It’s a nuanced article talking about the fog of war around disinformation online.
The Israeli genocide is obvious to international eyes that doesn’t make the fog of war less real or the article less of a nuanced description of the online disinformation campaigns.
The fact that you assumed I was pro Israel is your problem, not mine.
I firmly believe that there’s a ton of information warfare going on and that it’s hard to nail down specifics: that doesn’t change the fact that I also firmly believe Israel is committing atrocities on a grand scale and murdering Innocents by the thousands every day.
It’s ok to say you don’t know what the fuck Is going on and to still be against it.
Because you don’t know what is going on, and the article does a great job showing how quickly the lies spread.
You running a black and white good and evil division of the global view on the conflict is reductive and a weird take for an article that is an excellent piece of journalism.
This isn’t about literary critique or the merits of the article or quality of the journalism, this is a fundamentally political issue that you keep hiding behind nuance to avoid taking a stance.
Funny I thought my comment pretty clearly “picked a side”.
My comment is explicitly “Israel is committing genocide”. I didn’t write the implicit “and needs to stop or be stopped” cause I assumed we were working off the same base moral code: “genocide bad.”
But you had decided I was your enemy so you can’t actually read my comment.
It’s always lemmy.ml users who struggle with reading comprehension for some reason.
Yet you won’t pick a side on this particular issue.
I trust the people struggling on the ground against occupation. If their testimony is proven wrong I’ll accept it, but by default they have my support.
Meanwhile you float in your sea of nuance because you fundamentally do not trust Palestinians.
It’s a nuanced article talking about the fog of war around disinformation online.
The Israeli genocide is obvious to international eyes that doesn’t make the fog of war less real or the article less of a nuanced description of the online disinformation campaigns.
The fact that you assumed I was pro Israel is your problem, not mine.
I firmly believe that there’s a ton of information warfare going on and that it’s hard to nail down specifics: that doesn’t change the fact that I also firmly believe Israel is committing atrocities on a grand scale and murdering Innocents by the thousands every day.
It’s ok to say you don’t know what the fuck Is going on and to still be against it.
Because you don’t know what is going on, and the article does a great job showing how quickly the lies spread.
You running a black and white good and evil division of the global view on the conflict is reductive and a weird take for an article that is an excellent piece of journalism.
Pick a side or render yourself irrelevant.
This isn’t about literary critique or the merits of the article or quality of the journalism, this is a fundamentally political issue that you keep hiding behind nuance to avoid taking a stance.
Oh no, some people won’t take a side because they think things are complex and they don’t understand enough.
Oh no.
If they don’t understand completely clear genocide happening they should maybe shut up rather than support the genocider in circular centrist way.
Funny I thought my comment pretty clearly “picked a side”.
My comment is explicitly “Israel is committing genocide”. I didn’t write the implicit “and needs to stop or be stopped” cause I assumed we were working off the same base moral code: “genocide bad.”
But you had decided I was your enemy so you can’t actually read my comment.
It’s always lemmy.ml users who struggle with reading comprehension for some reason.
Yet you won’t pick a side on this particular issue.
I trust the people struggling on the ground against occupation. If their testimony is proven wrong I’ll accept it, but by default they have my support.
Meanwhile you float in your sea of nuance because you fundamentally do not trust Palestinians.