearly?) completely.
Supergirl, on the other hand, is an immigrant.
Oh, come on…
From the link: “Video game available on Steam allows players to simulate being a Hamas teroist who k*lls Jews in the Old City of Jerusalem while shouting ‘Allahu Akbar,’” the account posted. In November, Nijm released an update called the “Operation al-Aqsa Flood Update,” which alludes to Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel by having Palestinian fighters paragliding into an Israeli military base.”
Fair enough. Have a good one.
No. You have given an opposite example.
I said “Would you be against […] a game glorifying the IDF as it fights against Hamas terrorists in Gaza?” (and I would link to that if I could figure out how to do that…).
The main part of your message is just you saying “Israel are Nazis!!!”, which is besides the point.
Panzer Corps probably glorifies Nazis as well.
Great. as I said earlier - I’m willing to put $1000 that this game doesn’t glorify Nazis, and $100 more that it actively makes it clear to the player that while the game is played from the Nazi perspective, the game isn’t intended to glorify Nazis. Would you be willing to take that bet?
Bliutzkrieg Poland: Heroes of the third reich” has a very explicit context. The third reich specifically refers to nazi Germany.
Sorry, but if you think “panzer corps” doesn’t specifically refers to Nazi Germany, that’s on you. The first line from Wikipedia reads: A panzer corps (German: Panzerkorps) was an armoured corps type in Nazi Germany’s Wehrmacht during World War II.
You just said you’d be okay with glorification of “theoretical” Nazis, but not if they hadn’t committed multiple war crimes, countless atrocities, murdering and incarcerating people based on mental health, ethnicity and sexual orientation. No, the thing you’re most with is that they didn’t have a good enough reason to invade Poland.
I lost interest in talking to you.
I’ve already given that example earlier…
What other comment?
Okay, let’s put that another way:
Do you agree that “Knights of al-Aqsa” probably glorifies Hamas?
Do you agree that “Panzer Corps” probably does not glorify the Nazis?
If you answered “yes” to both questions, do you understand the difference between both games?
If the Nazis had legitimate grievances against the Polish? Maybe.
Who decides what’s “legitimate”?
Parts of Poland belonged to the second Reich, but were taken away by force in the aftermath of WWI. From the Nazi perspective, they had every right to claim them back.
Edit: Wait, what just happened? Did you actually say saying you’d be okay with a game glorifying the Nazi invasion to Poland if they “had legitimate grievances against the Polish”? WTF?
Your premise is flawed in that it assumes everything a Palestinian resistance fighter does is terrorism that can’t ve glorified.
My premise assumes that every Hamas fighter that crossed into Israel on Oct. 7th is a terrorist. The “resistance fighters” that attacked military bases are the same people who raped party goers, burned to death civilians in their homes and kidnapped men, women, children and the elderly to be used as a bargaining chip and human shields.
Would I be for a ban of Fatah fighters attacking IDF bases? Maybe, maybe not. I probably wouldn’t argue over it with strangers on the internet, for what that’s worth.
Would you object to an Irish-made game that allows you to play as the IRA and car bomb the British?
Depends. is it called “Knights of the IRA” or glorify the IRA in any way? Then I would support the ban. Because the they were a terrorist movement that targeted civilians. Why would you even ask that? Are you seriously okay with glorifying terrorists if you happen to agree with their goals?
I’m willing to put $1000 that this game doesn’t glorify Nazis, and $100 more that it actively makes it clear to the player that while the game is played from the Nazi perspective, the game isn’t intended to glorify Nazis.
I said “glorifying the Nazi invasion”, not “play as a German soldier in World War 2”. These are two very different things. Why the hell do I even have to explain this?
The game is called “Fursan al-Aqsa: The Knights of the Al-Aqsa Mosque”. How about a game called “Bliutzkrieg Poland: Heroes of the third reich”? In what store can I buy that one?
Let’s flip the question around.
Would you be against a video game glorifying the Nazi invasion to Poland if it didn’t show Nazis killing civilians?
How about a game glorifying the IDF as it fights against Hama’s terrorists in Gaza?
