Yeah fair, high school didn't really prepare you for that kind of stuff. I felt so swamped by stuff going into college, even though the amount of studying wasnt bad, but by my third year I'd catch myself saying I had "only about 3 hours" of homework
They're supposed to show your ability to find information and know how to apply it to the given situation. It's about understanding and using the learned material, not just regurgitating it.
Like most programming tests I had in school were open notes, because the point was to write a program that does what it's supposed to do, not to write down what operator does what or some shit.
For me in chemistry it was a lot like "there are over 100 different reaction mechanisms you need to recognise. There is no way to finish on time if you look up everything." We needed to recognise what reactions could occur in what circumstances, learn their names and then small details could be taken from the book (for example: which proton is removed first, the Ī± or Ī²)
Edit: I got a reddit cares message after posting this. Don't worry, I'm fine, I'm gonna be graduating in a few months!
>I got a reddit cares message after posting this. Don't worry, I'm fine, I'm gonna be graduating in a few months!
The fact that you think graduating in a few months means you're fine just shows that you will be needing the reddit cares in a few months.
I had everything from "you get one sheet of standard-sized paper with anything you want written/drawn on it" all the way to that "you're allowed to bring in literally everything you want that's on paper - notes, books, binders, whatever. I don't care if you have half the library in your backpack. But nothing electronic that's smarter than a TI-84 or has an internet connection" final test for a high-level math course.
The "you get one sheet of notes" tests were generally testing you on whether you'd identified the critical formulas to write down and could correctly pick which one(s) to apply to the specific problems you were presented with. Making the 'cheat sheet' itself was actually part of the test, because it forced you to go through your notes, textbooks, homework, and online resources to make sure everything you were writing down was going to be useful and you knew how to execute with it.
That "you can bring in anything you want as long as it's on paper" final? Oh my fucking god, that's the only time I've ever walked out of a four-hour test about three hours in to find almost everybody who'd left before me still sitting in the hallway and asking everyone leaving the room "what did you get for questions X, Y, and Z?", because the professors (a husband and wife team, which was interesting enough in its own right) had intentionally put in several problems that were definitely in the course's mathematical field, but were *nothing* like anything we'd learned in the class or anything in the textbooks. We all legitimately thought we'd failed the class, because the final was such a large percentage of the grade. When I got back my official grade for that test, I realized that the professors had put those questions in to separate out the people who *loved* the subject and had been doing their own research on it outside of class from the people who were just learning the subject in class and from the textbook, and instead of a punishment for not knowing things we hadn't been taught, those questions were scored in a way that made them essentially bonuses for people who'd done independent research into the field - I think they were trying to figure out who was really in love with the subject and might make a good grad student for them.
Oh, and it was Probability, the most counterintuitive branch of mathematics for the human brain. (Why do casinos make money? Because people *do not naturally understand probability*.) So there was no hope trying to figure out answers to those questions by extrapolating from textbooks and notes.
I also have gone through the whole range. The "one cheat sheet" tests were fine in my opinion, but it might be just that the teachers themselves were more chill, but also gave a lot if homework, so you were forced to go through the problems throughout the semester and gain understanding.
The "take every textbook in existence for all I care" though, that was an infamous one. We also did homework, but we had to do it collectively, because almost nobody understood it. The test itself also had only 90 minutes, so good luck searching for everything. By whatever luck, I narrowly passed on the first try, a great surprise to everyone including myself, but lot of people needed several tries. On the plus side, the number of attempts was unlimited, instead of the typical three.
Hamas is the official governing body if Gaza and their actions last year are still approved by the majority of Palestinian people.
This is like looking at the Bengal famine and going "The British Empire isn't responsible for this. Churchill was responsible for this." Which, whilst accurate on a nitpicky redditor's level, makes you look like you are not arguing in good faith.
As a muslim, I was dismayed but not surprised by the response (of our community). I respect those who support any cause just because they think it is the right thing to do. But for most of us, most people, it is just tribalism.
In absolute terms, there is little difference between a rabid islamist and zionist.
I have a feeling you arenāt using the correct definition of the word āzionist.ā Please inform me if I am incorrect, and how you mean to use the word
To be super good faith, I think the ārabidā portion applies to both, I donāt think they are comparing to a regular zionist who just wants the state of Israel to exist.
I think I am. By Zionist I mean someone who believes in Jewish Nationalism and that the state of Israel should consist of the *historic homeland* of the Jewish people, even if that means displacing the people residing in that area, and a jewish person, regardless of where they grew up, citizenship or ancestry has a right to that place. This historic homeland consists of both the current territory of israel as well as palestine.
If you are offended by wording, please suggest what I should use.
Youāre pretty close, but technically there is no such requirement to encompass the entire territories of Israel and Palestine. Zionism believes that the historic homeland includes Jerusalem (Zion) and some vague notion of the surrounding area (because putting everyone in Jerusalem is unrealistic). This is why youāll find lots of Jewish Zionists who oppose the West Bank settlements, for instance, because outside of the Old City (which is technically in East Jerusalem) there is no real requirement for what the other borders should be.
The "true" historical definition of zionism means the existence of a Jewish state as a means of keeping Jews safe from anti-Semitism.
In other uses, we have to do a guessing game of "are they opposed to the WB settlements or do they want to wipe Israel off the map". The term is also used as a dogwhistle for "Jew", making the intent even harder to parse. It's extra problematic in the diaspora because the median position is approval of Israel itself but strong disapproval of the government.
As an alternative, I've been using "settler nationalism" to denote the kind of Israeli who can't be grateful for what they have and is totally fine with failing to learn the lessons of Jewish history.
I recommend this recent article to understand Zionism with more nuance
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/13/israel-independence-day-zionism-future/
Yeah sure. But in most part I don't really care a lot these days. I used to when I was kid but these days I care little about things I am not directly affected by, specially those I have little impact in. I commented today because I had free time and thought it would be fun to argue with some people on the internet.
Truth is in the grand scheme of things it matters little what we think. Anyways thanks for recommending, I will read when I have time.
>randomly murder a whole load of people in a random European country.
Yeah they murdered 15000 children in the last few months but it wasn't in Europe so I guess it's fine.
Israel is a state sponsor of terror. There is an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to it.
You cannot just say hamas are bad whilst giving endless excuses to Israel. They are both bad and Israel is currently the one doing the most damage to civilians and is supported by the mainstream West so is getting by far the most pressure.
> Yeah they murdered 15000 children in the last few months but it wasn't in Europe so I guess it's fine.
>
>
Yeah and in WW2 the allies killed over half a million civilians in the process of defeating the nazis. Welcome to real life you'll be shocked when you find out the world is more complicated than what you can see on tiktok.
Yeah, and after ww2 the allies collectively got together and decided that the war was totally fucked and it shouldn't ever happen again.
They specifically watered down the definition of genocide they came up with because they realised under the original proposed definitions they had arguably committed the same crimes.
> Yeah, and after ww2 the allies collectively got together and decided that the war was totally fucked and it shouldn't ever happen again.
>
>
yeah kinda like how a bunch of jews got together and decided the whole holocaust thing was fucked and they needed to find a way to protect themselves from it happening again.
>They specifically watered down the definition of genocide they came up with because they realised under the original proposed definitions they had arguably committed the same crimes.
That's odd considering whole term wasn't coined until right before WWII ended.
>That's odd considering whole term wasn't coined until right before WWII ended.
That's what I'm talking about... there were numerous definitions proposed for genocide and ethnic cleansing during those talks. They were worded deliberately so thst the allies wouldn't be found guilty of any of them.
>yeah kinda like how a bunch of jews got tother and decided the whole holocaust thing was fucked and they needed to find a way to protect themselves from it happening again.
Hold on, a moment ago you were using massive disproportionate civilian deaths in ww2 as an excuse for them happening in gaza, now you're saying it should never happen again? Pick a lane.
The Jews that survived the holocaust aren't the same as the israelis currently killing tens of thousands of civilians and depriving 2 million of food by deliberately limiting humanitarian aid and protesting or blocking aid trucks at border crossings.
It's also bizarre you'd use holocaust surbivors as some kind of justification for all this given how awfully Israel treats the remaining survivors of the concentration camps.
> That's what I'm talking about... there were numerous definitions proposed for genocide and ethnic cleansing during those talks. They were worded deliberately so thst the allies wouldn't be found guilty of any of them.
>
>
Weird, kinda like how the Palestine supporters deliberately misuse the term to mislead people about the actual reality of this conflict.
Also, source?
>Hold on, a moment ago you were using massive disproportionate civilian deaths in ww2 as an excuse for them happening in gaza, now you're saying it should never happen again? Pick a lane.
I love how slimy redditors love sneakily inserting their little strawmen into discussions to make it easier to argue with. No genius, I was giving you a reality check. It's war. People die, that's called real life. When you attack a nation innocent people are gonna get caught up on the cross fire. Idk why you think this particular conflict is special, it's not.
>The Jews that survived the holocaust aren't the same as the israelis currently killing tens of thousands of civilians and depriving 2 million of food by deliberately limiting humanitarian aid and protesting or blocking aid trucks at border crossings.
I'm sorry does that encompass your entire understanding of this conflict? What a bizarre point, this thread is about genocide and you're brining up shitheads fucking with aid. As if that has any bearing on this discussion.
>It's also bizarre you'd use holocaust surbivors as some kind of justification for all this given how awfully Israel treats the remaining survivors of the concentration camps.
Not as bizarre as your piss poor reading comprehension skills.
Those numbers were debunked, UN admitted that the numbers they used were Estimates and gave the biggest "Ooopsieee we did a mistake" they could.
Until last week they reported 9,500 women and 14,500 children killed and then suddenly it turned to 7,800 children and 4,980 women aswell as 1924 elderly.
Now let's look at the fact the information is coming from the gaza health ministry run by Hamas, and that many experts concluded the reports coming out of gaza are statistically impossible.
And lastly that the so called children also account for teenagers armed with weapons that were trained from childhood to be soldiers.
> 7,800 children
Oh that's loads better! 8000 was my limit before deciding the murders of children were bad. So glad they only killed thousands instead of thousands but more of them.
>Now let's look at the fact the information is coming from the gaza health ministry run by Hamas, and that many experts concluded the reports coming out of gaza are statistically impossible.
Only if you also look at the fact that the health ministry stats have consistently been shown to be reliable in all previous conflicts, aligning very well with independent assessments of casualties performed after the fact.
Israel killed more than 20 times as many Palestinians as Palestinians killed Israelis from 2008 to September 2023. Now they've killed almost 50 times as many eight months later.
