Exactly, they should! What they’re doing instead is using violence on people outside their in-group.

The fascists are trying to kill people. In response your argument proposes what is best described as a kind of Stockholm syndrome. But instead of a empathy for captors your argument would have victims have empathy for their murderers. Like some kind of extreme form of rape culture. It’s disgusting in my opinion.

Neither are the people celebrating here, according to this logic. See the issue?

Those tolerant people are feeling empathy for each other regardless of their group. They are even expressing empathy for Charlie Kirk’s children. So they are following the social contract where as the fascists are not.

Apparently they are not, as exemplified by celebration of violence here.

Those who break the peace treaty are not protected by it. The fascists broke the peace treaty so the fascists are not protected by it.

They feel empathy for the intolerant

The users in this thread are still tolerant of each other, regardless of group. So the empathy they feel towards each other is for tolerant people of different groups.

, and dislike the emphatic.

Fascists want to kill out groups. Fascists are practicing parochial empathy if even that. Your argument seems to have no grasp of what empathy is or how to practice it in a healthy or useful way so it is not compelling. edit: typo

You see the issue with this parochial approach to empathy?

Tolerant people in groups whether that is by race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender are still feeling empathy for tolerant people outside their groups. So people practicing tolerance as a peace treaty are still practicing empathy not parochial empathy.

Do you see the problem with using a straw man to argue? Refuting your argument is trivial.

That’s what most here are doing.

Considering this acts in accordance with self-preservation this is a rational and useful decision to have made.

Should everyone in this group who celebrates breaking of the social contract be fair game for reprisal?

Charlie Kirk and the other fascists he was a mouth piece for have already broken the social contract with their fascist takeover of the United States. This fascists administration goal is to around up minority groups into death camps and a pollute the planet as much as possible with coal powered ‘freedom cities’. The fascist chose to break the peace treaty and so they are no longer protected by it.

The intolerant group has already decided those being tolerant are fair game before this. The fascists already wanted to kill people. We knew this before the election. They were completely open with what they wanted to do. Now tolerant people have to work together with people outside their groups to defend themselves against intolerant fascists. This is a clear cut example of real empathy.

You are describing parochial empathy, with the caveat that somehow you think it’s different when you do it.

No parochial empathy is when an in-group only has empathy for the in-group and none for any out-groups.

The resolution to the paradox of tolerance does not require individuals in a group to only experience empathy for other individuals in their group.

Instead members of groups that adhere to the social contract or peace treaty of tolerance all feel empathy for each other.

Only when an individual, individuals, or a group of people break the social contract or peace treaty are they no longer protected by it. Every individual in the groups still being tolerant still feel empathy for each other across group lines.

This is so the groups that practice tolerance can defend themselves from a group that has chosen to be intolerant. Such as the Nazis killing minority groups in WWII.

If you’re going to be doing this what style guide are you using? Why did you choose that one? Why is it the most useful option? You’ve made an entire account about enforcing apostrophe usage but don’t have any sources or explanation to back it up on your bio.

I thought it would be fun to try 90’s since that looks more appealing than '90s. We don’t use this ’ to cut off preceding symbols in anything other than 'twas which also looks wrong.

Then I thought It was useful that you were doing this because imposing whatever the current most used trend for apostrophes would help facilitate communication between the greatest number of English readers and writers. It would be democratic even.

Then I realized I had no idea what the current most used trend for apostrophes even was and without any sources no way of knowing if your style was anything resembling that. (I like 90s now btw.)

So then I looked up who even made grammar anyway and it turns out a lot of people but a couple individuals stand out.

https://www.wordgenius.com/who-actually-created-all-these-grammar-rules/Xr0yWBPAJQAG8w-n

The First Grammarian

Modern English grammar can be traced back to William Bullokar, a printer from the 16th century. Back in 1586, Bullokar wrote the Pamphlet for Grammar, which we now know as the first English grammar resource. His grammar resource compared English to Latin. He also created a phonetic 40-letter English alphabet, addressing the 40 different phonetic sounds he identified. His goal was to increase literacy in England and make it easier for foreigners to learn the language.

Robert Lowth is one of the more notable grammarians who built upon Bullokar’s work. He wrote A Short Introduction to English Grammar in the late 18th century, and this book formed the groundwork for many other grammarians as they standardized English grammar.

Lowth’s book became known as one of the first examples of prescriptive grammar, or one establishing the rules for how grammar should be used. By contrast, descriptive grammar simply explains how people actually use grammar.

Creating a System

Lowth wasn’t the only one who tried to standardize grammar. Many others preceded him and many more followed. British schoolmistress Ann Fisher was the first published female grammarian and an early user of an all-purpose pronoun. She wrote A New Grammar in 1745, shortly before Lowth’s work came on the scene, and her book was released in 30 editions over 50 years. Fisher’s work was one of the first to detail modern grammar practices, many of which are still in use today.

That all being said, what’s the style guide or grammar reference book every English writer on lemmy should refer to?

Wrong to who? You?

