They're engaged in willful destruction of hospitals, they kill journalists on purpose, they have systematically blocked aid. Their friend minister recently declared an intent to eliminate all Palestinian territory.
> They're engaged in willful destruction of hospitals
If a civilian facility is used for military purposes it is a legitimate target. Ukranians also bomb schools and hospitals. Are Ukranians commit genocide?
If a hospital is never be attacked, what prevents militaries simply use hospitals as military bases? It's like the ultimate "get out of jail" free card.
> they kill journalists on purpose
US also did in Iraq. And? Does it make US's invasion of Iraq a genocide? Ukranians killed Russian journalists too. Does it make the war in Ukraine a genocide?
> they have systematically blocked aid
Egypt did so as well. Moreover, despite its international obligations, Egypt refused to accept Palestinian refugees as if it wanted a lot of civilians to die.
> Their friend minister recently declared an intent to eliminate all Palestinian territory.
Please provide sources. Genocide is not a matter of cherry-picking or of opinion. People who take this debate seriously look into context and evidence with a level of detail that goes beyond what can be covered here. Anyone interested in arguments and counterarguments will inevitable have to refer to authorities in the matter who have the background, time and resources.
Don't bother. He just effectively argued that there are no illegitimate targets in war because soldiers can be anywhere and that hospitals must be targeted or else they are "get out of jail free cards" whatever the fuck that means. War is war, but war crimes are still war crimes. No point trying to have rational discourse with someone advocating for war crimes.
> He just effectively argued that there are no illegitimate targets in war
No, this is not what I've said.
> because soldiers can be anywhere and that hospitals must be targeted or else they are "get out of jail free cards" whatever the fuck that means.
The law is clear in this regard. If you use hospital for military purposes, it is a valid target.
> War is war, but war crimes are still war crimes.
When a hospital is used for military purposes and then attacked, it is not a war crime from the PoV of international law. You may not like it, but it is a fact.
> No point trying to have rational discourse with someone advocating for war crimes.
I think you are irrational here. Your reasoning is based on emotions, and not facts.
> The law is clear in this regard. If you use hospital for military purposes, it is a valid target.
This is wrong. Hospitals can only be valid targets if they are used to launch "acts harmful to the enemy". There are countless military purposes that still don't rise to that level. Sheltering soldiers, even using floors as war rooms for planning is not enough. Any response taken against a hospital must also be proportionate to the harm. Small arms fire from a hospital window does not justify bombing the entire building into rubble.
> The ICRC’s Commentary cites as examples “firing at the enemy for reasons other than individual self-defence, installing a firing position in a medical post, the use of a hospital as a shelter for able-bodied combatants, as an arms or ammunition dump, or as a military observation post.” It also states that “transmitting information of military value” or being used “as a centre for liaison with fighting troops” results in loss of protection.
> Sheltering soldiers, even using floors as war rooms for planning is not enough.
It is enough for the hospital to loose its protection.
> Any response taken against a hospital must also be proportionate to the harm.
This is completely different question though: proportionality of response vs. protected status of various institutions and buildings at war.
> The ICRC’s Commentary cites as examples “firing at the enemy for reasons other than individual self-defence, installing a firing position in a medical post, the use of a hospital as a shelter for able-bodied combatants, as an arms or ammunition dump, or as a military observation post.” It also states that “transmitting information of military value” or being used “as a centre for liaison with fighting troops” results in loss of protection.
So, given that Palestinians used schools consistently to hide weapons, are you saying that it never happens? It seems to me completely unreasonable to claim that Israelis destroyed "all the schools, hospitals, universities because they want genocide" very questionable given that Palestinians used civilian infrastructure and NGOs for its resistance in the past. If they did it, why won't they do it again?
> Genocide is not a matter of cherry-picking or of opinion.
Of course not. It is also not a a single %.
> People who take this debate seriously look into context and evidence with a level of detail that goes beyond what can be covered here. Anyone interested in arguments and counterarguments will inevitable have to refer to authorities in the matter who have the background, time and resources.
Absolutely. However, people here are using the term genocide as it is a settled matter. Moreover, their whole reasoning boils down to metrics that either show that any war is a genocide, or have no bearing at all.
Russian invasion of Ukraine is absolutely a genocidal war, with genocidal claims spoken out loud and actions documented, tens of thousands of times.