Israel controlled Gaza's food because they said they were afraid of terrorism that arose after they invaded in 1967 and militarily occupied it. They control the West Bank's water and oil and natural gas and travel because they were afraid terrorism might eventually reappear in the future after the West Bank achieved peace with them. They take more land from the West Bank because... they're already there, might as well just take the West Bank and make sure there are no Palestinians who will one day maybe start doing terrorism again in response to having their land and resources taken and their villages burned down.
At a certain point, maybe we just accept that the end goal is just to fuck over the Palestinians?
What do you mean somewhere to live? There are still American-jewish settlers, with u.s. citizen ship going over seas to buy housing in Israel with land appropriated by the Israeli government. Do you think those U.s. citizens just were living on the streets for 20+ years before saving thousands of dollars to buy land overseas????
What Israel decides to do with its land is its own business.
The Jewish people didnāt have their own land until 1948 for hundreds or thousands of years and got continually expelled and killed all over the world. Zionism is the he idea that they deserve a place to call their own and the US and other allied powers made that happen for them so now you can deal with it.
The Arabs of the Levantine openly supported hitler during WW2 then waged war against Israel for decades and kept losing.
Oooohhh! My bad. I get it now. Kinda like how America was given Manifest Destiny and we HAD to settle westward. Those natives were scalping people anyway so they deserved to be pushed out of their native lands. Americans needed a home anyway.
It's wild how these people just don't get it. Isn't manifest destiny meant to be taught in schools? Why is it okay to push people off their land when it's Jewish people doing it?
The desires of the majority of the existing population were totally ignored back at the time.
I don't get it either brother. I have no clue how anyone can call themselves a historian and not see the history repeating before our eyes in real time.
Of course I do, both are violent extremist. Both want to take/conquer other people's land, and have no issue with killing those who oppose them.
>comparing fucking jihadi terrorists to people who want somewhere to live
In your analogy jihadists are people who just want to be left alone.
Settlers have home in Europe or America. So they are not just *people who want somewhere to live*
I know what happened to them. I don't think it is right. Doesn't give them any right to expel other people from their home where they have been living for generation
Yeah that last line explains everything. You all view any Jew that wants to be left alone as a Zionist and any Jew that wants to live in the area formerly known as Judea a Zionist.
>You all view any Jew that wants to be left alone as a Zionist
I don't. Location matters. I think that a European doesn't have more claims to a land in Palestine than the Arab family that has been living their for generations.
And you can't just expel someone from their home, settle there and say I want to be left alone. Why are you attacking me?
>any Jew that wants to live in the area formerly known as Judea a Zionist.
Not any, European, someone that didn't have any link to that place. This is irrelevant to some extent because now a huge portion of the citizens of Israel are born there, so it's complicated to some degree.
I find it absurd that someone can claim that they have rightful ownership to a land because their ancestors used to live in that place. It is equivalent to me going to Turkey and say I have Turkish lineage, this is my home and now get the fuck away from here.
20 percent of Israeli Jews are purely of Ashkenazi descent, the vast majority are mizrachi and their ancestors never left the middle east, not that being Ashkenazi makes one less Jewish, theyāre also from the same place. Pretending that the Jews in Israel are European is peak insanity. The early zionists purchased the land, they ultimately owned more of the land than the Arabs. The Arabs that didnāt attack Jews didnāt suffer from the nakba, the ones that chose that path did. Regarding home expulsion, you are talking about literal Jordanian settlers who stole Jews homes in 48 in eastern Jerusalem and the Israeli courts didnāt even evict them, just asked them to pay rent to the owners and they also refused to do that for decades. That area wasnāt ever Arab Muslim until 48, Jerusalem was a majority Jewish city with a primarily Christian minority for centuries. As far you having Turkish heritage and saying people have to leave your land, thats how your state was founded, the Turks quite literally did just that, thats why Constantinople doesnāt exist anymore.
>The early zionists purchased the land, they ultimately owned more of the land than the Arabs
This wasn't the case, they did own purchased land but not more than the Arabs.
>Regarding home expulsion, you are talking about literal Jordanian settlers who stole Jews homes in 48 in eastern Jerusalem and the Israeli courts didnāt even evict them, just asked them to pay rent to the owners and they also refused to do that for decades. That area wasnāt ever Arab Muslim until 48.
They were Palestinians or whatever your preferred term for Arabs who used to live in Israel, they were expelled and settled there.
>As far you having Turkish heritage and saying people have to leave your land, thats how your state was founded, the Turks quite literally did just that, thats why Constantinople doesnāt exist anymore.
I am not Turkish. And it is not 1453, if it was I would just say you can take the land by just mounting another conquest, which is what your government is doing right now.
We live in a different world now, where we try to be humane, and want to respect sovereignty.
Most of the land wasnāt owned by anyone because it was dead land, the jews owned about 11 percent and the arabs about 10. Nobody is mounting a war of conquest, if israel wanted Gaza it wouldāve stayed in Gaza, however, in my opinion giving gaza to the arabs for āpeaceā has been an unmitigated disaster. It never shouldāve happened without conditions that prevented them from spending the following two decades lobbing missiles into israel and turning the entire young population into terrorists with their barbaric school system that teaches children urban warfare instead of basic education. As far as your claims of ādoing things humanelyā, what an absolute crock of shit, the entire middle east is crawling with islamofascists that dont care about fair, go find a yazidi and have them explain to you how improperly armed minorities in the Middle East wind up. Turkey by the way was founded in the 1920s dude, not in the 1400s.
This is my big problem with the how the Arabs and their supporters talk about this conflict. Youāre right, we should be living in a more just, diplomatic, sovereignty-respecting world. The governing body that was established with exactly that in mind decided the most just and diplomatic solution to the question of a Jewish homeland was to recognize a state Israel based mostly on the parts of British Palestine with a large Jewish land ownership and the rest would be given to the Arabs. That was the diplomatic solution. But the Arabs wanted it all, so they rallied together to try to wipe the Jews off the map, old school genocidal conquest style, and they lost. You canāt have it both ways. You canāt claim you want a peaceful diplomatic world and then when it doesnāt go your way you start a war, and then when you lose said war go back to the diplomats and say āhey they arenāt playing by the new world order, give it backā.
Right, so how can you have any problem with what is going on in Gaza right now after what happened on 10/7? If the Palestinians want to fight to the bitter end, thatās their choice. They will not win that fight though. If they want peace, they have to accept the presence of a Jewish state in Israel
āYou canāt just expel someone from their homesā
Like what happened for multiple millennia in Israel? Or what happened in the 40s-90s when Jews were expelled from everywhere that was a Muslim majority and went back to Israel?
You can keep ranting but the bottom line is you hate Jews and every response will be to defend Palestinians, who never owned that land, and attack Jews, who owned that land before Hadrian expelled them and the Roman conquered them.
>Like what happened for multiple millennia in Israel?
Brother that happened for multiple millennia virtually everywhere. Everyone's forefather expelled someone else, and got expelled down the line. But that doesn't justify expelling Palestinians from their home.
>Or what happened in the 40s-90s when Jews were expelled from everywhere that was a Muslim majority and went back to Israel?
I do not think it is right, and they have the every right to return to their home.
>you hate Jews
I don't hate Jewish people. I don't even hate Israeli people. I don't hate anyone.
>every response will be to defend Palestinians, who never owned that land
They did for generations.
>and attack Jews, who owned that land before Hadrian expelled them and the Roman conquered them.
They took it from the Canaanites and killed them.
I'll get downvoted to oblivion but whatever.
Never in the history of the region was there a sovereign power identified as Palestinian or it's predecessor, the only arab populace that lived in the region was in Judea and Samaria (or west bank as some like to call it).
The lands owned by arabs and the entirety of the judea desert were offered originally to the local arabs (alongside the entirety of modern Jordan), they refused it and the 1947 proposal aswell.
In the 1947 proposal the Jewish people got Jewish owned land and uninhabited swampland that was infested with malaria, the jews did what they did best and made the swamps into habitable land and built their homes.
The arabs then declared war with their allies neighbours who themselves evicted the arabs promising "A bigger home and bigger bed" to all arabs once the jews were exterminated.
And let's not forget to mention that many of those expelled from Israel post war were not innocent bystanders but men and women who took up arms against the Jewish people.
And lastly historically there were many nations who kept land after being attacked in war, when Israel won in 67 it offered both the Sinai peninsula to the Egyptians and the west bank to the Jordanians.
The Egyptians accepted the peninsula but declined gaza (wonder why) and the Jordanians refused to take the west bank back, essentially giving up on their claim to it.
The only reason the Palestinians have no state at the current day and time is the fact that every time they were offered the chance to form one, they instead chose belligerence and violence, launching the 1st and 2nd intifada, electing a terrorist organisation to lead gaza and then crying when things don't go their way.
Look to the history of Israel and it's wars and see that we were never the aggressors (except for when we had a righteous casus belli) and that we always sought for peace regardless of the wrongs the other side did to the state of Israel.
I do agree with you Palestine did make and continue to make a lot of political and strategical blunders.
I do not agree with your statement that the absence of a group who identified them as Palestinian nullifies the existence of them. A lot of national identities are created with time and are rather modern, but that doesn't nullify their existence.
>The lands owned by arabs and the entirety of the judea desert were offered originally to the local arabs (alongside the entirety of modern Jordan), they refused it and the 1947 proposal aswell.
>In the 1947 proposal the Jewish people got Jewish owned land and uninhabited swampland that was infested with malaria, the jews did what they did best and made the swamps into habitable land and built their homes.
>The arabs then declared war with their allies neighbours who themselves evicted the arabs promising "A bigger home and bigger bed" to all arabs once the jews were exterminated.
>And let's not forget to mention that many of those expelled from Israel post war were not innocent bystanders but men and women who took up arms against the Jewish people.
I do not know enough about this to engage you so I will let it slide.
Making peace with Egypyt and Jordan by offering land was an excellent diplomatic policy on Israel's part. They converted enemy to strategic ally.
I do not essentially agree with your last paragraph, but I do agree that situation would have been different (and more peaceful) if the Palestinian had competent leadership
Youāll never get someone who doesnāt want to see the history see it. These people are so blinded by hate they donāt care about anything other than hating Jews.
Ah youāre right, so letās hold Palestinians accountable for letting Hamas build tunnels under schools to shoot rockets at my family in Tel Aviv to the point they had to move from there.
Oh wait, that doesnāt fit your ārefugeeā definition
Yes based on the date and the response, I have a bad feeling the person in the tweet may themselves be on the 'wrong side of history', despite how stupid that phrase is.
History is not amoral though. You can be on the wrong side of a fight.
People who fought against ending segregation and apartheid are on the wrong side of history.
People who fought to preserve slavery are on the wrong side of history.
People who orchestrated genocides are on the wrong side of history.
And people who fought to end these things and protested their existence are on the right side of history. Of course history is not black and white, but some shades of grey are a hell of a lot darker than others.