*in the 90’s

This is meaningless gatekeeping imposed by older people on younger people. If you were a child in the 90’s you were a 90’s kid. The validity of your lived experience doesn’t depend on your current ability.

By OP’s reasoning people who no longer remember their childhood no longer count as a kid for their decade. Eventually everyone will be dead and then according to the OP no one will have lived either.

I remember watching Power Rangers and Barney in the 90’s which I was born. Take that meaningless distinction.

But if you agree that Hamas is despicable, why not call for it to surrender?

Hamas should turn themselves over the ICJ, they won’t, but this would not stop Israel.

Why can’t you say war criminals should turn themselves over to the ICJ?

You don’t think it would stop Israel, but it could

The actions of one group of people have no bearing over the actions of another group of people. Hamas does not control Israel. Hamas is not making Israel kill civilians. Israel can stop killing civilians whenever they want.

Because you don’t want Israel to ‘win’?

What is Israel winning here? Global isolation? Crimes against humanity? Increasing antisemitism?

The chance of saving children isn’t worth that much to you?

No, killing children isn’t worth making the world a worse place for all of us.

They would have to, and they would.

This is an appeal to common decency fallacy. No one is forced to do something because it is decent. Israel is proof of that with it’s indecent attacks on civilians. The evidence we have indicates Israel’s governments wants to be at war to maintain its grip on power. They are actively ignoring a proposal that is effectively equivalent to one they already agreed to previously.

My suspicion is that Israel only agreed thinking Hamas would not. Now that Hamas has agreed to it Israel is in an awkward spot. And no doubt Israel would be even more mask off if Hamas blatantly surrendered.

so angry and attacking of Israel.

Because your argument is a collection of fallacies and genocide apologia. And it’s not the first time it’s been trotted out. Hamas isn’t the organization bombing Gaza right now. And sure Hamas definitely wanted this to happen, but that doesn’t excuse Israel’s disregard of international law and human decency.

You react vehemently against the notion that Hamas should surrender

The idea that Israel would cease attacking civilians if Hamas surrendered is false based on the evidence of a genocide being live streamed to our phones. For Israel, the genocide is the goal. Netanyahu wants to form a greater Israel and deny Palestinian statehood.

There is no justification for attacking civilians. Calling Palestinians human shields is not a valid legal or moral argument, it is a dehumanization tactic. The fact that Israel is at war with Hamas doesn’t matter. If Israel would follow international law this would end today. If Israel would acknowledge their shared humanity with the Palestinians this would end today.

Israel is the one bombing civilians. If Israel would stop bombing civilians this would end today. edit: typos

If the Israelis who fought in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War were 18 in 1948 that would make them 77 years older or 95 years old. This is like Israel hunting down the Nazis on their death bed. At some point most of these people died of old age. It’s going to be the odd centenarian who faces justice in 2030.

I am not a Nazi or a Zionist. I do not seek the total extermination of groups of people. This has no appeal to me. Put whoever in jail or prison that deserves it but you will likely be transferring them to a hospital and then a morgue shortly after.

Here is the current list of centenarians now as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_centenarians

Searching by Israeli I get seven matches:

• Dutch-Israeli | Holocaust survivor[11]
• Israeli | Air Force major general[68]
• German-born British-Israeli | Journalist, actor, businessman and Holocaust survivor[180]
• Israeli | Military official and expert[222]
• Ukrainian-Israeli | Olympic fencer[262]
• Israeli | Nuclear physicist[277]
• Polish-born Israeli | War veteran[306]

Unless you speak some of these languages I recommend the language translator option that should appear in the top right of your browser’s search bar.

Are we arresting the Polish guy who fought in the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 against the Nazis? He also fought in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War against Arabs.

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-853294

Looks like the Major General and the Air Force Commander would fit squarely into the kind of people you would want in the Hauge.

There’s also the Dutch-Israeli woman who is a holocaust survivor to consider.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2538252-107-jarige-holocaustoverlevende-krijgt-amsterdamse-andreaspenning

And the British-Israeli holocaust survivor who rescued soldiers from the Battle of Normandy and is the oldest active journalist. But his quote about October 7th, published on January 7th, 2024 hasn’t aged well.

“I’ve always felt a deep connection to the Jewish people and our homeland. I value the moments I’ve spent fighting against tyranny and promoting the truth through journalism. I could never have imagined that at the age of 100 I would be a witness to the horrific pogrom against Jews that took place on October 7 and the terrifying resurgence of antisemitism since. As I celebrate today, I also pray for the future of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.”

Probably seemed like a reasonable statement a few months after October 7th.

https://www.jwire.com.au/walter-bingham-kindertransport-survivor-celebrates-100th-birthday/

There is the Ukrainian Israeli Olympic fencer

A man who survived the Battle of Stalingrad and the Chernobyl disaster.

Источник: https://www.sovsport.ru/chronicles/articles/segodnya-istoricheskij-den-starejshemu-otechestvennomu-olimpijczu-100-let

(The site can copy the link when you paste a quote. Cool.)

And here’s a softball, the Israeli nuclear physicist was in the Palmach. Easy Hague material.

