In a blog post, the company denied allegations that it has been promoting pro-Palestine content in an effort to sway American opinion.
TikTok says it’s not the algorithm, teens are just pro-Palestine — The company denied allegations that it has been promoting pro-Palestine content in an effort to sway American opinion::In a blog post, the company denied allegations that it has been promoting pro-Palestine content in an effort to sway American opinion.
It’s a false dichotomy to condition ceasing the extermination of a whole innocent population to protests towards a terrorist organization. Israel does not need to bomb several hospitals to stop Hamas. There are other ways to go about stopping terrorists.
Maybe you don’t see many calls at Hamas because people are catching up with how wholesale persecution and extermination of people is often justified by pointing to a few malicious individuals that are part of that population.
Do you have anything but dismissive snark or are you going to pretend continuous bombing of civilian buildings is some sort of surgical targeted action.
There’s a pretty big difference between stupid declarations about things that simply aren’t true, and trying to start a conversation. I just assumed with an axiom like that there was no conversation to be had.
Clearly there’s no conversation to be had, but because you want to pretend whatever you don’t like to hear is false and stupid, without even trying to offer any reason for it.
I am not stupid and I’m capable of empathy. Really, do you need a reason to understand that bombing hospitals full of innocent civilians is a horrible thing?
I also know enough recent history to have some inkling that widespread bombing might not be that effective at stopping a terrorist movement. Say, like US wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.
Really, do you need a reason to understand that bombing hospitals full of innocent civilians is a horrible thing?
I don’t understand how being a horrible thing relates to this discussion. Things can be horrible and necessary at the same time. Things might even be horrible and the best course of action at the same time.
Consistently groups that do horrible, entirely excessive atrocities insist that they are necessary and vital. It does not mean that they are, and it’s definitely something you should not assume blindly, or at all.
There needs a lot more than “might” to even begin to justify it. Then again, might alone is often used to get away with it.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
It’s a false dichotomy to condition ceasing the extermination of a whole innocent population to protests towards a terrorist organization. Israel does not need to bomb several hospitals to stop Hamas. There are other ways to go about stopping terrorists.
Maybe you don’t see many calls at Hamas because people are catching up with how wholesale persecution and extermination of people is often justified by pointing to a few malicious individuals that are part of that population.
There’s no extermination. Quit getting your talking points from Tiktok and Twitter.
Do you have anything but dismissive snark or are you going to pretend continuous bombing of civilian buildings is some sort of surgical targeted action.
There’s a pretty big difference between stupid declarations about things that simply aren’t true, and trying to start a conversation. I just assumed with an axiom like that there was no conversation to be had.
Clearly there’s no conversation to be had, but because you want to pretend whatever you don’t like to hear is false and stupid, without even trying to offer any reason for it.
How do you know this? Are you an expert in counter-terrorism or warfare?
I am not stupid and I’m capable of empathy. Really, do you need a reason to understand that bombing hospitals full of innocent civilians is a horrible thing?
I also know enough recent history to have some inkling that widespread bombing might not be that effective at stopping a terrorist movement. Say, like US wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.
I don’t understand how being a horrible thing relates to this discussion. Things can be horrible and necessary at the same time. Things might even be horrible and the best course of action at the same time.
Consistently groups that do horrible, entirely excessive atrocities insist that they are necessary and vital. It does not mean that they are, and it’s definitely something you should not assume blindly, or at all.
There needs a lot more than “might” to even begin to justify it. Then again, might alone is often used to get away with it.