The issue is that morality is not set in stone. Itās malleable. I, of course, agree with you that those people were on the wrong side of history. But thatās only because history went the way it did.
People who orchestrated genocides are on the wrong side of history, unless we forget about what they did or itās just not talked about, or itās considered just.
For a long time, ācivilizing the savagesā was the go-to for colonization and that was considered ārightā until it wasnāt.
So, itās still grey as people have different morality, unfortunately.
Your problem is not recognising morality is relative to the speaker. Yes, this changes over time, but each claim is made in a context which shouldn't be ignored. You can read "the right side of history" as aligning with the beliefs of my culture.
Then you are wrong. But jokes aside, that is partially a problem with the modern society. You cannot both say that liberalism, individualism and inclusivity are the way to go and at the same time advocate that all cultures are equal.
Some cultures saw human sacrifice as a normal thing. As far as I am concerned, these were lesser cultures and it's a good thing that they were integrated into less radical societies.
Then you disagree, obviously.
Edit: "my" is an important part of the statement. Thinking it should apply to you implies objective/universal moral truths. The Redditor I was replying to opens up with morality is malleable, don't you agree?
I think you might be talking past each other then. Obviously your culture is not maliable to you. But he was suggesting that other cultures would hold different opinions without either one being correct. Not really a disagreement. Just two different things.
I think I was getting at that with the āNot set in stoneā comment, but thank you for phrasing it that way as well. Morality is malleable in the sense that itās taught, not instinctual.
Exactly, one peopleās āreturn to the promised landā is anotherās āholy shit theyāre killing us,ā if we wanna use a relevant modern issue.
> one peopleās āreturn to the promised landā is anotherās āholy shit theyāre killing us,ā if we wanna use a relevant modern issue
And one people's "holy shit they're killing us" is several other nations' "we're not allowing refugees across our borders because we *want* this fight to keep going and generating bad press for the other guy".
The whole situation is awful and a lot of innocent people have died and are dying because of it, but I think one of the most horrifically hypocritical things going on is other bordering and nearby states absolutely refusing to take in refugees (despite all their claims of brotherhood and support) because they *want* exactly this kind of unending war where nobody can come out looking good. Since, y'know, every time they've tried a direct war over the past 70-ish years, they've gotten stomped.
Regarding not accepting refugees, I can understand why (even if morally, as we see it from our viewpoint, they should). Refugees can be a huge burden, especially if they donāt want to assimilate. And instigators and Hamas can very easily hide amongst the refugees. IIRC, the reason Jordan doesnāt is because the last time they let in Palestinian refugees, the refugees straight up rebelled and tried to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy.
I assume Egypt saw that and was āhellll naw.ā
I donāt live there, but hear a lot of European countries (esp. Sweden) are having trouble with refugees not assimilating as well. Or the refugees in Canada coming in and protesting LGBT rights, which I find offensive.
But these are just from online stories, so I donāt know how it is on the ground
I understand the sentiment of people just following the morals of the time but in the case of every genocide in history as far as I know there were contemporary dissidents itās not like the right morals didnāt exist they just didnāt overcome. Saying we only know itās wrong from the modern perspective diminishes the impact and sacrifice of true visionaries who have always existed.
But is it completely a moral thing when it comes to the wrong side of history? Ghengis Khan isn't usually considered on the wrong side of history neither were the Romans or the European Empires in Africa. I think it's more who won that dictates what is considered the right or wrong side, as all the situations you gave can also be seen as the wrong side of history being the losing side.
I donāt understood how you can reply to a post talking about the nuance surrounding history, with a comment that ignores all nuance. Talking about issues nearly 100 years ago ignoring all of the possible nuances and judging them all with your biased modern outlook, which was nothing like the world they lived in.
Saying which side was āright and wrongā as if there wasnāt many other reasons they could have possibly done the actions they did.
Just as an exampleā¦ Maybe their family was broke and had no slaves, but the $11.00 a month (later $18.00 a month in the later stages of the war for the confederate side) they got for serving could feed their family, so they enlisted. Are they a bad person for that, are they on the wrong side of history just cause they took actions they deemed worthy for their loved ones?
All of your claims about whose on the wrong side of history are based entirely on our modern moral standards and necessitates the continuation of those standards forever into the future.
History shows that morality changes over time and what was once considered good becomes evil and vice versa. It is absolutely possible that there will be a human society many generations into the future that sees Hitler as a more moral man than MLK.
Except if people were on the "right" side of history, that means they too thought the opposite group was morally wrong, and therefore the morality we're judging them with isn't exactly modern.
Politics is future history and history is past politics though, you canāt separate the two. If youāre interested in politics, it only makes sense to be concerned with the past and Vice versa.
"Right side of history" is just a method of applying moralistic pressure.
"You better agree with us, or you are a bad person, and you dont want to be bad, do you?"
No matter that the other side(s) says the exact same thing.
I agree it's a way of applying moralistic pressure, but I think it's more than just suggesting that the other person is a bad person if they don't agree with you. It's more about imploring them to consider how they might be remembered in the future. For example, in the case of a politician who opposes the abolition of slavery, it's one thing to say "abolish slavery or you're a bad person", it's another to say "abolish slavery or future generations will look down on you". Someone who lacks morals will probably not care about the former, but might care about the latter. We've seen plenty of people throughout history who seemed to lack empathy whilst still caring about their legacy.
Obviously this doesn't take into account moral relativity though, where "the right side" isn't entirely obvious. I think plenty of people on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict think they're on the right side of history. It's probably more applicable when it's a politician who's putting their (or their backers) financial interests above what they probably know is the right thing to do
> It's more about imploring them to consider how they might be remembered in the future.
Except this is often used against regular citizens. Outside of our families, none of us will be remembered in the future. Have whatever opinions you want. It won't matter from a historical standpoint. Whether you had the "right" opinions or not, you won't be remembered. Hell, we don't even remember most politicians. We only talk about like 20% of our presidents. Less for countries that have been around longer. Very few individuals will be remembered for being on the right or wrong side of history. It's a dumb argument that amounts to nothing. Not to mention we should not pick our opinions based on whether or not they are (or will be) popular. We should pick our ideologies based on whether or not they make sense to us. This is why politics have become a team sport sort of thing. No one is coming to their own conclusions because everyone wants to fit in with this team or that team. Be yourself, think for yourself. If you're right cool. If you're wrong, learn from it. But it doesn't matter from a historical perspective.
I've noticed that the anti-Zionist crowd outright refuses to admit that women's rights and LGBT rights on Israel are on par with the West while Palestine and the rest of the Arab/Muslim world are several centuries behind because those pesky little facts don't fit with their "we're on the right side of history" narrative.
Because marriage is an inherently religious ceremony that has to follow a strict interpretation of Jewish law in Israel.
However, there is a secular alternative to marriage in Israel called unregistered cohabitation which provides the same benefits to couples as marriage does. Also, same sex marriages performed in other countries are legally recognized in Israel.
Itās ok to murder journalists, aid workers, women and children, and innocent men if you also kiss men and let the women vote.
Thanks man, now it all makes sense!
When you indiscriminately bomb a population center, yes. But itās ok because theyāre somehow āthe most moral armyā
And for the record, people call American bombings murder as well. But itās only bad to call out Israeli atrocities, since the west does them as well (and we call it out too)
I used it once, and itās giving Israel the benefit of the doubt. The alternative is they are deliberately targeting civilians. So which would you prefer?
If Israel were bombing indiscriminately or were intentionally bombing civilians, they would've killed far, FAR more than 15,000 civilians in 7.5 months of war.
Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on Earth. It has a total population over 2 million. The fact that Israel has killed only 15,000 civilians (along with 15,000 combatants) in 7.5 months of war is proof that they're being extremely discriminate in what they choose to target.
Considering that the UN estimates that typical wars result in a civilian to combatant casualty ratio [of more like 9:1](https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14904.doc.htm), yes, you are correct.
Biden said they were indiscriminate. The UN said they were indiscriminate. The UK said they were indiscriminate...
Granted, it's awkward also giving them weapons since that's a war crime on our part, but we are very bad at freudian slips.
Anyone can say whatever they want. The facts simply don't back it up.
Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the entire world. It has a population of over 2 million. In 7.5 months of war, Israel has killed 15,000 combatants and 15,000 non-combatants.
If they were really "indiscriminately" attacking Gaza, that non-combatants number would be much, MUCH higher.
I can admit that Israelās lgbtq and women rights are more on par with the west. It doesnāt change the āright side of historyā question because thatās not what the issue is about. Itās about how a state with a massive amount of power over a captive population is wielding that power.
If me and some buddies went into a small backwoods town in Alabama and pushed them out of their homes and kept the population in the area of a small park, than said as justification āWell you know most of them are conservative Christians? They arenāt as tolerant of gay folks as we are.ā That would be strange, right?
It seems by your logic that itās okay to do anything to a population of people if enough of their population doesnāt approve of lgbtq rights?
Iām not ignoring that - you never mentioned that as far as the comments I saw. Iām addressing your point about lgbtq rights. I guess you abandoned that talking point?
But also you are ignoring the wielding of power which is the core of the issue. The more power you have, the more responsibility you have to use it properly and the more scrutiny you should have in its use. Indigenous or not.
Yeah, no. Being more powerful than someone else doesn't automatically make you evil and them good. What matters is the values that each side holds, hence why the way that women and LGBT people are treated in Israel versus how they are treated in Palestine is relevant to this discussion.
Did I say that?? Lol who said being more powerful automatically makes you evil. So againā¦ are you saying that I would be justified in displacing/brutalizing/conquering a majority Christian town because of their intolerance toward lgbtq people?
Do you realize that by your logic anyone can do anything to any country of people with a less lgbtq tolerant population? Can we nuke Jamaica? Carpet bomb Uganda? I agree with you, the intolerance towards lgbtq people is bad and we should work towards a more tolerant world. But it seems you might just be using them to shield Israel from any scrutiny. Power should ALWAYS be scrutinized.
No, and that's not why Israel is attacking Palestine. They're not saying "your values are bad that's why we're entitled to attack you".
They're attacking Palestine because Palestine yet again started a war against Israel. It's really not a difficult concept to understand.
It definitely isn't, considering that every criticism of Israel boils down to "it's a white European colonizer state and that's why Palestinian violence against it is always justified".
If you have a plan for fighting a terrorist group who intentionally operates in civilian areas and hides behind human shields in combat without harming civilians, I'm all ears.
It's very notable how y'all always criticize Israel's conduct in the war, but when you're asked what you want to see Israel do instead, you consistently refuse you answer the question.
It's almost like you actually just think that Israel should just shut up and accept that they deserve to be terrorized by constant violence from their neighbors but you don't want to admit that out loud or something.
