5 ms·

makes sense. ppl root for the underdog.

viraptor 3y ago
That's a shallow take. How about: people learned about the situation between Palestine and Israel and root for human rights and ability to live in safety.
- evantbyrne 3y ago
  The entire conflict has been a staging ground for juvenile takes. From people demanding one side agree to a ceasefire that the other side never even offered to others calling for indiscriminate attacks on civilians on both sides. At best it is a lot of tough talk from ignorant people with zero skin in the game. The IDF and Hamas are just going to do whatever they think gives them maximum advantage while the world remains hands-off.
  - aae42 3y ago
    The world has devolved into juvenile takes.
  - viraptor 3y ago
    > while the world remains hands-off The world is not hands-off right now. Or specifically, there's a number of countries involved in effectively helping Israel's aggression.
    - evantbyrne 3y ago
      The international community has been nurturing the dysfunctional status quo for some time in hopes of a two-state solution. With one hand providing weaponry to Israel–usually but not always defensive equipment like AA–and with the other billions in humanitarian aid to Gaza and the West Bank. Meanwhile other foreign actors have been funding the insurgency in Gaza to disrupt peace efforts. It's a very messy situation where the state of Israel has both committed crimes against Palestinians and is simultaneously presently unable to just go hands-off as foreign actors have demanded.
      - paulmd 3y ago
        One needn’t even go as far as “the international community”, Hamas was funded by Israel itself as a perceived counterweight to the secular PLO. Divide and conquer is what kept the Israeli settlers moving outwards, and that necessitated funding and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and later Hamas. https://web.archive.org/web/20090926212507/http:/online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html https://web.archive.org/web/20090926212507/http:/online.wsj.... https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-c...
- apwell23 3y ago
  > That's a shallow take. deep takes are automatically superior ?
  - viraptor 3y ago
    If they account for more details, sure. They usually are. Take the comment originally responded to. Hamas is more of an underdog than Palestine, yet the public opinion we're discussing here is pro-palestinian, not pro-hamas.
    - apwell23 3y ago
      > They usually are. No they are not. I can very easily come up with even more convoluted take than yours and call your shallow. Doesn't mean my convoluted take is superior. eg: it unlikely that american teens on tiktok can enumerate human rights. https://www.newscientist.com/definition/occams-razor/ https://www.newscientist.com/definition/occams-razor/ "Occam’s razor is a principle often attributed to 14th–century friar William of Ockham that says that if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one."
      - prmph 3y ago
        But that is Ockham's opinion. Doesn't mean it is some unassailable universal truth. The keyword here is "should"; it is a prescriptive opinion, nothing more
  - krapp 3y ago
    At the very least they demonstrate more than a bare minimum of insight and effort. But if you prefer to contribute nothing but low-effort snark to what should be a serious conversation, go off?
    - apwell23 3y ago
      > At the very least they demonstrate more than a bare minimum of insight and effort sure but that doesn't automatically imply outcome is superior. Occam’s razor. > low-effort snark what snark. maybe try reading without a lot of emotion.
- dehrmann 3y ago
  > root for human rights and ability to live in safety That plays both ways, but the way people take sides doesn't seem to.

That's a shallow take. How about: people learned about the situation between Palestine and Israel and root for human rights and ability to live in safety.

evantbyrne 3y ago
The entire conflict has been a staging ground for juvenile takes. From people demanding one side agree to a ceasefire that the other side never even offered to others calling for indiscriminate attacks on civilians on both sides. At best it is a lot of tough talk from ignorant people with zero skin in the game. The IDF and Hamas are just going to do whatever they think gives them maximum advantage while the world remains hands-off.
- aae42 3y ago
  The world has devolved into juvenile takes.
- viraptor 3y ago
  > while the world remains hands-off The world is not hands-off right now. Or specifically, there's a number of countries involved in effectively helping Israel's aggression.
  - evantbyrne 3y ago
    The international community has been nurturing the dysfunctional status quo for some time in hopes of a two-state solution. With one hand providing weaponry to Israel–usually but not always defensive equipment like AA–and with the other billions in humanitarian aid to Gaza and the West Bank. Meanwhile other foreign actors have been funding the insurgency in Gaza to disrupt peace efforts. It's a very messy situation where the state of Israel has both committed crimes against Palestinians and is simultaneously presently unable to just go hands-off as foreign actors have demanded.
    - paulmd 3y ago
      One needn’t even go as far as “the international community”, Hamas was funded by Israel itself as a perceived counterweight to the secular PLO. Divide and conquer is what kept the Israeli settlers moving outwards, and that necessitated funding and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and later Hamas. https://web.archive.org/web/20090926212507/http:/online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html https://web.archive.org/web/20090926212507/http:/online.wsj.... https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-c...
apwell23 3y ago
> That's a shallow take. deep takes are automatically superior ?
- viraptor 3y ago
  If they account for more details, sure. They usually are. Take the comment originally responded to. Hamas is more of an underdog than Palestine, yet the public opinion we're discussing here is pro-palestinian, not pro-hamas.
  - apwell23 3y ago
    > They usually are. No they are not. I can very easily come up with even more convoluted take than yours and call your shallow. Doesn't mean my convoluted take is superior. eg: it unlikely that american teens on tiktok can enumerate human rights. https://www.newscientist.com/definition/occams-razor/ https://www.newscientist.com/definition/occams-razor/ "Occam’s razor is a principle often attributed to 14th–century friar William of Ockham that says that if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one."
    - prmph 3y ago
      But that is Ockham's opinion. Doesn't mean it is some unassailable universal truth. The keyword here is "should"; it is a prescriptive opinion, nothing more
- krapp 3y ago
  At the very least they demonstrate more than a bare minimum of insight and effort. But if you prefer to contribute nothing but low-effort snark to what should be a serious conversation, go off?
  - apwell23 3y ago
    > At the very least they demonstrate more than a bare minimum of insight and effort sure but that doesn't automatically imply outcome is superior. Occam’s razor. > low-effort snark what snark. maybe try reading without a lot of emotion.
dehrmann 3y ago
> root for human rights and ability to live in safety That plays both ways, but the way people take sides doesn't seem to.