it’s also obvious that the benefits from Ai are just shallow stuff like helping the consumer do things with their voice instead of clicking buttons.
Not obvious to the billionaires and hedge funds who own most of the stock market.
Never forget that wealth and power doesn’t automatically equal intelligence and competence…
They’ve had fab problems for years
Just checking: do you mean fabrication problems or FABULOUS problems? 😛
Your own link states that “in part” definitions may lead to highly subjective conclusions.
Yeah, that part means that you don’t have to kill every single Palestinian in order for your deliberate eradicative campaign to be a genocide. It doesn’t mean “killing any part of a people is genocide” 🤦
By this measure, the death penalty in the US would be considered genocide “in part” (especially if the judge, jurors, or clerks are mostly white and the executed person is of color, so as to establish that a “group” is targeting another group). A person acting in self-defense with a resulting death to the aggressor may also fall into the genocide criteria
Nope. Of COURSE not. I’m almost completely convinced that you’re arguing in bad faith. That or you’re extremely literal-minded AND not too smart… These are not difficult concepts for most people to understand and differentiate once it’s pointed out to them.
If Israel is only intent on destroying the Hamas terrorist organization
Yeah, that’s a negative. They’re trying to kill or displace away from the area every single Gazan and they’re already at over 90% displacement.
it is technically a political party, but they broadened their horizons on October 7th, I guess…
No, it’s a terrorist organization masquerading as a government. Critical infrastructure such as schools and hospitals are de facto run by UNRWA, not Hamas.
and not the whole Gazan/Palestinian population
That IS their actual target. Your Hasbara hypothetical isn’t helpful.
could it really still be labeled as genocide?
In that purely hypothetical scenario, whether it’s still a genocide would depend on a number of factors, including whether or not they take great care to avoid civilian casualties and only target known Hamas targets. They don’t, never have, and never will.
As I said, some people will even say a single death may be genocide “in part,”
Nobody not arguing in bad faith, profoundly confused/ignorant, or colossally dense. Since I gave you the definition, it’s either bad faith or stupidity in your case.
so this widening of the definition just weakens the term, unfortunately.
No, it’s not a widening. It’s a specifying that you don’t have to successfully eliminate everyone for it to be a genocide. A distinction that most adults not arguing in bad faith have no trouble comprehending.
It’s arguable whether there’s a genocide taking place
I love it when I know from the first sentence that there’s some awful apologia coming up… 🤦
If Israel really wanted to eliminate everyone
That’s a CHILD’S definition of genocide.
The ACTUAL definition from the convention itself is thus, first paragraph bolding mine:
any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
- (a) Killing members of the group;
- (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2[\[8\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#cite_note-Convention-text-8)
UsingRedefining the word ‘genocide’ soeasilydisingenuously and/or out of ignorance really takes away from theweightscope of thetermatrocities, unnecessarily defending the indefensible
Fixed It for you.
Yeah, because if they were accepting ads from the Russian government, Hamas, Hezbollah, or ISIS, nobody would bat an eye, right? 🙄
What has happened since shows the
delicateservile relationship Google has kept with its advertising client, the fascist apartheid state Israel
Fixed it for them.
And always about protecting the hegemony of the rich and powerful.
It’s never about the struggling artist/inventor just wanting to be paid for their work as the lobbyists and the politicians they own pretend every time they want to fuck over regular people some more.
Hell, the UK treats far right rioters FAR less harshly than environmentalists planning a peaceful protest!
Way to focus on the important parts 🙄
An especially obvious and egregious one is Haiti.
In the recent past, there’s also the US-backed coup against Evo Morales and the attempted one in Venezuela, known as Operation Freedom i case anyone should have any doubt as to who was really behind it…
The thing is, that we, the West, don’t want to be an imperial power that invades other countries any more
That’s true for the majority of the citizens but almost none of the governments.
To go with the most obvious example, the US government is interfering in the affairs of other countries and the private lives of its own citizens as much as it has ever done and willfully lying constantly to cover it and many other things up.
You don’t eat, sleep or go to the bathroom?
Someone call Harrison Ford, we have a replikant!
Fair enough lol
Something something dancers apparently aren’t humans (according to The Killers)
This same thing, amongst other excellent recent pro-consumer rulings?
SCP? Sane Clown Posse?
Protectionism is a valid reason to deny it
No it isn’t. Protectionism is jingoist bullshit. Always has been, always will be.
I wonder if denying Chinese tech under the guise of national security a last ditch attempt from big oil lobbyists?
Definitely. The leadership of both major US parties are pretty much owned by the fossil fuel industries.
Even progressives advocating for the Green New Deal won’t say the part about gradually eliminating fossil fuel use out loud out of fear of fossil fuel industry lobbyists and the politicians they own doing an AIPAC.
Or is that too far fetched
Not at all.
As someone who considered Suits somewhat of a guilty pleasure, that ad is absolute mirthless garbage lol. The top comment on the video is spot on.
You mean even if it didn’t? Because it definitely DOES and you’re absolutely right about the rest