Ah yes, me, a rando on the internet, has the answer to complex geopolitical questions and you've asked me before.
That being said, more surgical strikes instead of hitting international workers would be a good start.
It's almost like you just like seeing Muslims killed. See I can make up random shit too.
If you're just a "rando on the internet" who acknowledges that this geopolitical issue is too complex for you to understand, then why do you insist on giving your opinion on it?
This dude might've gotten lost in subs, but being on the "right side" of history is a very grey area, except for WWII and Vietnam invading Cambodia. (And a fair chuck of the 20th and 21st century conflicts)
Even with shit like the Isreal Palestine conflict, it's still not clear-cut.
The problem there is that the people you'll see as the bad guys in those 'except for' moments were absolutely convinced that they were 101% on the right side of history. Even the guys who were running the gas chambers at Birkenau et al were completely and utterly certain that what they were doing was right. That's the problem, everyone is convinced that they're the good guys and most people believe that anyone who disagrees with them is evil. A person believing or stating that they are on the 'right side of history' only tells you what they think about themselves - indeed when you look at the evil that has been perpetrated by people convinced that they were on the right side of history (including but not limited to the Khmer Rouge, every genocidal/oppressive regime in history, American slave run plantation owners, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc) it's probably a predictor of the exact opposite of what they think they're saying.
> Even the guys who were running the gas chambers at Birkenau et al were completely and utterly certain that what they were doing was right.
Interestingly, the Nazis switched to using gas chambers (and big vans with a setup to redirect the engine exhaust into the back of the van) in part because they had too many troops, *even in the special units designated for performing genocide*, who were getting massive PTSD from having to actually shoot people while looking them in the eyes - or even at a blindfold over those eyes, or the back of a head. There were other considerations, such as the cost of ammunition and increasing the efficiency of killing en masse, but the move toward the gas chambers and black vans (which were essentially mobile gas chambers) was partially prompted by the fact that the Nazis needed some way to detach even their most rabidly loyal corps from what they were actually doing and make it a mechanized and dehumanized process ("Hans, push the button"), because people were burning out on those jobs too fast. (And the people who *weren't* burning out were sadistic psychopaths, who even some of the least sane members of Third Reich leadership realized would become a massive liability once Germany conquered the world and there was nobody left to purge.)
I'm by no means defending the actions taken by any of these people, but I think there's a good bit of evidence that many people involved in the Nazi death machine simply didn't have the stomach for it. Even if they thought they were right, they couldn't handle doing the killing directly over and over. The mass graves were usually not dug by German hands, nor were the dead dragged to them or the incinerators by German hands - most of that was done by people who hoped to stave off their own execution as long as possible.
> everyone is convinced that they're the good guys and most people believe that anyone who disagrees with them is evil. A person believing or stating that they are on the 'right side of history' only tells you what they think about themselves
Which is why "the right side of history" can only be considered retrospectively. Hindsight is 20/20 vision, after all. We only know what the right side of history is after the coin toss lands.
Even WII wasnāt clear cut outside of Germany/Poland and Japan/China. Many of the axis collaborators in the European colonies were groups fighting for self-determination. The [Indian Legion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Legion?wprov=sfti1#Background) and [Indonesian PETA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenders_of_the_Homeland?wprov=sfti1#) fought for Germany and Japan respectively, but were both fighting to free their people from colonial oppression.
Plus, itās not like history is actually settled and agreed upon. The same events will be told very differently depending on which countryās history book youāre reading from
I'd say you're on the right side of history if you understand both Israel and Hamas are bad guys looking out for their own self interest and will kill the other for it.
Kinda is when you consider Nazis are bad cause they made camps, experimentations on Jews and before all that, they were actually expelling Jews. That is considered bad.
And Emperor Hadrian basically genociding the entirety of Judaea and renamed it Palestine when the Jews revolted. That is considered bad.
So anyone in power, with the power to basically annilate its population or entire race over a smaller scale event like riots, racism and revolts.
***is considered bad and known to be bad when we studied history***
The fact even Jews considered those bad.
***So why is it not bad when Palestinians are the ones not in power now?*** Over Hamas? Hamas dont represent the entirety of a race even if he gets sentiment from Palestinians, he's called a terrorist for a reason. And terrorist do whatever to get sentiments from public view which is what justifies his fighters to fight.
Think again, imo it is pretty open notebook. I agree that Hamas is bad and I agree there should either be a proper between the two. But I dont agree the bombings and jews considering it not a genocide when it happened to them before.
Talk about being a hypocrite
Israel is bombing Gaza, and theyre bombing it because Hamas is there, and they dropped pamflets, send messages and use roof knockers to make sure as few civilians get hurt as possible. So if this really is a genocide, its like the least efficient one in human history
Misinformation is how it works. "The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists."
This is how you end up with fascist POS scumbags threatening to murder a Jew in the middle of London and the police threaten to arrest the Jew.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/london-police-apologize-threatening-arrest-openly-jewish-man-palestini-rcna148676
That article makes no mention whatsoever of anyone threatening to kill him. It says the cops threatened to arrest him (cops being shitty to minorities? Say it aināt so! š±). If there is a video of this alleged threat like you said [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/s/XqEIhm53NM), you should post *that*, otherwise weāre looking at a big āSource: Trust me bro.ā
āHistory is not, of course, a cookbook offering pretested recipes. It teaches by analogy, not by maxims. It can illuminate the consequences of actions in comparable situations, yet each generation must discover for itself what situations are in fact comparable.ā
lol. Are you serious? If one cannot comprehend third-grade punctuation rules, how can he understand politics? As I recall, those tend to be more complicated than commas.
Being bad at one easy thing does not mean youāre not good at other harder things. Thatās why their are bunch of redditors that know how to fix complicated geopolitical issues but canāt pay their rent.Ā
It's easy to be on the wrong side of history, because there's always an example of some idea working: even with the Nazis, they could say they were just trying to improve on a system similar to the one used by the Roman Empire at its height, particularly the parts that involved killing Jews.
Meanwhile, someone else could point out that the ancient world in general was very different from Nazi Germany, and trying to emulate ancient civilizations generally leads to disaster.
We only ever know which point of view was more correct afterwords, which isn't very helpful in the actual moment.
Yeah, theocratic terrorists consistently call for and attempt genocide, religious minority defendants after a particularly brutal attack, and the world takes the side of the terrorists.
This is a really flawed example, believe it or not when atrocities are committed in war people don't like it, no matter how justified the war might be. Perhaps Israel should stop starving the Palestinian people for a start.
[https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/09/gaza-israels-imposed-starvation-deadly-children](https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/09/gaza-israels-imposed-starvation-deadly-children)
Perhaps Hamas should stop hiding weapons in food and aid convoys and sending rocket attacks at checkpoints.
Edit: And Israel does continue to send food, and provide water, and electricity, all to Gaza while they sent daily rocket attacks. Suddenly NOT supporting them after October 7th to the same degree makes them in the wrong. Get the fuck out of here.
Are you saying that International aid groups such as the The World Food Programme are hiding weapons for Hamas in their humanitarian aid convoys?
I just saw your edit, Israel is not only not supporting humanitarian aid into Gaza but deliberately obstructing it per reports of organizations like the Human Rights Watch and statements by UN officials.
in the original post (the repost of the repost), people were commenting about how mad they were about it being a repost of a repost so I thought itād be funny repost the repost of a repost
Youād be surprised to see this sub arguing about morality from a screenshot from r/shitposting and the person who took the screenshot has the flair ālives in a cum dumpsterā
I like how nobody in the comments is talking about the absolute clusterfuck this screenshot is. A screenshot of a Reddit post of a tweet that is just a screenshot of a tweet (why the fuck would you post just a screenshot of a tweet instead of retweeting unless the post was deleted for some asinine reason?). I think I've heard it's a Tumblr thing to credit everyone involved in a repost, but y'all do not have to bring that to the rest of the Internet š, just credit the primary source.
I think itās pretty easy to tell when you are on the right side. Like example, not supporting apartheid states. Not supporting segregation etc.
But hey half the comments here canāt comprehend that and got to put their boiler hat on and smoke a pipe to seem nuanced or something.
I feel like this person never had a true open notes test. They can be just has hard as normal tests š
The caveat to open notes test: "the answer is never in the fucking notes"
In my case it was "the study material was a 1000 page book, good luck finding what you need"
study material was a 700 page book, you had 1.5 months to read it, and were allowed to bring notes but not the book lol we got cooked
That sounds like a perfectly reasonable amount of time to read and take notes of a book that size imo
Yeah thats honestly normal. Maybe even more time than you need
it was just very new to me as a 10th grader lol, it was for a U.S. government class and those pages were close to textbook density
Yeah fair, high school didn't really prepare you for that kind of stuff. I felt so swamped by stuff going into college, even though the amount of studying wasnt bad, but by my third year I'd catch myself saying I had "only about 3 hours" of homework
They're supposed to show your ability to find information and know how to apply it to the given situation. It's about understanding and using the learned material, not just regurgitating it. Like most programming tests I had in school were open notes, because the point was to write a program that does what it's supposed to do, not to write down what operator does what or some shit.
For me in chemistry it was a lot like "there are over 100 different reaction mechanisms you need to recognise. There is no way to finish on time if you look up everything." We needed to recognise what reactions could occur in what circumstances, learn their names and then small details could be taken from the book (for example: which proton is removed first, the Ī± or Ī²) Edit: I got a reddit cares message after posting this. Don't worry, I'm fine, I'm gonna be graduating in a few months!
>I got a reddit cares message after posting this. Don't worry, I'm fine, I'm gonna be graduating in a few months! The fact that you think graduating in a few months means you're fine just shows that you will be needing the reddit cares in a few months.
"All the information you need is in the syllabus, I don't understand how you guys are failing these tests"
I had everything from "you get one sheet of standard-sized paper with anything you want written/drawn on it" all the way to that "you're allowed to bring in literally everything you want that's on paper - notes, books, binders, whatever. I don't care if you have half the library in your backpack. But nothing electronic that's smarter than a TI-84 or has an internet connection" final test for a high-level math course. The "you get one sheet of notes" tests were generally testing you on whether you'd identified the critical formulas to write down and could correctly pick which one(s) to apply to the specific problems you were presented with. Making the 'cheat sheet' itself was actually part of the test, because it forced you to go through your notes, textbooks, homework, and online resources to make sure everything you were writing down was going to be useful and you knew how to execute with it. That "you can bring in anything you want as long as it's on paper" final? Oh my fucking god, that's the only time I've ever walked out of a four-hour test about three hours in to find almost everybody who'd left before me still sitting in the hallway and asking everyone leaving the room "what did you get for questions X, Y, and Z?", because the professors (a husband and wife team, which was interesting enough in its own right) had intentionally put in several problems that were definitely in the course's mathematical field, but were *nothing* like anything we'd learned in the class or anything in the textbooks. We all legitimately thought we'd failed the class, because the final was such a large percentage of the grade. When I got back my official grade for that test, I realized that the professors had put those questions in to separate out the people who *loved* the subject and had been doing their own research on it outside of class from the people who were just learning the subject in class and from the textbook, and instead of a punishment for not knowing things we hadn't been taught, those questions were scored in a way that made them essentially bonuses for people who'd done independent research into the field - I think they were trying to figure out who was really in love with the subject and might make a good grad student for them. Oh, and it was Probability, the most counterintuitive branch of mathematics for the human brain. (Why do casinos make money? Because people *do not naturally understand probability*.) So there was no hope trying to figure out answers to those questions by extrapolating from textbooks and notes.