Huh?
The smartphone improvements hit a rubber wall a few years ago (disregarding folding screens, that compose a small market share, improvement rate slowed down drastically), and the industry is doing fine. It’s not growing like it use to, but that just means people are keeping their smartphones for longer periods of time, not that people stopped using them.
Even if AI were to completely freeze right now, people will continue using it.
Why are people reacting like AI is going to get dropped?
And those Hezbollah operatives can lose their pagers
And you can lose your car keys. But if someone asked you where they were, you wouldn’t say “Oh, they’re in a random place”.
or they themselves can move randomly through populated areas with the hidden bomb strapped to their hip
The explosive charge was small enough to seriously harm only those who are in direct contact with it. There’s a video of one charge going off in the middle of grocery shopping (speaking of your next point) with a person standing maybe 20 cm next to the explosion. That person was able to run away without apparent harm.
They never go to buy groceries, or stop at a hospital or school, or have their devices stolen or lost in some random location
There’s no method of warfare that would never harm civilians.
a manner that has absolutely no mechanism by which to control where they actually are and who else is in proximity to them when detonated.
The pagers being bought by Hezbollah is the mechanism. Did you mean a real-time mechanism? Is this what it boils down to? Edit: Sorry, I misread what you said. Changing my reply to: As you can see from the video, where they are and who is next to them isn’t really a factor. I would agree that if they are in very close proximity to another person (hugging them of maybe riding in a crowded public transport), the explosion will probably harm the other person. Once again, relative to other methods aimed against targets operating among civilian population, this seems more selective, not less.
No one is forcing to to reply. I’m continuing it because to me the operation was extremely selective in which people it targets relative to modern warfare among civilian infrastructure, and I’m trying to understand the counter argument.
I did
OK, it took me a while to understand this, and I’m assuming you meant “I do have some criteria”. If you meant something else, I can’t even guess what it was.
after the bit you cherrypicked.
Ah, my bad. I mistook the “pagers that will randomly move around a populated area” part as a purely rhetorical statement and my brain kinda swept it aside. Sorry. The explosives weren’t planted in a random batch of pagers. It was in a batch specifically meant for Hezbollah operatives. You could make the argument that some of the pagers got into non-Hezbollah hands (and obviously they did), but what you said is a gross and unfair exaggeration. Your criteria doesn’t apply here.
I don’t care in the least if anyone thinks I’m in cahoots with anyone; it won’t change that I’m in cahoots with no one.
Sorry, I was trying to say - Please don’t imply I might be willingly misunderstanding you when you’re not communicating clearly. Even your edit is somewhat unclear, as it isn’t evident if the part before the edit is still relevant.
how absolutely heartless and tragic […]
Wait, what? The prevalent criticism against the exploding pagers (both on Lemmy and other places) is that they’re akin to mines and are essentially terrorist attacks. Both of these thing are (at least somewhat) specific and objective, and that’s where we started the conversation. Going from that to “It’s heartless”, which is a very subjective description, seems to me like moving the goalpost.
Yes, of course it’s heartless and tragic. War is heartless and tragic. How else would you describe taking a kid who was in high school a few months ago, putting a rifle in his hand and telling him “See that other kid who’s just like you? go shoot him because he happen to be living on the other side of an imaginary line”?
Saying “Well, this heartless and tragic thing is acceptable but I don’t like that heartless and tragic thing” is arbitrary unless there’s an actual criteria. Either way you’re entitled to your own opinion, it’s just that earlier I thought you have some criteria or test.
Hillary Clinton: People are learning about what happened on October 7th from social media. Some of it is totally made up, some of it not at all representing what they claim to be showing. It’s a serious problem for democracy. Headline: Hillary Clinton Says Young Americans Are Pro-Palestine Because They Watch ‘Totally Made Up’ Videos of Gaza Horrors. Lemmy: Fuck Hillary Clinton. Also, MAGA are fueled by fake stuff they see on social media. Also, we can’t trust mainstream media.
It’s not a matter of being pro-Palestinian, or even who’s right. It’s a matter of being able to have a conversation with enough common ground.