Apr 25
Büyükçekmece Haber
Loading...
- #project hail mary
#ryland grace#phm#rocky the eridian#project hail mary spoilers
#cute animals
#lana del rey- #godzilla
- #bloodymary
- #heated rivalry
#photography
#ryland grace#phm#rocky the eridian#project hail mary spoilers
seen from China
seen from Japan
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Japan
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Iraq
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Germany
seen from Malaysia
seen from Japan
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Germany
Büyükçekmece Haber
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
“If buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing”
20 years ago, I got in a (friendly) public spat with Chris Anderson, who was then the editor in chief of Wired. I'd publicly noted my disappointment with glowing Wired reviews of DRM-encumbered digital devices, prompting Anderson to call me unrealistic for expecting the magazine to condemn gadgets for their DRM:
https://longtail.typepad.com/the_long_tail/2004/12/is_drm_evil.html
I replied in public, telling him that he'd misunderstood. This wasn't an issue of ideological purity – it was about good reviewing practice. Wired was telling readers to buy a product because it had features x, y and z, but at any time in the future, without warning, without recourse, the vendor could switch off any of those features:
https://memex.craphound.com/2004/12/29/cory-responds-to-wired-editor-on-drm/
I proposed that all Wired endorsements for DRM-encumbered products should come with this disclaimer:
WARNING: THIS DEVICE’S FEATURES ARE SUBJECT TO REVOCATION WITHOUT NOTICE, ACCORDING TO TERMS SET OUT IN SECRET NEGOTIATIONS. YOUR INVESTMENT IS CONTINGENT ON THE GOODWILL OF THE WORLD’S MOST PARANOID, TECHNOPHOBIC ENTERTAINMENT EXECS. THIS DEVICE AND DEVICES LIKE IT ARE TYPICALLY USED TO CHARGE YOU FOR THINGS YOU USED TO GET FOR FREE — BE SURE TO FACTOR IN THE PRICE OF BUYING ALL YOUR MEDIA OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AT NO TIME IN HISTORY HAS ANY ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY GOTTEN A SWEET DEAL LIKE THIS FROM THE ELECTRONICS PEOPLE, BUT THIS TIME THEY’RE GETTING A TOTAL WALK. HERE, PUT THIS IN YOUR MOUTH, IT’LL MUFFLE YOUR WHIMPERS.
Wired didn't take me up on this suggestion.
Copyright doctrinaire who doesn't understand how IP works losing their shit over stuff that doesn't actually infringe upon anything versus copyright abolitionist who also doesn't understand how IP works insisting they're sticking it to the Man by doing the thing the first guy is freaking out about.
yall made such a big deal over goblins in a movie/book franchise but when jewish shops were vandalized, synagogues firebombed, and a 12 year old jewish girl was gang raped it was dead silent.
you cannot curry favor from our community by doing performative activism for things that don't matter and disappearing when things do.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
On Friday, author Daniel Kibblesmith posted a series of screenshots on Bluesky in order to share a concerning email he received from the age
(Edit: Sorry this posted too soon - this is a post from Reddit by user AustinQareen, which I am reproducing here because I am tired of this narrative going unchallenged)
On Genocide
I honestly can’t understand why anyone would accuse Israel of genocide. The word has a specific meaning: it refers to the deliberate, systematic extermination of an entire people. Nothing Israel has done even if you think its actions are too harsh or morally wrong remotely fits that definition.
If Israel wanted to commit genocide, it has had the military capability to wipe Gaza off the map in a matter of days. Instead, it has repeatedly warned civilians before strikes, dropped leaflets, made phone calls, and even paused operations to let aid in. No country in history has gone to such extremes to limit civilian harm while fighting an enemy embedded among civilians.
Hamas, on the other hand, has made its intentions absolutely clear. Its charter calls for the annihilation of Jews. Its entire strategy is built around ensuring maximum Palestinian civilian death by launching rockets from schools, hospitals, and densely populated neighborhoods. It uses children as human shields, recruits them as soldiers, and steals humanitarian aid meant for civilians.