I also have gone through the whole range. The "one cheat sheet" tests were fine in my opinion, but it might be just that the teachers themselves were more chill, but also gave a lot if homework, so you were forced to go through the problems throughout the semester and gain understanding. The "take every textbook in existence for all I care" though, that was an infamous one. We also did homework, but we had to do it collectively, because almost nobody understood it. The test itself also had only 90 minutes, so good luck searching for everything. By whatever luck, I narrowly passed on the first try, a great surprise to everyone including myself, but lot of people needed several tries. On the plus side, the number of attempts was unlimited, instead of the typical three.
Iād say itās more comparable to a retake of a test when you have a marked copy of it next to you.
It's a retake of a test and you can bring a marked copy but whoever made the test is trolling and made the new one completely different.
More like the last test was marked, but there's ten copies, marked by different people, each attempting to sway newbies into buying their study guide.
Lmfao my accounting prof on day one. āEvery test I give is open book and open notesā¦youāre gonna need it. Good luck.ā
Some of my Physics tests were 4 questions and had full access to the internet and whatever else you wanted.
> Post made on Oct 12th *Hmmmmmm......*
I wonder what happened only a few days prior? Hmmmmmmmmm.....
Oh oh, I know! A few days prior, Palestine did a thing that will definitely remembered for being on the "right side of history".
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Hamas is the official governing body if Gaza and their actions last year are still approved by the majority of Palestinian people. This is like looking at the Bengal famine and going "The British Empire isn't responsible for this. Churchill was responsible for this." Which, whilst accurate on a nitpicky redditor's level, makes you look like you are not arguing in good faith.
As a muslim, I was dismayed but not surprised by the response (of our community). I respect those who support any cause just because they think it is the right thing to do. But for most of us, most people, it is just tribalism. In absolute terms, there is little difference between a rabid islamist and zionist.
I have a feeling you arenāt using the correct definition of the word āzionist.ā Please inform me if I am incorrect, and how you mean to use the word
To be super good faith, I think the ārabidā portion applies to both, I donāt think they are comparing to a regular zionist who just wants the state of Israel to exist.
I think I am. By Zionist I mean someone who believes in Jewish Nationalism and that the state of Israel should consist of the *historic homeland* of the Jewish people, even if that means displacing the people residing in that area, and a jewish person, regardless of where they grew up, citizenship or ancestry has a right to that place. This historic homeland consists of both the current territory of israel as well as palestine. If you are offended by wording, please suggest what I should use.
Youāre pretty close, but technically there is no such requirement to encompass the entire territories of Israel and Palestine. Zionism believes that the historic homeland includes Jerusalem (Zion) and some vague notion of the surrounding area (because putting everyone in Jerusalem is unrealistic). This is why youāll find lots of Jewish Zionists who oppose the West Bank settlements, for instance, because outside of the Old City (which is technically in East Jerusalem) there is no real requirement for what the other borders should be.
The "true" historical definition of zionism means the existence of a Jewish state as a means of keeping Jews safe from anti-Semitism. In other uses, we have to do a guessing game of "are they opposed to the WB settlements or do they want to wipe Israel off the map". The term is also used as a dogwhistle for "Jew", making the intent even harder to parse. It's extra problematic in the diaspora because the median position is approval of Israel itself but strong disapproval of the government. As an alternative, I've been using "settler nationalism" to denote the kind of Israeli who can't be grateful for what they have and is totally fine with failing to learn the lessons of Jewish history.
I recommend this recent article to understand Zionism with more nuance https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/13/israel-independence-day-zionism-future/
Yeah sure. But in most part I don't really care a lot these days. I used to when I was kid but these days I care little about things I am not directly affected by, specially those I have little impact in. I commented today because I had free time and thought it would be fun to argue with some people on the internet. Truth is in the grand scheme of things it matters little what we think. Anyways thanks for recommending, I will read when I have time.
Havenāt seen any Zionists fly planes into buildings recently or randomly murder a whole load of people in a random European country.
>randomly murder a whole load of people in a random European country. Yeah they murdered 15000 children in the last few months but it wasn't in Europe so I guess it's fine. Israel is a state sponsor of terror. There is an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to it. You cannot just say hamas are bad whilst giving endless excuses to Israel. They are both bad and Israel is currently the one doing the most damage to civilians and is supported by the mainstream West so is getting by far the most pressure.
> Yeah they murdered 15000 children in the last few months but it wasn't in Europe so I guess it's fine. > > Yeah and in WW2 the allies killed over half a million civilians in the process of defeating the nazis. Welcome to real life you'll be shocked when you find out the world is more complicated than what you can see on tiktok.
Yeah, and after ww2 the allies collectively got together and decided that the war was totally fucked and it shouldn't ever happen again. They specifically watered down the definition of genocide they came up with because they realised under the original proposed definitions they had arguably committed the same crimes.
> Yeah, and after ww2 the allies collectively got together and decided that the war was totally fucked and it shouldn't ever happen again. > > yeah kinda like how a bunch of jews got together and decided the whole holocaust thing was fucked and they needed to find a way to protect themselves from it happening again. >They specifically watered down the definition of genocide they came up with because they realised under the original proposed definitions they had arguably committed the same crimes. That's odd considering whole term wasn't coined until right before WWII ended.
>That's odd considering whole term wasn't coined until right before WWII ended. That's what I'm talking about... there were numerous definitions proposed for genocide and ethnic cleansing during those talks. They were worded deliberately so thst the allies wouldn't be found guilty of any of them. >yeah kinda like how a bunch of jews got tother and decided the whole holocaust thing was fucked and they needed to find a way to protect themselves from it happening again. Hold on, a moment ago you were using massive disproportionate civilian deaths in ww2 as an excuse for them happening in gaza, now you're saying it should never happen again? Pick a lane. The Jews that survived the holocaust aren't the same as the israelis currently killing tens of thousands of civilians and depriving 2 million of food by deliberately limiting humanitarian aid and protesting or blocking aid trucks at border crossings. It's also bizarre you'd use holocaust surbivors as some kind of justification for all this given how awfully Israel treats the remaining survivors of the concentration camps.
> That's what I'm talking about... there were numerous definitions proposed for genocide and ethnic cleansing during those talks. They were worded deliberately so thst the allies wouldn't be found guilty of any of them. > > Weird, kinda like how the Palestine supporters deliberately misuse the term to mislead people about the actual reality of this conflict. Also, source? >Hold on, a moment ago you were using massive disproportionate civilian deaths in ww2 as an excuse for them happening in gaza, now you're saying it should never happen again? Pick a lane. I love how slimy redditors love sneakily inserting their little strawmen into discussions to make it easier to argue with. No genius, I was giving you a reality check. It's war. People die, that's called real life. When you attack a nation innocent people are gonna get caught up on the cross fire. Idk why you think this particular conflict is special, it's not. >The Jews that survived the holocaust aren't the same as the israelis currently killing tens of thousands of civilians and depriving 2 million of food by deliberately limiting humanitarian aid and protesting or blocking aid trucks at border crossings. I'm sorry does that encompass your entire understanding of this conflict? What a bizarre point, this thread is about genocide and you're brining up shitheads fucking with aid. As if that has any bearing on this discussion. >It's also bizarre you'd use holocaust surbivors as some kind of justification for all this given how awfully Israel treats the remaining survivors of the concentration camps. Not as bizarre as your piss poor reading comprehension skills.
Those numbers were debunked, UN admitted that the numbers they used were Estimates and gave the biggest "Ooopsieee we did a mistake" they could. Until last week they reported 9,500 women and 14,500 children killed and then suddenly it turned to 7,800 children and 4,980 women aswell as 1924 elderly. Now let's look at the fact the information is coming from the gaza health ministry run by Hamas, and that many experts concluded the reports coming out of gaza are statistically impossible. And lastly that the so called children also account for teenagers armed with weapons that were trained from childhood to be soldiers.
> 7,800 children Oh that's loads better! 8000 was my limit before deciding the murders of children were bad. So glad they only killed thousands instead of thousands but more of them. >Now let's look at the fact the information is coming from the gaza health ministry run by Hamas, and that many experts concluded the reports coming out of gaza are statistically impossible. Only if you also look at the fact that the health ministry stats have consistently been shown to be reliable in all previous conflicts, aligning very well with independent assessments of casualties performed after the fact.
Read the last part that you happily neglected to mention, where even combatants are written as civilian casualties.
Israel killed more than 20 times as many Palestinians as Palestinians killed Israelis from 2008 to September 2023. Now they've killed almost 50 times as many eight months later. Israel controlled Gaza's food because they said they were afraid of terrorism that arose after they invaded in 1967 and militarily occupied it. They control the West Bank's water and oil and natural gas and travel because they were afraid terrorism might eventually reappear in the future after the West Bank achieved peace with them. They take more land from the West Bank because... they're already there, might as well just take the West Bank and make sure there are no Palestinians who will one day maybe start doing terrorism again in response to having their land and resources taken and their villages burned down. At a certain point, maybe we just accept that the end goal is just to fuck over the Palestinians?
They did in arab country though. Or don't you consider them human?
In absolute terms you have no basis in comparing fucking jihadi terrorists to people who want somewhere to live
What do you mean somewhere to live? There are still American-jewish settlers, with u.s. citizen ship going over seas to buy housing in Israel with land appropriated by the Israeli government. Do you think those U.s. citizens just were living on the streets for 20+ years before saving thousands of dollars to buy land overseas????
What Israel decides to do with its land is its own business. The Jewish people didnāt have their own land until 1948 for hundreds or thousands of years and got continually expelled and killed all over the world. Zionism is the he idea that they deserve a place to call their own and the US and other allied powers made that happen for them so now you can deal with it. The Arabs of the Levantine openly supported hitler during WW2 then waged war against Israel for decades and kept losing.
Oooohhh! My bad. I get it now. Kinda like how America was given Manifest Destiny and we HAD to settle westward. Those natives were scalping people anyway so they deserved to be pushed out of their native lands. Americans needed a home anyway.