Never heard someone in USA claiming that Iraqis or Iranians had no right to exist, saying that they are not a real country and/or nation. This rhetoric is pretty much main stream in russia and used to justify ongoing genocide.
Mark Fisher is excellent. It will be interesting to see if his claim that the human face is required for capitalism's functioning will hold (does not look like it).
Disagree. He's cherry picking an extremely limited subset of numbers, based on a weak understanding of the industry and a lack of access to a lot of private data, and taking advantage of vulnerable people.
I've started to feel like Ed Zitron is actively hurting people I care about.
I'm lucky to have worked in the field for a long time, and be able to spend a lot of tokens. In the last month it's become clear to me that the tech works. The science is done, and what's left is engineering.
There are a lot of risks and mitigations and theory to build, but it's all solvable. The tech isn't mature, but neither was the Internet 30 years ago. And we built transatlantic cables and ran new wires to everyone's house.
People I care about, engineers with 20 years of experience, are having mental health breakdowns, caused by Zitron's work. They insist the tech will never work, and avoid learning about it, becoming progressively more paranoid and isolated. I'm trying to be supportive and help them start to recover, but it's slow going.
If someone is having a crisis about this, I hope they start talking to a therapist. I don't need them to agree with me, but I do need them to not harm themselves.
> They insist the tech will never work, and avoid learning about it, becoming progressively more paranoid and isolated.
They can always learn the technology later, when and if it proves itself to be useful :) I personally don't understand the hype, even after using Claude and other AI tools - but perhaps that will change in the future.
If your company offer 'training' with 'AI expert' and 'prompt engineers', I urge you to attend. It's very gratifying, it cure imposter syndrome, and you will understand who is behind the hype and their technical level.
(And it is already useful, just not as much as some people sell it)
Of course :) It’s interesting to hear the ideas people come up with, but so far no one has demonstrated any practical results that would significantly improve the quality of work in my field. It has, however, increased the amount of slop that I need to deal with on a daily basis. Worse yet, it is not always programming slop :)
> And it is already useful, just not as much as some people sell it
In a general context, I agree. When it comes to programming, however, my experience has been different. If this technology were presented more modestly / realistically, it likely wouldn’t have attracted billions of dollars in investment and the hype. I think this is exactly what many sensible people point to when debating whether this is a bubble :)
Not sure how this comment got upvoted; calling skepticism of an emerging industry a "mental breakdown" and suggesting those "suffering" from it to talk to a therapist doesn't really clear the bar for discussion here. This reads more like a manager being salty that their team isn't using up all the Grok budget this quarter or whatever.
And let it be clear that nobody is being "actively hurt" by legitimate economic/business grievances. This is victim-blaming and disgusting rhetoric.
It got upvoted because this hype is essentially running on faith at this point, and the only way to fight someone questioning your faith is calling them crazy, confused, or evil.
There's nothing to recover from, what are you even talking about? I'm not a token user (and I can't make predictions about the future and whether it will force me to use token but still). That the industry is collectively having a delusion about what constitutes good software (in all senses of the word - functionality and consequences for society) is clear to see, something I too fear we might never recover from, but I stand quite clearly on the side of people not of corporations hoping to extract more more more.
> They insist the tech will never work, and avoid learning about it, becoming progressively more paranoid and isolated. I'm trying to be supportive and help them start to recover, but it's slow going.
If you are right, and the tech works, both you and them will be continuing this conversation in a soup kitchen.
"Democracy" itself was not at stake in the American Civil War because both sides practiced it. The Confederacy was/would have been a democracy analogous to ancient Athens--one where slaves (and women) were excluded from political participation. The vast majority of Confederate politicians, including Jefferson Davis, came from the "Democratic Party"--which, true to its name, championed enfranchisement for the "common (white) man" as opposed to control by elites.
Perhaps a better example is the "Tobacco War" of 1780 in the American Revolution, where Cornwallis and Benedict Arnold destroyed massive quantities of cured tobacco to try to cripple the war financing of the colonies.
Control of tobacco in Latin/South America since the 1700s (Spain's second-largest source of imperial revenue after precious metals) also had a directly stifling effect on democratic self-governance.
I think the point is a significant number of human beings were not participating in democracy at the time because their forced labor was critical to propping up the tobacco (and other) industries.
It’s hard to claim it’s actually democracy when it only exists after stripping the rights from a large section of people who would disagree with you, if they had the power to do so.
reply