When people call Israel’s self-defense a “genocide,” they’re not just misusing a word they’re inverting reality. The side openly calling for extermination (Hamas) becomes the victim, and the side trying to stop it (Israel) becomes the perpetrator. It’s Orwellian.
So yes I’m confused, because I can’t see how anyone could look at this situation, compare intent, methods, and outcomes, and still apply the word genocide to Israel. It feels like a moral hallucination a narrative so emotionally satisfying to some that it overrides facts, logic, and even the definition of the word itself.
Maybe this is the reason why people stick with “genocide”: the emotional investment that Gazans are good, and good must prevail, reality be damned. I’m listening to Abby Martin on the Piers Morgan Show, and she is repeating something I have heard a lot recently arguing that Israel should make concessions to Hamas on a moral basis. How does Hamas have the right to anything? Hamas did what they did on October 7, so it lost the moral right to anything, and then it lost the war it started, so it lost the practical right to anything. Why does Hamas have the right to anything? Her argument seems to be .... Israel bad, Gaza good. Israel must pay.
Many people say “hundreds of scholars and organizations have called it a genocide,” as if that ends the discussion. But if we’re being strict about law, evidence, and logic, there’s a real problem here — and it’s not about emotion or bias, it’s about method.
The UN Genocide Convention (1948) defines genocide as having three parts:
A protected group (ethnic, national, racial, or religious).
Certain acts such as killing members of the group, causing serious harm, or deliberately inflicting conditions meant to destroy them.
Specific intent — the conscious goal to destroy that group, in whole or in part.
Without proven intent, there is no genocide, no matter how terrible the actions appear.
Groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and figures like Norman Finkelstein have labeled Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide. They cite civilian casualties, destruction, and wartime statements by Israeli officials. Those statements are treated as proof of genocidal intent. But that’s a major legal mistake.
The UN’s own court precedents — from the ICTY, ICTR, and ICJ — are clear that statements made during wartime cannot, by themselves, prove genocidal intent unless they are directly tied to concrete orders or policy actions. People say extreme, even horrible, things under the stress of war. Courts recognize this. Tribunals require clear evidence of a deliberate plan or pattern aimed at destroying a group, not just rhetoric or collateral damage.
It is also normal for acts that could be considered “genocidal” in isolation — killing, destruction, suffering to occur during wartime. Almost every war involves civilian deaths, property destruction, and atrocities of some kind. The Gaza war, tragic as it is, is not unique in that regard. What matters legally is intent to destroy a group as such, which is absent here. Israel’s stated and demonstrated goal is to defeat Hamas, not Palestinians.
This is where the reasoning collapses. Experts who should know better are treating emotion and destruction as if they were evidence of intent. They are counting wartime anger as policy. They are mistaking tragedy for genocide.
Under strict legal interpretation: – The protected group element is met (Palestinians in Gaza). – Some acts (killing, harm, destruction) are present. – But the intent — the defining feature of genocide — is absent.
You can argue that Israel’s response is excessive or cruel, but that is not genocide. If it were, every modern war with civilian deaths would also qualify, making the term meaningless.
Yet Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and Finkelstein continue to use the word “genocide” anyway. They know the legal definition. They know the UN rulings that warn against treating wartime speech as intent. And still, they do it.
Why?
Is it because “genocide” has become a moral weapon rather than a legal term? Because outrage now carries more weight than precision? Because they believe moral theater is more powerful than strict truth? Is it Jew-hatred? Or is it the current fashion of post-colonial studies, with its simplistic oppressor/oppressed lens reducing a complex and long history into a comic-book-binary of good versus evil?
Whatever the reason, it leaves us in a strange place. The very people who claim to defend international law are bending it. The ones demanding accountability are ignoring the standards that define accountability.
If the Genocide Convention is applied strictly, calling Israel’s actions genocide simply does not fit. That’s not denial of suffering it’s defense of logic, law, and historical nuance.
So here’s my honest question to anyone reading this: Why do people especially experts and organizations that know the legal standards keep calling this genocide when it clearly does not meet the definition, and when the acts themselves, while tragic, are normal for wartime?