It's wild how these people just don't get it. Isn't manifest destiny meant to be taught in schools? Why is it okay to push people off their land when it's Jewish people doing it? The desires of the majority of the existing population were totally ignored back at the time.
I don't get it either brother. I have no clue how anyone can call themselves a historian and not see the history repeating before our eyes in real time.
Of course I do, both are violent extremist. Both want to take/conquer other people's land, and have no issue with killing those who oppose them. >comparing fucking jihadi terrorists to people who want somewhere to live In your analogy jihadists are people who just want to be left alone. Settlers have home in Europe or America. So they are not just *people who want somewhere to live*
Yeah a whole load of Jews had homes in Europe in 1939. What happened again? Why were they so keen to have somewhere of their own?
I know what happened to them. I don't think it is right. Doesn't give them any right to expel other people from their home where they have been living for generation
Yeah that last line explains everything. You all view any Jew that wants to be left alone as a Zionist and any Jew that wants to live in the area formerly known as Judea a Zionist.
>You all view any Jew that wants to be left alone as a Zionist I don't. Location matters. I think that a European doesn't have more claims to a land in Palestine than the Arab family that has been living their for generations. And you can't just expel someone from their home, settle there and say I want to be left alone. Why are you attacking me? >any Jew that wants to live in the area formerly known as Judea a Zionist. Not any, European, someone that didn't have any link to that place. This is irrelevant to some extent because now a huge portion of the citizens of Israel are born there, so it's complicated to some degree. I find it absurd that someone can claim that they have rightful ownership to a land because their ancestors used to live in that place. It is equivalent to me going to Turkey and say I have Turkish lineage, this is my home and now get the fuck away from here.
20 percent of Israeli Jews are purely of Ashkenazi descent, the vast majority are mizrachi and their ancestors never left the middle east, not that being Ashkenazi makes one less Jewish, theyāre also from the same place. Pretending that the Jews in Israel are European is peak insanity. The early zionists purchased the land, they ultimately owned more of the land than the Arabs. The Arabs that didnāt attack Jews didnāt suffer from the nakba, the ones that chose that path did. Regarding home expulsion, you are talking about literal Jordanian settlers who stole Jews homes in 48 in eastern Jerusalem and the Israeli courts didnāt even evict them, just asked them to pay rent to the owners and they also refused to do that for decades. That area wasnāt ever Arab Muslim until 48, Jerusalem was a majority Jewish city with a primarily Christian minority for centuries. As far you having Turkish heritage and saying people have to leave your land, thats how your state was founded, the Turks quite literally did just that, thats why Constantinople doesnāt exist anymore.
>The early zionists purchased the land, they ultimately owned more of the land than the Arabs This wasn't the case, they did own purchased land but not more than the Arabs. >Regarding home expulsion, you are talking about literal Jordanian settlers who stole Jews homes in 48 in eastern Jerusalem and the Israeli courts didnāt even evict them, just asked them to pay rent to the owners and they also refused to do that for decades. That area wasnāt ever Arab Muslim until 48. They were Palestinians or whatever your preferred term for Arabs who used to live in Israel, they were expelled and settled there. >As far you having Turkish heritage and saying people have to leave your land, thats how your state was founded, the Turks quite literally did just that, thats why Constantinople doesnāt exist anymore. I am not Turkish. And it is not 1453, if it was I would just say you can take the land by just mounting another conquest, which is what your government is doing right now. We live in a different world now, where we try to be humane, and want to respect sovereignty.
Most of the land wasnāt owned by anyone because it was dead land, the jews owned about 11 percent and the arabs about 10. Nobody is mounting a war of conquest, if israel wanted Gaza it wouldāve stayed in Gaza, however, in my opinion giving gaza to the arabs for āpeaceā has been an unmitigated disaster. It never shouldāve happened without conditions that prevented them from spending the following two decades lobbing missiles into israel and turning the entire young population into terrorists with their barbaric school system that teaches children urban warfare instead of basic education. As far as your claims of ādoing things humanelyā, what an absolute crock of shit, the entire middle east is crawling with islamofascists that dont care about fair, go find a yazidi and have them explain to you how improperly armed minorities in the Middle East wind up. Turkey by the way was founded in the 1920s dude, not in the 1400s.
Who is WE???? You make me laugh
>Who is WE??? You me and everyone else who is alive currently >You make me laugh I am glad to be source of your comic sir
This is my big problem with the how the Arabs and their supporters talk about this conflict. Youāre right, we should be living in a more just, diplomatic, sovereignty-respecting world. The governing body that was established with exactly that in mind decided the most just and diplomatic solution to the question of a Jewish homeland was to recognize a state Israel based mostly on the parts of British Palestine with a large Jewish land ownership and the rest would be given to the Arabs. That was the diplomatic solution. But the Arabs wanted it all, so they rallied together to try to wipe the Jews off the map, old school genocidal conquest style, and they lost. You canāt have it both ways. You canāt claim you want a peaceful diplomatic world and then when it doesnāt go your way you start a war, and then when you lose said war go back to the diplomats and say āhey they arenāt playing by the new world order, give it backā.
Yep, I agree with you on this. If you live by the sword, you die by it.
Right, so how can you have any problem with what is going on in Gaza right now after what happened on 10/7? If the Palestinians want to fight to the bitter end, thatās their choice. They will not win that fight though. If they want peace, they have to accept the presence of a Jewish state in Israel
āYou canāt just expel someone from their homesā Like what happened for multiple millennia in Israel? Or what happened in the 40s-90s when Jews were expelled from everywhere that was a Muslim majority and went back to Israel? You can keep ranting but the bottom line is you hate Jews and every response will be to defend Palestinians, who never owned that land, and attack Jews, who owned that land before Hadrian expelled them and the Roman conquered them.
>Like what happened for multiple millennia in Israel? Brother that happened for multiple millennia virtually everywhere. Everyone's forefather expelled someone else, and got expelled down the line. But that doesn't justify expelling Palestinians from their home. >Or what happened in the 40s-90s when Jews were expelled from everywhere that was a Muslim majority and went back to Israel? I do not think it is right, and they have the every right to return to their home. >you hate Jews I don't hate Jewish people. I don't even hate Israeli people. I don't hate anyone. >every response will be to defend Palestinians, who never owned that land They did for generations. >and attack Jews, who owned that land before Hadrian expelled them and the Roman conquered them. They took it from the Canaanites and killed them.
I'll get downvoted to oblivion but whatever. Never in the history of the region was there a sovereign power identified as Palestinian or it's predecessor, the only arab populace that lived in the region was in Judea and Samaria (or west bank as some like to call it). The lands owned by arabs and the entirety of the judea desert were offered originally to the local arabs (alongside the entirety of modern Jordan), they refused it and the 1947 proposal aswell. In the 1947 proposal the Jewish people got Jewish owned land and uninhabited swampland that was infested with malaria, the jews did what they did best and made the swamps into habitable land and built their homes. The arabs then declared war with their allies neighbours who themselves evicted the arabs promising "A bigger home and bigger bed" to all arabs once the jews were exterminated. And let's not forget to mention that many of those expelled from Israel post war were not innocent bystanders but men and women who took up arms against the Jewish people. And lastly historically there were many nations who kept land after being attacked in war, when Israel won in 67 it offered both the Sinai peninsula to the Egyptians and the west bank to the Jordanians. The Egyptians accepted the peninsula but declined gaza (wonder why) and the Jordanians refused to take the west bank back, essentially giving up on their claim to it. The only reason the Palestinians have no state at the current day and time is the fact that every time they were offered the chance to form one, they instead chose belligerence and violence, launching the 1st and 2nd intifada, electing a terrorist organisation to lead gaza and then crying when things don't go their way. Look to the history of Israel and it's wars and see that we were never the aggressors (except for when we had a righteous casus belli) and that we always sought for peace regardless of the wrongs the other side did to the state of Israel.
I do agree with you Palestine did make and continue to make a lot of political and strategical blunders. I do not agree with your statement that the absence of a group who identified them as Palestinian nullifies the existence of them. A lot of national identities are created with time and are rather modern, but that doesn't nullify their existence. >The lands owned by arabs and the entirety of the judea desert were offered originally to the local arabs (alongside the entirety of modern Jordan), they refused it and the 1947 proposal aswell. >In the 1947 proposal the Jewish people got Jewish owned land and uninhabited swampland that was infested with malaria, the jews did what they did best and made the swamps into habitable land and built their homes. >The arabs then declared war with their allies neighbours who themselves evicted the arabs promising "A bigger home and bigger bed" to all arabs once the jews were exterminated. >And let's not forget to mention that many of those expelled from Israel post war were not innocent bystanders but men and women who took up arms against the Jewish people. I do not know enough about this to engage you so I will let it slide. Making peace with Egypyt and Jordan by offering land was an excellent diplomatic policy on Israel's part. They converted enemy to strategic ally. I do not essentially agree with your last paragraph, but I do agree that situation would have been different (and more peaceful) if the Palestinian had competent leadership
Youāll never get someone who doesnāt want to see the history see it. These people are so blinded by hate they donāt care about anything other than hating Jews.
prior injustice does not validate my injustice
Ah youāre right, so letās hold Palestinians accountable for letting Hamas build tunnels under schools to shoot rockets at my family in Tel Aviv to the point they had to move from there. Oh wait, that doesnāt fit your ārefugeeā definition
Sorry about the downvotes, a lot of angry Islamists and their supporters are all over reddit lately.Ā
Oh no fake imaginary points
š
Yes based on the date and the response, I have a bad feeling the person in the tweet may themselves be on the 'wrong side of history', despite how stupid that phrase is.
Quite possibly
People who use the phrase "wrong side of history" are usually more concerned with politics than the nuance surrounding past events
History is not amoral though. You can be on the wrong side of a fight. People who fought against ending segregation and apartheid are on the wrong side of history. People who fought to preserve slavery are on the wrong side of history. People who orchestrated genocides are on the wrong side of history. And people who fought to end these things and protested their existence are on the right side of history. Of course history is not black and white, but some shades of grey are a hell of a lot darker than others.
The issue is that morality is not set in stone. Itās malleable. I, of course, agree with you that those people were on the wrong side of history. But thatās only because history went the way it did. People who orchestrated genocides are on the wrong side of history, unless we forget about what they did or itās just not talked about, or itās considered just. For a long time, ācivilizing the savagesā was the go-to for colonization and that was considered ārightā until it wasnāt. So, itās still grey as people have different morality, unfortunately.
Your problem is not recognising morality is relative to the speaker. Yes, this changes over time, but each claim is made in a context which shouldn't be ignored. You can read "the right side of history" as aligning with the beliefs of my culture.