Those are the seven who are 100 or older now. Is this something people are seriously interested engaging in for people younger than that who would now be in their nineties? Or does this context not even matter and people want these people in prison regardless? And is prison good enough or do people want blood? Punishing these people in any capacity won’t undermine Zionism. There is no utility in such an endeavor if the goal is defeating Zionism, an ideology.

Also, since I identified seven Jewish centenarians which comes off as a sus thing to do and some people like saying things that start off with ‘If you were a Jew’, I’m a Russian-Jewish American and undoubtedly a mix of European ethnic groups as I am pasty white, but not an Israeli. edit: typo

Israel as a zionist Jewish ethno-state must be replaced with a multi-ethnic pluralistic state. Part of accomplishing that requires Netanyahu’s governing coalition collapse. A great way to accomplish that would be to send Israel’s government to the Hague.

I know that. Read the comment section. There is a user arguing against shutting down the government on the basis of a third option that the user cannot give in any detail. We need to be pushing the Democrats for a shutdown because they will not do it on their own. The last thing we need is to give Democrats an out when we do not have a third option.

No shit. Look at what is being argued in this comment section. We need the Democrats to shutdown the government. A user is determined to push a third option instead that the user cannot list. The last thing we need is for people to assume there is a third option when we don’t have one. edit: typos

‘Do you condemn Hamas?’ is a meme at this point. No one is taking that far-right talking point seriously.

Your argument is using a motte-and-bailey fallacy. It begins by solely blaming Hamas for the continuation of the war for not surrendering when it is quite clear that Israel has no intention of accepting such a surrender. Israel is actively ignoring a ceasefire proposal they previously agreed to right now.

Then when pressed your argument retreats to asserting most people refuse to put partial blame on Hamas. I condemn Hamas. A majority of people on here do. No one is interested in wasting their time saying that. ‘Do you condemn Hamas’ has been done quite a bit at this point. There’s nothing weird about not taking your genocide apologia seriously.

Yes, because Israel is explicitly a settler colonial project. They could keep attacking Gaza like they keep attacking Syria despite Syria not doing anything hostile to them. Israel is there to take land while killing and displacing the current inhabitants.

US support for Israel is not derived from popular support, but by the profits of the military industrial complex. As long the conflict is profitable it will continue.

Netanyahu’s has explicitly stated it is the goal of his generation to deny Palestinian statehood.

Hamas should turn themselves over the ICJ, they won’t, but this would not stop Israel. Right-wing groups want their opposing counterparts to exist so they have an excuse to commit more atrocities later. Hamas wants nothing more for everyone in Gaza to die so they can have two million martyrs. Israel’s far right government wanted a pretext to carry out this genocide. It’s undoubtedly part of why Netanyahu help found Hamas. Which has been known publicly since 2019. edit: typo

https://newrepublic.com/article/176962/hamas-finances-funding-sources-palestinian-authority

For fascists, the constant state of conflict is the goal. In Netanyahu’s case this is doubly true, because he could end up in prison if his government collapses.

This is your reminder that we are in a make a deal or shut down situation because of how the Constitution requires the Democrats to have a majority of votes to do anything. Which in theory is how things should work in a majority rule democracy. edit: typo

Without the shutdown Democrats wouldn’t have any leverage right now. Which isn’t great, but is better than nothing for fighting fascism. It would have been better if Democrats had been socialists from the get go and gotten rid of the debt ceiling when they had power but they weren’t and they didn’t.

If you have a third option please share it. And make sure you’re getting fresh air in your building.

Again with the false dichotomy. I can be against allowing a shutdown and against appeasing the fascists at the same time.

No you cannot and still be providing a logically consistent argument. Those positions are mutually exclusive.

Those two are NOT the only options are pretending otherwise is playing into the hands of fascists and other demagogues such as Schumer.

There are no mechanisms in the Constitution for the minority party to enact meaningful change or to obstruct that do not involve shutting down the government.

What are the other options?

Some ABSOLUTELY do.

They are a tiny minority that does not include Trump.

Again, they’re not unanimous. The Freedumb Caucus and other factions always defect at first.

They defect in favor of a shutdown.

Again, tell that to the people who might survive if a third option is accomplished.

What third option?

If they can’t do anything while in the minority, why show up to work at all? Why do we keep paying them if they’re literally powerless and thus useless?

Exactly. Hence a government shutdown.

The answer is that they’re NOT anywhere near as powerless as you and they pretend. They have ways of subverting or at least delaying the whole absurd procedure if they’re willing to.

Yes. With a government shutdown.

Anyway, I’ve said what needs to be said and you’ve made it abundantly clear that you’re not going to understand it no matter how many times I repeat myself and/or rephrase things, so we’re done here. Have the day you deserve.

Open your windows. You may have carbon monoxide poisoning.

You’re literally doing what you are accusing me of doing with all that nonsense I didn’t quote. Like a Republican. It’s a blatantly clear cut situation. If you have a third option to this situation speak up! Say what that third option is. That’s how it’s obvious you’re the one arguing in bad faith here or have carbon monoxide poisoning. edit: typo

If you knew a third option you could have listed it!