this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
784 points (94.5% liked)

World News

39040 readers
3712 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

TimesofIsrael.com

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rambaroo 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your previous comment was pretty vague about what you were responding to. You should have made it clear you were responding to the article and not the comment you actually replied to because that's what it sounds like. You really don't have a right to respond this aggressively.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I disagree about the clarity. It's a thread of replies that begins with a direct quote from the article. Any vagueness could be cleared up by either asking a question or reading the article.

When someone replies directly to me quoting something completely irrelevant and unrelated saying "you suck," I reserve the right to mock them. Especially when my original comment should be as controversial as saying the article was published in the Times of Israel on November 1st.

[–] Sparlock 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

On top of making a shit ton of incorrect assumptions that were unjustified you doubled down on proving you suck.

Keep up the good work champ.

I'll stand by my assessment that you suck.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Meh. I'll live.

I made a single, well-founded assumption that you didn't read the article. If you did read it, it's worse. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that, had you read it, you would have actually replied to what I said and not posted something completely irrelevant.

Care to elaborate on how videos not depicting death of any kind are evidence of murder? Or what the IDF's very specific response to the very specific crimes shown on these very specific videos has to do with what you quoted? Or what that has to do with my very narrow (and true) statement that the videos in question don't depict murder?