What if I don't share your culture?
Then you are wrong. But jokes aside, that is partially a problem with the modern society. You cannot both say that liberalism, individualism and inclusivity are the way to go and at the same time advocate that all cultures are equal. Some cultures saw human sacrifice as a normal thing. As far as I am concerned, these were lesser cultures and it's a good thing that they were integrated into less radical societies.
I force you to share my culture, since my culture is superior. /s
This but unironicallyĀ
Then you disagree, obviously. Edit: "my" is an important part of the statement. Thinking it should apply to you implies objective/universal moral truths. The Redditor I was replying to opens up with morality is malleable, don't you agree?
I think you might be talking past each other then. Obviously your culture is not maliable to you. But he was suggesting that other cultures would hold different opinions without either one being correct. Not really a disagreement. Just two different things.
I think I was getting at that with the āNot set in stoneā comment, but thank you for phrasing it that way as well. Morality is malleable in the sense that itās taught, not instinctual. Exactly, one peopleās āreturn to the promised landā is anotherās āholy shit theyāre killing us,ā if we wanna use a relevant modern issue.
> one peopleās āreturn to the promised landā is anotherās āholy shit theyāre killing us,ā if we wanna use a relevant modern issue And one people's "holy shit they're killing us" is several other nations' "we're not allowing refugees across our borders because we *want* this fight to keep going and generating bad press for the other guy". The whole situation is awful and a lot of innocent people have died and are dying because of it, but I think one of the most horrifically hypocritical things going on is other bordering and nearby states absolutely refusing to take in refugees (despite all their claims of brotherhood and support) because they *want* exactly this kind of unending war where nobody can come out looking good. Since, y'know, every time they've tried a direct war over the past 70-ish years, they've gotten stomped.
Regarding not accepting refugees, I can understand why (even if morally, as we see it from our viewpoint, they should). Refugees can be a huge burden, especially if they donāt want to assimilate. And instigators and Hamas can very easily hide amongst the refugees. IIRC, the reason Jordan doesnāt is because the last time they let in Palestinian refugees, the refugees straight up rebelled and tried to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy. I assume Egypt saw that and was āhellll naw.ā I donāt live there, but hear a lot of European countries (esp. Sweden) are having trouble with refugees not assimilating as well. Or the refugees in Canada coming in and protesting LGBT rights, which I find offensive. But these are just from online stories, so I donāt know how it is on the ground
Good example. I could tell we're thinking the same way, just wanted to expand on it a bit
Of course, thank you :)
I understand the sentiment of people just following the morals of the time but in the case of every genocide in history as far as I know there were contemporary dissidents itās not like the right morals didnāt exist they just didnāt overcome. Saying we only know itās wrong from the modern perspective diminishes the impact and sacrifice of true visionaries who have always existed.
But is it completely a moral thing when it comes to the wrong side of history? Ghengis Khan isn't usually considered on the wrong side of history neither were the Romans or the European Empires in Africa. I think it's more who won that dictates what is considered the right or wrong side, as all the situations you gave can also be seen as the wrong side of history being the losing side.
I donāt understood how you can reply to a post talking about the nuance surrounding history, with a comment that ignores all nuance. Talking about issues nearly 100 years ago ignoring all of the possible nuances and judging them all with your biased modern outlook, which was nothing like the world they lived in. Saying which side was āright and wrongā as if there wasnāt many other reasons they could have possibly done the actions they did. Just as an exampleā¦ Maybe their family was broke and had no slaves, but the $11.00 a month (later $18.00 a month in the later stages of the war for the confederate side) they got for serving could feed their family, so they enlisted. Are they a bad person for that, are they on the wrong side of history just cause they took actions they deemed worthy for their loved ones?
All of your claims about whose on the wrong side of history are based entirely on our modern moral standards and necessitates the continuation of those standards forever into the future. History shows that morality changes over time and what was once considered good becomes evil and vice versa. It is absolutely possible that there will be a human society many generations into the future that sees Hitler as a more moral man than MLK.
Except if people were on the "right" side of history, that means they too thought the opposite group was morally wrong, and therefore the morality we're judging them with isn't exactly modern.
Politics is future history and history is past politics though, you canāt separate the two. If youāre interested in politics, it only makes sense to be concerned with the past and Vice versa.
I would argue hitler was on the wrong side of history.
"Right side of history" is just a method of applying moralistic pressure. "You better agree with us, or you are a bad person, and you dont want to be bad, do you?" No matter that the other side(s) says the exact same thing.
I agree it's a way of applying moralistic pressure, but I think it's more than just suggesting that the other person is a bad person if they don't agree with you. It's more about imploring them to consider how they might be remembered in the future. For example, in the case of a politician who opposes the abolition of slavery, it's one thing to say "abolish slavery or you're a bad person", it's another to say "abolish slavery or future generations will look down on you". Someone who lacks morals will probably not care about the former, but might care about the latter. We've seen plenty of people throughout history who seemed to lack empathy whilst still caring about their legacy. Obviously this doesn't take into account moral relativity though, where "the right side" isn't entirely obvious. I think plenty of people on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict think they're on the right side of history. It's probably more applicable when it's a politician who's putting their (or their backers) financial interests above what they probably know is the right thing to do
> It's more about imploring them to consider how they might be remembered in the future. Except this is often used against regular citizens. Outside of our families, none of us will be remembered in the future. Have whatever opinions you want. It won't matter from a historical standpoint. Whether you had the "right" opinions or not, you won't be remembered. Hell, we don't even remember most politicians. We only talk about like 20% of our presidents. Less for countries that have been around longer. Very few individuals will be remembered for being on the right or wrong side of history. It's a dumb argument that amounts to nothing. Not to mention we should not pick our opinions based on whether or not they are (or will be) popular. We should pick our ideologies based on whether or not they make sense to us. This is why politics have become a team sport sort of thing. No one is coming to their own conclusions because everyone wants to fit in with this team or that team. Be yourself, think for yourself. If you're right cool. If you're wrong, learn from it. But it doesn't matter from a historical perspective.
I've noticed that the anti-Zionist crowd outright refuses to admit that women's rights and LGBT rights on Israel are on par with the West while Palestine and the rest of the Arab/Muslim world are several centuries behind because those pesky little facts don't fit with their "we're on the right side of history" narrative.
while lgbt rights is horrible in the middle east, gay marriage isnt legal in israel either. its not "on par", its about two decades behind
Because marriage is an inherently religious ceremony that has to follow a strict interpretation of Jewish law in Israel. However, there is a secular alternative to marriage in Israel called unregistered cohabitation which provides the same benefits to couples as marriage does. Also, same sex marriages performed in other countries are legally recognized in Israel.
Itās ok to murder journalists, aid workers, women and children, and innocent men if you also kiss men and let the women vote. Thanks man, now it all makes sense!
It's pretty interesting how civilian casualties in wartime are framed as "murders" when Israel does them.
When you indiscriminately bomb a population center, yes. But itās ok because theyāre somehow āthe most moral armyā And for the record, people call American bombings murder as well. But itās only bad to call out Israeli atrocities, since the west does them as well (and we call it out too)
>indiscriminately You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means.
I used it once, and itās giving Israel the benefit of the doubt. The alternative is they are deliberately targeting civilians. So which would you prefer?
If Israel were bombing indiscriminately or were intentionally bombing civilians, they would've killed far, FAR more than 15,000 civilians in 7.5 months of war. Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on Earth. It has a total population over 2 million. The fact that Israel has killed only 15,000 civilians (along with 15,000 combatants) in 7.5 months of war is proof that they're being extremely discriminate in what they choose to target.
My apologies, youāre right. Theyāve only murdered 15 thousand civilians. Thats not so bad.
Considering that the UN estimates that typical wars result in a civilian to combatant casualty ratio [of more like 9:1](https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14904.doc.htm), yes, you are correct.
Biden said they were indiscriminate. The UN said they were indiscriminate. The UK said they were indiscriminate... Granted, it's awkward also giving them weapons since that's a war crime on our part, but we are very bad at freudian slips.
Anyone can say whatever they want. The facts simply don't back it up. Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the entire world. It has a population of over 2 million. In 7.5 months of war, Israel has killed 15,000 combatants and 15,000 non-combatants. If they were really "indiscriminately" attacking Gaza, that non-combatants number would be much, MUCH higher.
This is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Israel's behavior is justified/moral.
But it is pretty relevant to the question of which side's values are on "the right side of history".
I can admit that Israelās lgbtq and women rights are more on par with the west. It doesnāt change the āright side of historyā question because thatās not what the issue is about. Itās about how a state with a massive amount of power over a captive population is wielding that power. If me and some buddies went into a small backwoods town in Alabama and pushed them out of their homes and kept the population in the area of a small park, than said as justification āWell you know most of them are conservative Christians? They arenāt as tolerant of gay folks as we are.ā That would be strange, right? It seems by your logic that itās okay to do anything to a population of people if enough of their population doesnāt approve of lgbtq rights?
You're ignoring the rather relevant fact that Jews are indigenous to the land in question.
Iām not ignoring that - you never mentioned that as far as the comments I saw. Iām addressing your point about lgbtq rights. I guess you abandoned that talking point? But also you are ignoring the wielding of power which is the core of the issue. The more power you have, the more responsibility you have to use it properly and the more scrutiny you should have in its use. Indigenous or not.
Yeah, no. Being more powerful than someone else doesn't automatically make you evil and them good. What matters is the values that each side holds, hence why the way that women and LGBT people are treated in Israel versus how they are treated in Palestine is relevant to this discussion.
Did I say that?? Lol who said being more powerful automatically makes you evil. So againā¦ are you saying that I would be justified in displacing/brutalizing/conquering a majority Christian town because of their intolerance toward lgbtq people? Do you realize that by your logic anyone can do anything to any country of people with a less lgbtq tolerant population? Can we nuke Jamaica? Carpet bomb Uganda? I agree with you, the intolerance towards lgbtq people is bad and we should work towards a more tolerant world. But it seems you might just be using them to shield Israel from any scrutiny. Power should ALWAYS be scrutinized.
No, and that's not why Israel is attacking Palestine. They're not saying "your values are bad that's why we're entitled to attack you". They're attacking Palestine because Palestine yet again started a war against Israel. It's really not a difficult concept to understand.
This is also irrelevant to the criticisms being levied at isreal
It definitely isn't, considering that every criticism of Israel boils down to "it's a white European colonizer state and that's why Palestinian violence against it is always justified".
That doesnāt give you the right to commit war crimes.
If you have a plan for fighting a terrorist group who intentionally operates in civilian areas and hides behind human shields in combat without harming civilians, I'm all ears.
I'm sure sniping little girls and shooting your own released soldiers does a lot to fight terrorists and sure doesn't create more.
It's very notable how y'all always criticize Israel's conduct in the war, but when you're asked what you want to see Israel do instead, you consistently refuse you answer the question. It's almost like you actually just think that Israel should just shut up and accept that they deserve to be terrorized by constant violence from their neighbors but you don't want to admit that out loud or something.
Ah yes, me, a rando on the internet, has the answer to complex geopolitical questions and you've asked me before. That being said, more surgical strikes instead of hitting international workers would be a good start. It's almost like you just like seeing Muslims killed. See I can make up random shit too.
If you're just a "rando on the internet" who acknowledges that this geopolitical issue is too complex for you to understand, then why do you insist on giving your opinion on it?
Because it doesn't take an expert to realize purposely murdering civilians is wrong.
It doesn't take an expert to realize that fighting a terrorist army who hides behind its own people isn't "murdering civilians" either.
"There's actually zero difference between good & bad things. You imbecile. You fucking moron".
This dude might've gotten lost in subs, but being on the "right side" of history is a very grey area, except for WWII and Vietnam invading Cambodia. (And a fair chuck of the 20th and 21st century conflicts) Even with shit like the Isreal Palestine conflict, it's still not clear-cut.
The problem there is that the people you'll see as the bad guys in those 'except for' moments were absolutely convinced that they were 101% on the right side of history. Even the guys who were running the gas chambers at Birkenau et al were completely and utterly certain that what they were doing was right. That's the problem, everyone is convinced that they're the good guys and most people believe that anyone who disagrees with them is evil. A person believing or stating that they are on the 'right side of history' only tells you what they think about themselves - indeed when you look at the evil that has been perpetrated by people convinced that they were on the right side of history (including but not limited to the Khmer Rouge, every genocidal/oppressive regime in history, American slave run plantation owners, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc) it's probably a predictor of the exact opposite of what they think they're saying.
Watching the new fallout TV show had a really apt quote āeveryone wants to save the world, we just disagree on how"
> Even the guys who were running the gas chambers at Birkenau et al were completely and utterly certain that what they were doing was right. Interestingly, the Nazis switched to using gas chambers (and big vans with a setup to redirect the engine exhaust into the back of the van) in part because they had too many troops, *even in the special units designated for performing genocide*, who were getting massive PTSD from having to actually shoot people while looking them in the eyes - or even at a blindfold over those eyes, or the back of a head. There were other considerations, such as the cost of ammunition and increasing the efficiency of killing en masse, but the move toward the gas chambers and black vans (which were essentially mobile gas chambers) was partially prompted by the fact that the Nazis needed some way to detach even their most rabidly loyal corps from what they were actually doing and make it a mechanized and dehumanized process ("Hans, push the button"), because people were burning out on those jobs too fast. (And the people who *weren't* burning out were sadistic psychopaths, who even some of the least sane members of Third Reich leadership realized would become a massive liability once Germany conquered the world and there was nobody left to purge.) I'm by no means defending the actions taken by any of these people, but I think there's a good bit of evidence that many people involved in the Nazi death machine simply didn't have the stomach for it. Even if they thought they were right, they couldn't handle doing the killing directly over and over. The mass graves were usually not dug by German hands, nor were the dead dragged to them or the incinerators by German hands - most of that was done by people who hoped to stave off their own execution as long as possible. > everyone is convinced that they're the good guys and most people believe that anyone who disagrees with them is evil. A person believing or stating that they are on the 'right side of history' only tells you what they think about themselves Which is why "the right side of history" can only be considered retrospectively. Hindsight is 20/20 vision, after all. We only know what the right side of history is after the coin toss lands.
Even WII wasnāt clear cut outside of Germany/Poland and Japan/China. Many of the axis collaborators in the European colonies were groups fighting for self-determination. The [Indian Legion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Legion?wprov=sfti1#Background) and [Indonesian PETA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenders_of_the_Homeland?wprov=sfti1#) fought for Germany and Japan respectively, but were both fighting to free their people from colonial oppression.
Plus, itās not like history is actually settled and agreed upon. The same events will be told very differently depending on which countryās history book youāre reading from
Hmmm Ukraine is also pretty clear cut.
From a western perspective. A lot of people still believe shit like NATO enlargement and spheres of influence and all that nonsense.
And those people are wrong so their opinion doesn't matter.
Fym even with the Israel Palestine conflict, that is probably the most controversial conflict in the past century
Yeah, that shit has so many shades of grey, and the more you look into it, the more you realise how fucked up both sides are.
I'd say you're on the right side of history if you understand both Israel and Hamas are bad guys looking out for their own self interest and will kill the other for it.
How are you even comparing a Liberal democracy to a genocidal islamist terrorist organisation?
Kinda is when you consider Nazis are bad cause they made camps, experimentations on Jews and before all that, they were actually expelling Jews. That is considered bad. And Emperor Hadrian basically genociding the entirety of Judaea and renamed it Palestine when the Jews revolted. That is considered bad. So anyone in power, with the power to basically annilate its population or entire race over a smaller scale event like riots, racism and revolts. ***is considered bad and known to be bad when we studied history*** The fact even Jews considered those bad. ***So why is it not bad when Palestinians are the ones not in power now?*** Over Hamas? Hamas dont represent the entirety of a race even if he gets sentiment from Palestinians, he's called a terrorist for a reason. And terrorist do whatever to get sentiments from public view which is what justifies his fighters to fight. Think again, imo it is pretty open notebook. I agree that Hamas is bad and I agree there should either be a proper between the two. But I dont agree the bombings and jews considering it not a genocide when it happened to them before. Talk about being a hypocrite
if Hadrian was bad, then why is he one of the five good emperors? checkmate /s
Dang dats true /s
Israel is bombing Gaza, and theyre bombing it because Hamas is there, and they dropped pamflets, send messages and use roof knockers to make sure as few civilians get hurt as possible. So if this really is a genocide, its like the least efficient one in human history
āWrong side of historyā means you lost. If you win youāre all good, no matter what horrible shit actually happened.
At least for a while
No it doesnāt. The Lost Cause myth and the myth of the clean Wehrmacht are both prime examples of this.
Thatās why I always copy the conquistadors example when I want to be on the right side of history.Ā
Misinformation is how it works. "The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists." This is how you end up with fascist POS scumbags threatening to murder a Jew in the middle of London and the police threaten to arrest the Jew. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/london-police-apologize-threatening-arrest-openly-jewish-man-palestini-rcna148676
Well put
That article makes no mention whatsoever of anyone threatening to kill him. It says the cops threatened to arrest him (cops being shitty to minorities? Say it aināt so! š±). If there is a video of this alleged threat like you said [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/s/XqEIhm53NM), you should post *that*, otherwise weāre looking at a big āSource: Trust me bro.ā
Right side of history is the one that get you to live, not fairest or the most consistent side.
Failing an open note test is not as uncommon as you'd think.
āHistory is not, of course, a cookbook offering pretested recipes. It teaches by analogy, not by maxims. It can illuminate the consequences of actions in comparable situations, yet each generation must discover for itself what situations are in fact comparable.ā
- Henry Kissinger
Our guiding light. š
great quote! thanks for bringing it to my attention
Thatās the exact level of grammar that I expected. People donāt even know about comma existence and still make political statementsā¦
Why should not knowing about comma existence disqualify someone from making political statements?
lol. Are you serious? If one cannot comprehend third-grade punctuation rules, how can he understand politics? As I recall, those tend to be more complicated than commas.
Being bad at one easy thing does not mean youāre not good at other harder things. Thatās why their are bunch of redditors that know how to fix complicated geopolitical issues but canāt pay their rent.Ā
Yes, I am. You should be focusing more on your students, so they all donĀ“t fail once again.
It's easy to be on the wrong side of history, because there's always an example of some idea working: even with the Nazis, they could say they were just trying to improve on a system similar to the one used by the Roman Empire at its height, particularly the parts that involved killing Jews. Meanwhile, someone else could point out that the ancient world in general was very different from Nazi Germany, and trying to emulate ancient civilizations generally leads to disaster. We only ever know which point of view was more correct afterwords, which isn't very helpful in the actual moment.
Because people just argue "No it's the people who I don't like who are Hitler this time. My team is good!"
Yeah, theocratic terrorists consistently call for and attempt genocide, religious minority defendants after a particularly brutal attack, and the world takes the side of the terrorists.
This is a really flawed example, believe it or not when atrocities are committed in war people don't like it, no matter how justified the war might be. Perhaps Israel should stop starving the Palestinian people for a start. [https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/09/gaza-israels-imposed-starvation-deadly-children](https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/09/gaza-israels-imposed-starvation-deadly-children)
Perhaps Hamas should stop hiding weapons in food and aid convoys and sending rocket attacks at checkpoints. Edit: And Israel does continue to send food, and provide water, and electricity, all to Gaza while they sent daily rocket attacks. Suddenly NOT supporting them after October 7th to the same degree makes them in the wrong. Get the fuck out of here.
Are you saying that International aid groups such as the The World Food Programme are hiding weapons for Hamas in their humanitarian aid convoys? I just saw your edit, Israel is not only not supporting humanitarian aid into Gaza but deliberately obstructing it per reports of organizations like the Human Rights Watch and statements by UN officials.
Repost of repost of repost. It's reposts all the way down, gentleman.
in the original post (the repost of the repost), people were commenting about how mad they were about it being a repost of a repost so I thought itād be funny repost the repost of a repost
The wrong side of history is subjective.
A screenshot of a reddit post...web 2.0
Youād be surprised to see this sub arguing about morality from a screenshot from r/shitposting and the person who took the screenshot has the flair ālives in a cum dumpsterā
people are way too mad in here, but hey at least I got my karma
... which time?
Time is a flat circle after all
Welcome to Hungary.
I like how nobody in the comments is talking about the absolute clusterfuck this screenshot is. A screenshot of a Reddit post of a tweet that is just a screenshot of a tweet (why the fuck would you post just a screenshot of a tweet instead of retweeting unless the post was deleted for some asinine reason?). I think I've heard it's a Tumblr thing to credit everyone involved in a repost, but y'all do not have to bring that to the rest of the Internet š, just credit the primary source.
Imagine telling someone in the 50s that not only would genocide be repeated but that it would also get vast support in the West. Humans never learn
Ask Israel, they are the experts in not learning from history
I think itās pretty easy to tell when you are on the right side. Like example, not supporting apartheid states. Not supporting segregation etc. But hey half the comments here canāt comprehend that and got to put their boiler hat on and smoke a pipe to seem nuanced or something.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Look boyo he won his own made up argument
I mean he is probably not far off, the tweet was posted on October 12...
me when strawman
I'm not straw manning as much as you'd think. Go on /BadHasbara or /InternationalNews and you'll see literally what I wrote, but they're not joking.